U.S. Department of the interior
Bureau of Land Management
DRAFT
Oregon State Office
Lakeview
Grazing Management
Environmental
Impact Statement
!i> :$8o|gCj$q
4- llo^oSo
IN REPLY REFER TO
United States Department of the Interior
BURHAU OF LAND MANAGhMF -NT
Portland. Orcuon 97208
OR1 (JON S I A ri. 01 MC I BLM Library
P.O. Box 2965 U2 9 M ^Ou-gon Building 50
Denver Federal Center
P.O. Box 25047
Denver, CO 80335-0047
:oi
L3y
/J<pi
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Lakeview Grazing Management Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The statement analyzes the impacts
which would result from the proposed livestock management program and five
alternatives. The purpose of the statement is to disclose the probable
environmental impacts and to assure that these impacts are considered along
with economic, technical and other considerations in the decisionmaking
process. In using this analysis, readers should keep in mind that an EIS
(draft or final) is not the decision document. The decisionmaking process is
described in Chapter 1, Implementation of the Decision, in the draft EIS.
Comments concerning the adequacy of this statement will be considered in the
preparation of the final environmental impact statement. The comment period
will end June 29, 1981. Oral and/or written testimony will be accepted at a
public hearing which will be held 7:00 p.m. , June 18, 1981, at the BLM
district office, 1000 Ninth St. S. in Lakeview, Oregon. Prior to the public
hearing, BLM staff will answer questions concerning the draft EIS at an
informal meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., June 4, 1981, at the Lakeview
District Office.
This draft may be incorporated into the final EIS by reference only. The
final EIS then would consist of public comments and responses and any needed
changes of the draft. Therefore, please retain this draft EIS for use with
the final.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be considered in
the decision process, even though they may be too late to be specifically
addressed in the final environmental impact statement.
Your comments should be sent to:
Oregon State Director (922)
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 2965
Portland, Oregon 97208
Sincerely yours,
State Director
•' - S' j,j
€ ' **B ,AoZZ~.l
Z«r ft :
!
* »■!>
fi
V » ■ • v? <
• 4 v’i /■* ■. .
* *• v I* i •-.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LAKEVIEW GRAZING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Library
Denver Service Center
LAKE VIEW PROPOSED GRAZING MANAGEMENT
Draft (x) Final ( ) Environmental Impact Statement
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
1. Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( )
2. Abstract: The Bureau of Land Management proposes to implement livestock
grazing management on 3,342,026 acres of public land in south central Oregon.
Grazing management is proposed on 3,199,842 acres (185 allotments), unalloted
status on 137,844 acres and elimination of livestock grazing on 4,340 acres
(2 allotments). Implementation of the proposed action includes allocation of
vegetation to livestock, wild horses, wildlife and nonconsumptive uses;
establishment of grazing systems; and construction of range improvements.
Vegetation condition would improve and forage production would increase.
Overall watershed conditions would improve. Big game populations are not
expected to change. The numbers of upland game birds and fish would
increase. There would be an initial decrease in allocation to livestock of
9,544 animal unit months (AUMs) in 17 allotments and an increase of 2,382
AUMs in 21 allotments for a net decrease of 4 percent. In the short term,
one operator would have losses exceeding 10 percent of annual forage
requirements under the proposed action. Direct and indirect community
personal income would be increased by approximately $41,000 annually in the
short term and $581,000 over existing conditions in the long term.
3. Alternatives Analyzed:
a. No Action
b. Eliminate Livestock Grazing
c. Optimize Livestock Grazing
d. Optimize Wild Horse Numbers of Existing Herd Units
e. Optimize Wildlife and Nonconsumptive Uses
4. Draft statement made available to EPA and the public late April 1981. The
comment period will be 60 days beginning after the draft is filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Notice of Availability is published
in the Federal Register. This notice is anticipated in April, 1981.
5. For further information contact:
Gerry Fullerton, EIS Team Leader
Bureau of Land Management
Oregon State Office
P.0. Box 2965 (729 N.E. Oregon St.)
Portland, Oregon 97208
Telephone: (503) 231-6951
m
■
Table of Contents
Page
SUMMARY xi i i
PURPOSE AND NEED 1
CHAPTER 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES . 1-1
PROPOSED ACTION . 1-1
Proposed Vegetation Allocation . 1-3
Grazing Systems . 1-3
Range Improvements . 1-11
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION . 1-11
ALTERNATIVE 2 - ELIMINATE LIVESTOCK GRAZING . 1-11
ALTERNATIVE 3 - OPTIMIZE LIVESTOCK GRAZING . 1-12
ALTERNATIVE 4 - OPTIMIZE WILD HORSE NUMBERS OF EXISTING
HERD UNITS . 1-12
ALTERNATIVE 5 - OPTIMIZE WILDLIFE AND NONCONSUMPTIVE USES... 1-13
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS . 1-13
COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES . 1-15
Vegetation Allocation . 1-15
Grazing Systems . 1-15
Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range
Improvements . 1-22
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION . 1-25
Further Environmental Assessment Requirements . 1-26
Monitoring and Management Adjustments . 1-26
INTERRELATIONSHIPS . 1-27
BLM Planning . 1-27
Federal Agencies . 1-27
State and Local Government . 1-28
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . 2-1
INTRODUCTION . 2-1
VEGETATION . 2-1
Condition and Trend . . . 2-1
Forage Production . 2-9
Residual Ground Cover . 2-9
Riparian Vegetation . 2-10
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants . 2-10
CLIMATE . 2-10
SOILS.... . 2-18
WATER RESOURCES . 2-25
Water Quantity. . . . 2-25
Water Quality . 2-25
WILD HORSES . 2-26
WILDLIFE . 2-31
Mule Deer . 2-34
Pronghorn Antelope . 2-34
California Bighorn Sheep. . . . 2-34
v
CHAPTER
Upland Birds .
Water-Associated Birds .
Other Mammals, Other~Tirds, Reptiles and Amphibians 1 1
Fish . . —
Threatened , Endangered and Sensitive Animals.
RECREATION. . . 7. .
CULTURAL RESOURCES . .
Prehistoric Sites .
Historic Sites .
Paleontologic Sites .
VISUAL RESOURCES .
WILDERNESS VALUES . ‘ * ’ ‘ * * .
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.
SPECIAL AREAS .
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS .
Population and Income .
Economic Activity .
Economic Significance of Public Rangeland Resources.’.*’.’
2-41
2-41
2-41
2-42
2-42
2-44
2-44
2-46
2-47
2-48
2-48
2-49
2-49
2-50
2-50
2-58
2-59
2-61
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.
INTRODUCTION . '. . . . . ’ ’ * * ‘
IMPACTS ON VEGETATION . * .
Vegetation Composition .
Residual Ground Cover .
Range Condition and Trend .
Forage Production .
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation .
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants .
IMPACTS ON SOILS . ’
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems .
Range Improvements . . .
IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES .
Water Quantity . . .
Water Quality .
IMPACTS ON WILD HORSES .
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems
Range Improvements . . .
IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE . * * * ’ ******* * .
Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas and Wetlands.
Mule Deer and Antelope .
Bighorn Sheep .
Water-Associated Bird s .
Other Mammals, Upland Game Birds, Other ’ Birds I ’Amphibians
and Reptiles . " "
Fish . . . .
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species .
IMPACTS ON RECREATION . ’
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems ...
Range Improvements .
Conclusion .
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES . ’. ’. *. ’. ". ". ’. * ’ * ’ ’ * * ’ ’ * * * * ’ * * ‘ * ’ *
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems .
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-4
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-14
3-15
3-15
3-15
3-16
3-18
3-18
3-18
3-20
3-20
3-21
3-21
3-22
3-26
3-28
3-28
3-29
3-32
3-34
3-34
3-34
3-35
3-36
3-37
3-38
vi
Range Improvements . 3-38
Conclusion . 3-40
IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES . 3-42
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems . 3-42
Range Improvements . 3-42
Conclusion . 3-44
IMPACTS TO AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN . 3-44
IMPACTS TO SPECIAL AREAS... . 3-44
IMPACTS ON ENERGY USE . 3-44
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS . 3-45
Introduction . 3-45
Effect on Users' Forage Needs . 3-45
Effect on Ranch Collateral and Sale Values. . . . 3-46
Effect on Average Operating Income . 3-51
Effect of Changes in Public Forage Use on Income and
Employment . 3-51
Other Effects . 3-54
Summary . 3-56
ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED . 3-58
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY . 3-59
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES . 3-59
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE
STATEMENT ARE SENT
LIST OF PREPARERS
APPENDICIES
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES CITED
Tab les
Page
1~1 Summary of Components . 1-2
1-2 Livestock Exclusion Areas . 1-4
1-3 Range Improvements to be Constructed in Allotments with Wild
Horses under Alternative 4 . 1-13
1-4 Vegetation Manipulation Projects to be Burned instead of Sprayed
under Alternative 5 . 1-14
1-5 Summary Comparison of Impacts of the Proposed Action and
Alternatives . 1-16
Vll
1-6
1-7
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
Approximate Growth Stage Dates for Key Species .
Relationship of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to the
LCDC Goals .
Vegetation Types in the EIS Area .
Range Condition and Trend .
Plant Species Under Review for Listing as Threatened and
Endangered Status .
Summary of Present Erosion Condition .
Wild Horse Management Areas .
Data on Wildlife in the EIS Area .
Existing Condition of Riparian Areas and Fisheries Stream Miles...
Fish Habitat Condition and Estimated Trend .
Estimated Current and Projected Recreational Visitation .
Categorization of Archeologic Sites .
Categorization of Historic Sites... .
Nominated and Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern _
Distribution of Lands Managed by Lakeview District by County .
Population Trends, Lake and Klamath Counties, 1960-1980 .
Farm Labor and Proprietors Income, 1973-78 .
Average Resident Labor Force and Employment, 1977-1979 .
Cattle and Calves by Herd Size Class, 1978 .
Value of Agricultural Products Sold, 1974-1978 .
Operator Dependence on BLM Forage, by Herd Size Class, 1979 .
Percentage of Monthly Forage Requirements Supplied by BLM Forage,
by Herd Size Class, 1979 .
Active Preference by Herd Size and by Area, 1979 Grazing Year .
Average Return Above Cash Costs Attributable to Forage from
Public Land and to All Forage Sources .
Local Personal Income Generated by Livestock Production, BLM
Operators and All Ranchers .
2-2
2-9
2-17
2-18
2-26
2-33
2-33
2-43
2-45
2-46
2-48
2-57
2-50
2-58
2-58
2-59
2-60
2-60
2-62
2-63
2-64
2-66
2-67
Long-term Vegetation Impact Assessment . 3_3
Acres of Vegetative Disturbance Due to Range Improvements . 3-10
Soil Disturbance by Proposed Range Improvements . 3-17
Vegetation Allocations to Wild Horses . 3-20
Public Acres (miles) of Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas Which
Would be Affected by the Proposed Action or Alternatives . 3-34
Public Acres of Wildlife Habitat in Wetlands Which Would be
Affected by the Proposed Action or Alternatives . 3-25
Public Acres (miles) of Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas —
Expected Long-Term Condition and Trend . 3-24
Public Acres of Wildlife Habitat in Wetlands — Expected Trend.... 3-25
Deer Crucial Winter Range — Expected Trend . 3-26
Antelope Crucial Range — Expected Trend . 3-26
Acres of Crucial Big Game Range Affected by Vegetation
Manipulation . 3-27
Summary of Impacts to Small Animal Populations . 3-32
Vlll
3-13 Public Stream Miles of Fish Habitat which would be Affected
by the Proposed Action or Alternatives . 3-33
3-14 Public Stream Miles of Fish Habitat — Estimated Condition
and Trend . 3-33
3-15 Impacts to High Quality Recreation Opportunity Areas . 3-36
3-16 Estimated Recreation Visitation - 1990 Visitor Days/Year . 3-37
3-17 Potential Impacts to National Register Sites, Potential
National Register Sites or Districts and Paleontologic Sites.... 3-39
3-18 Potential Impacts to Archeologic Sites . 3-40
3-19 Potential Impacts to Historic Sites . 3-41
3-20 Potential Impacts to Visual Resources . 3-43
3-21 Estimated Energy Consumption for New Range Improvement Project
Construction and Maintenance . 3-45
3-22 Number of Operators Affected by Change in Public Forage -
Initial Implementation . 3-47
3-23 Number of Operators Affected by Change in Public Forage - Long
Term Allocation . 3-48
3-24 Number of Operators with Loss in Ranch Value . 3-49
3-25 Number of Operators with Loss in Ranch Value Under
Alternative 2 - Eliminate Livestock . 3-50
3-26 Effect on Average Return Above Cash Costs . 3-52
3-27 Effect of Changes in Public Forage on Livestock Sales and
Personal Income . 3-53
3-28 Impact of Construction on Personal Income and Employment . 3-55
3-29 Impacts of Changes in Recreational Activity on Personal Income.... 3-55
3-30 Summary of Changes in Annual Local Personal Income . 3-56
3-31 Summary of Changes in Local Employment . 3-57
B-l Proposed Management, Period of Use and Initial Vegetation
Allocation . B-l
B-2 Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems . B-5
B-3 Proposed Action Range Improvements . B-9
B-4 Anticipated Long-term Vegetation Allocation for the Proposed
Action and Alternatives . B-ll
B-5 Additional Range Improvements for Alternative 3 Above the
Proposed Action . B-15
Figures
Vicinity Map XH
Lakeview EIS area . Inside Back Pocket
(a) High Desert
(b) Warner Lakes
(c) Lost River
1-2 Livestock Exclusion and Restrictive Use Areas . 1-5
1- 3 Examples of Typical Grazing Systems - Sequence of Treatments by
Pastures . 1-19
2- 1 Vegetation Types . 2-3
2-2 Riparian and Wetland Areas . 2-11
2-3 General Soils . 2-19
2-4 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas . 2-27
2-5 Wildlife Habitat . 2-35
2-6 Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes . 2-51
IX
'
'
JB*=—
■
VICINITY MAP
LAKE VIEW EIS
SUMMARY
This environmental impact statement (EIS) describes and analyzes the
environmental impacts of implementing a livestock grazing management program
in the Lakeview District in south central Oregon. The proposed action,
developed through the Bureau planning system using public input, is the
preferred alternative. Five other alternatives are also described and
analyzed for environmental impacts.
The proposed action consists of range improvements, vegetation allocation and
implementation of grazing management on 185 allotments covering 3,199,842
acres of public land, continued unallotted status (no authorized livestock
grazing) on 137,844 acres and elimination of livestock grazing on two
allotments covering 4,340 acres.
The purpose of the proposed action is to implement planning decisions needed
for management, protection and enhancement of the rangeland resources. The
proposal would cover a 20-year period; 10 years for implementation and 10
additional years to achieve objectives.
Under the proposed action, the existing forage production of 183,187 AUMs
would be allocated to livestock (159,292 AUMs), wildlife (15,319 AUMs), wild
horses (3,420 AUMs) and nonconsumptive uses (5,156 AUMs). The allocation to
livestock constitutes a 4 percent reduction from the 1979 active preference
of 166,454 AUMs.
Livestock grazing would be reduced initially by 9,544 AUMs in 17 allotments.
These reductions range from 2 to 3,488 AUMs. Livestock grazing would be
increased by 2,382 AUMs in 21 allotments. These increases range from 1 to
355 AUMs by individual allotment. In the long term, implementation of
grazing systems and range improvements would result in future forage
production of 248,022 AUMs. It is anticipated that this would be allocated
to livestock (222,948 AUMs), wildlife (21,076 AUMs), wildhorses (3,420 AUMs),
and nonconsumptive uses (578 AUMs).
Spring grazing would be implemented on 144,602 acres, spring/summer grazing
on 136,650 acres, spring/fall grazing on 12,991 acres, deferred grazing on
89,669 acres, deferred rotation grazing on 169,205 acres, rotation grazing on
72,234 acres, rest rotation grazing on 3,208,471 acres and winter grazing on
311,010 acres.
Proposed range improvements include 147 reservoirs, 18 springs, 28 wells, 135
waterholes, 103.8 miles of pipeline, 427.7 miles of fence and 71 guzzlers.
Vegetation manipulation is proposed for 266,486 acres and would consist of
brush control on 61,748 acres and preparation for seeding on 202,868 acres by
spraying 2,4-D herbicide, burning or chaining; seeding 202,868 acres; and
juniper control on 1,870 acres.
Five alternatives to the proposed action were analyzed:
xm
1* Action Under this alternative, there would be no change from present
management conditions. The existing forage production would be allocated to
wildlife (166,454 AUMs) and wildlife (10,916 AUMs ) . No additional range
improvement projects or grazing systems would be undertaken.
2. Eliminate Livestock Grazing - This alternative would eliminate all
authorized livestock grazing from all public lands except trailing use. No
range improvements would be constructed.
3. Optimize Livestock Grazing - In the long term, this alternative would
provide 127,494 AUMs more than the proposed action from implementation of the
following additional improvements: 362,948 acres seeding, 943,941 acres brush
control, 3,070 acres juniper control, 2 miles of fence, 14 springs, 14 wells,
26 miles of pipeline, 102 reservoirs and 10 waterholes. The two wild horse
herds would be managed at 30 animals each. All riparian areas except those
from which livestock are presently excluded would be grazed. The initial
allocation of forage production would be the same as that under the proposed
action. The anticipated future forage production of 384,621 AUMs would be
allocated to livestock (350,442 AUMs), wildlife (33,232 AUMs), wild horses
(720 AUMs), and nonconsumptive uses (227 AUMs).
4. Optimize Wild Horse Numbers of Existing Herd Units - This alternative is
the same as the proposed action except in the two wild horse herd management
areas. In the long term, this alternative would allocate 44,384 AUMs less
for livestock than the proposed action by eliminating livestock grazing in
the two herd areas and allocating vegetation for a maximum of 2,100 wild
horses .
5. Optimize Wildlife and Nonconsumptive Uses - In the long term, this
alternative would provide 22,135 AUMs less for livestock than the proposed
action by eliminating livestock from riparian and wetland areas, 19,500 acres
of crucial deer winter range and 26,000 acres of bighorn sheep seasonal and
migratory ranges; limiting utilization of key species to 40 percent in
pastures having a soil surface factor of 41 or more; and managing the two
wild horse herds at 30 animals each.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Veget at ion
The vegetation allocation, grazing systems and range improvements under the
proposed action and Alternatives 3 and 4 would increase the species
composition of key plant species and thus increase forage production and
residual ground cover, and improve range condition. The 40 percent
utilization of key species under Alternative 5 and no grazing under
Alternative 2 would also lead to increases in forage production, ground cover
and range condition. Decreases in these vegetative characteristics would
occur on allotments that are overstocked under Alternative 1. Fencing
riparian areas under the proposed action and Alternatives 4 and 5, and
elimination of grazing under Alternative 2 would significantly improve the
condition of riparian vegetation. The standard procedures and design
elements would prevent impacts to proposed threatened and endangered plants
from construction of range improvements.
xiv
Soils
The increase in residual ground cover would reduce soil erosion under the
proposed action and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5. Erosion would increase on
allotments that are overstocked under Alternative 1. Elimination of
livestock grazing under Alternative 2 would decrease streambank erosion on
102.2 stream miles. Fencing of riparian areas and the rest rotation, spring
and rotation grazing systems would decrease streambank erosion on 93.0 stream
miles under the proposed action and Alternative 4, 85.8 miles under
Alternative 3, 100.6 miles under Alternative 5 and 71.1 miles under
Alternative 1. Burning as a method of vegetative manipulation would lead to
wind erosion on 5,760 acres of sandy and ashey soils under the proposed
action, 12,000 acres under Alternative 3, 3,560 acres under Alternative 4
and 10,560 acres under Alternative 5.
Water
Construction of range improvements would cause short-term increases in
sediment yield of less than 2 percent under the proposed action and
Alternatives 4 and 5, and 4.5 percent under Alternative 3. In the long term,
the increase in residual ground cover would reduce sediment yield. Runoff
would decrease slightly under Alternative 2 and would remain the same under
the proposed action and the other alternatives.
Wildli fe
Under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, trend on 17,000 acres
of crucial deer winter range and 5,000 acres of crucial antelope range would
decline due to forage competition between big game and livestock caused by
early livestock turnout dates. An additional 159,000 acres of crucial range
would decline under Alternative 3 due to vegetative manipulation.
Approximately 234,000 acres would decline from vegetation stagnation in
Alternative 2. No substantial impacts to big game populations are expected
under the proposed action or any alternatives. Fish and wildlife habitat
condition in all riparian areas and wetlands would improve with Alternatives
2 and 5 and 20 percent would improve with the proposed action and Alternative
4. The condition would not change for the remaining riparian areas and
wetlands under the proposed action and Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. Vegetation
manipulation would reduce cover, thus resulting in decreased populations of
small mammals, birds and reptiles. This reduction in cover would be in
direct relationship to the magnitude of manipulation under each alternative.
The standard procedures and design elements would prevent impacts to
threatened and endangered animals from construction of range improvements.
Recreation
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no effect on long-term projected
visitor use. Alternative 2 would result in visitor use increases in most
activities. Under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5,
recreational use reductions or increases associated with certain activities
would occur in specific localities.
xv
Cultural Resources
The grazing systems and/or range improvements in the proposed action and
Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 could disturb unidentified cultural sites and the
integrity of some known sites.
Visual Resources
The grazing systems and range improvements would create visual contrasts
under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, but in the long term,
visual quality would improve as range condition improves. Under Alternative
1, visual contrast would not increase over that under the existing situation.
The elimination of grazing under Alternative 2 would improve visual quality.
Wild Horses
The construction of range improvements under the proposed action and
Alternatives 3 and 5 would cause a short-term disturbance to the horses.
Wild horses would be allowed to increase to 2,100 head under Alternative 4,
would be 360 head under the proposed action and Alternatives 1 and 2, and
would be reduced to 60 head under Alternatives 3 and 5.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Of those two areas proposed for ACEC designation, the Lost Forest would be
adversely impacted by 2,400 acres of spraying for brush control under
Alternative 3.
Special Areas
Under the proposed action and Alternatives 4 and 3, slight impacts would
occur to the relatively undisturbed nature of the Warner Valley potential
National Natural Landmark. Under Alternative 3, the additional range
improvements above the proposed action would result in additional adverse
impacts in Warner Valley.
Soci oeconomi cs
One operator would lose public forage exceeding 10 percent of total annual
forage requirements in the short term under the proposed action. No change
would occur under Alternative 1. Under the other alternatives, a maximum of
five operators would lose more than 10 percent of their annual requirements
except Alternative 2 under which 67 operators would experience such losses.
In the long term, the number of operators having losses greater than 10
percent of annual forage requirements would remain the same as the short term
for the proposed action and Alternatives 2 and 4, and would be reduced for
Alternatives 3 and 5. With the exception of Alternative 2, not more than
three operators would have forage losses greater than 10 percent of
requirements.
xvi
Personal income in the short term under the proposed action would be
increased by $1.0 million annually during the construction period. Personal
income would be reduced by $1.2 million annually under Alternative 2, but it
would be increased under every other alternative except Alternative 1 (No
Change). In the long term, personal income under the proposed action would
be increased $588,000 annually.
Under Alternative 2,
in the long term,
increased (with the
by an amount ranging
the loss occurring in the short term would be continued
For the other alternatives, personal income would be
exception of Alternative 1 which would cause no change)
from $216,000 to $1,550,000 annually.
xvi 1
,
t
.
PURPOSE AND NEED
PURPOSE AND NEED
This environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the impacts of implement—
ing a livestock grazing management program on public lands administered by
the BLM in the Lakeview District in south central Oregon, referred to as the
Lakeview EIS area (see Figure 1-1, folded maps inside back cover).
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for management of live¬
stock grazing use on public lands in a manner that would maintain or improve
the public land resources including soil, water, vegetation and wildlife
habitat. The Bureau's principal authority and direction to manage lands are
found in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.
The purpose of the proposed action is to implement planning decisions needed
for management, protection and enhancement of the rangeland resources.
Grazing management consisting of grazing systems and improvements would
provide for maintenance and improvement of vegetation.
The proposed action is a livestock grazing program consisting of vegetation
allocation and implementation of grazing systems and range improvement
projects. This action is needed to maintain or improve conditions. Range
condition on 738,970 acres is poor, on 1,773,713 acres is fair and on 596,154
acres is good. Approximately 46 percent of the watershed is in the stable or
slight erosion condition class, 50 percent in the moderate erosion condition
class and 4 percent in the critical and/or severe erosion condition class.
Stream-side wildlife habitat is in poor condition along 16 miles (15
percent), fair condition along 34 miles (32 percent), good condition along 4
miles (4 percent) and unknown condition along 52 miles (49 percent).
In addition to the proposed action, five alternatives will be analyzed: No
Action, Eliminate Livestock Grazing, Optimize Livestock Grazing, Optimize
Wild Horses, and Optimize Wildlife and Nonconsumptive Uses.
The proposed action is the preferred alternative and was developed through
the Bureau Planning System using public input. Significant land and resource
use alternatives considered during the planning process which would affect
the rangeland resources are addressed in the alternatives analyzed in this
EIS.
The significant issues and alternatives were defined after and as a result of
a public scoping meeting in Lakeview, Oregon. See Appendix A for discussion
of the relevance of other proposed alternatives.
The EIS, along with additional data, will provide the decisionmaker with
information to select a management program considering resource conditions as
well as social and economic impacts.
1
/
■
CHAPTER I
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The proposed action and alternatives would directly involve 3,342,026 acres
of public land. There are an additional 13,019 acres of other Federal land,
11,449 acres of State land and 266,604 acres of private land within the
allotments (as shown in Figure 1-1).
Grazing management is proposed for 187 allotments on 3,204,182 acres of
public land in the Lakeview District. Most allotment— specif ic data are
displayed in tables in Appendix B. In the Proposed Action and all alterna¬
tives unallotted status (no authorized grazing) would be continued on 137,844
acres of public lands as shown on Figure 1-1. Grazing would be discontinued
in Allotments 714 and 1307 on 4,340 acres of public lands resulting in
unallotted status. No range improvements, allocations or grazing systems are
planned on the unallotted lands. Unallotted status would be continued until
an application for grazing of these lands is approved. Further environmental
assessment would be required prior to authorizing grazing on these lands.
In addition to the proposed action, five alternatives are analyzed in this
document:
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
No Action (No Action)
Eliminate Livestock Grazing (Elim. Lvstk.)
Optimize Livestock Grazing (Opt. Lvstk.)
Optimize Wild Horse Numbers in Existing Herds (Opt.
Horses)
Optimize Wildlife and Nonconsumptive Uses (Opt. Other)
The alternatives differ from the proposed action in three ways: (1) the
allocation of vegetation, (2) the types of grazing systems to be applied and
(3) the kind and amount of range improvements to be constructed. The section
in this chapter titled Components of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
describes these three elements. Table 1—1 summarizes the components of the
proposed action and alternatives.
PROPOSED ACTION
The general objectives of the proposed action are to:
- Improve or maintain riparian vegetation on 694 acres and wetland wildlife
habitat on 12,696 acres by use of grazing systems, restrictive use or by
exclusion of livestock grazing.
- Improve instream water quality by implementation of livestock management
(exclusions and/or grazing systems).
- Provide forage for wildlife by initially allocating 15,319 AUMs of
livestock forage and an additional 5,757 AUMs in the long term to meet Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife management objectives.
1-1
Table 1-1 Summary of Components
Anticipated Long-Term
Vegetation Allocation
(AUMs) 1/
Proposed
Action
No
Action
Alt. 1 2/
Wildlife
21,076
13,172
Wild Horses
3,420
0
Nonconsumptive
578
0
Livestock
222,948
166,454
Grazing Systems (acres)
Spring
144,602
99,864
Spring/Summer
136,650
1,373,752
Spring/Fall
12,991
21,237
Deferred
89,669
96,956
Deferred Rotation
169,205
17,958
Rotation
72,234
121,899
Rest Rotation
2,208,471
1,067,212
Winter
311,010
328,543
Exclusion
16,602
4,746
Federal Range Fenced
23,529
22,929
Non-Use
19,219
49,086
Unallotted
137,844
137,844
Proposed
Range Improvements
Fence (miles)
427.7
0
Spring (each)
18
0
Pipeline (miles)
103.8
0
Wells (each)
28
0
Guzzler (each)
71
0
Reservoir (each)
147
0
Waterhole (each)
Vegetation Manipulation
135
0
(total acres)
266 , 486
0
Spray/seed (acres)
110,618
0
Burn/seed (acres)
84,730
0
Chain/seed (acres)
Brush Control/
7,520
0
Spray (acres)
Brush Control/
33,320
0
Burn (acres)
Brush Control/
28,323
0
Chain (acres)
Juniper Control
105
0
(acres)
1,870
0
Eliminate
Optimize
Optimize
Optimize
Livestock
Livestock
Horses
Others
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
15,319
33,232
19,720
31,488
3,420
720
25,200
720
164,448
227
7,733
14,990
0
350,442
178,564
200,813
0
144,612
39,412
143,622
0
136,750
84,863
132,124
0
13,011
12,991
12,991
0
89,789
89,669
85,957
0
169,205
145,679
167,625
0
72,234
72,234
71,734
0
2,209,177
1,673,912
2,145,809
0
311,010
311,010
309,530
3,204,182
15,646
731,664
94,640
0
23,529
23,529
20,931
0
19,219
19,219
19,219
137,844
137,844
137,844
137,844
0
429.7
319.7
613.7
0
32
18
18
0
129.8
83.8
103.8
0
42
27
28
0
71
71
71
0
249
105
147
0
145
135
135
0
1,576,445
190,886
266 ,486
0
344,653
80,218
44,356
0
194,673
72,530
150,992
0
26,490
5,760
7,520
0
778,560
11,320
0
0
226,919
19,083
61,643
0
210
105
105
0
4,940
1,870
1,870
\J Long term vegetation allocation for Alternatives 1 and 2 has not been projected;
therefore, the short-term allocation is shown.
U Alternative 1 displays data for the existing situation except for range
improvements. The vegetation allocation shown for livestock is the 1979 active
preference.
1-2
Maintain 160 to 360 wild horses in two herd management areas by allocating
3,420 AUMs of livestock forage.
- Reduce erosion by improving range condition.
- Increase long-term vegetation allocation to livestock from the proposed
initial allocation of 159,292 to 222,948 AUMs by increasing forage
production.
Proposed Vegetation Allocation
Initially, the proposal would allocate the present livestock forage produc¬
tion of 183,187 AUMs to: livestock (159,292), wild horses (3,420), wildlife
(15,319) and nonconsumptive uses (5,156). This is a reduction of 4.3 percent
or 7,162 AUMs in livestock use from the 1979 authorized use of 166,454 AUMs.
The existing livestock grazing (1979 active preference) and proposed vegeta¬
tion allocation by allotment are shown in Appendix B, Table B-l . Presently
there are 13,172 AUMs allocated to wildlife and none to wild horses.
Grazing in 21 allotments would be increased by a total of 2,382 AUMs.
Grazing in 17 allotments would be reduced by a total of 9,544 AUMs. The
proposed increases are the result of successful land treatments and/or past
management. The downward adjustments in livestock use are proposed to
balance livestock grazing and other resource needs with the present usable
forage production as shown in Appendix B, Table B-l.
Over the 10-year period following full implementation, the proposed action is
expected to increase annual forage production by 64,835 AUMs. For the
purpose of impact analysis, it is assumed that the increased forage produc¬
tion will be allocated to livestock and wildlife at the same proportion as
the proposed allocation shown in Appendix B, Table B-l. For the three
resource areas, these proportions would be:
Percent Percent
Livestock Wildlife
Lost River
84
16
High Desert
88
12
Warner Lakes
93
7
Allocation of competitive forage for wild horses and nonconsumptive uses is
projected to remain at the same level as shown in Appendix B, Table B-l.
Actual decisions on the allocation of increased forage will not be made until
the forage is produced and all needs at that time are considered through the
Bureau planning system.
Grazing Systems
Existing and proposed grazing systems by allotment are shown in Appendix B,
Table B-2 . See Components of the Proposed Action and Alternatives section
for a detailed description of each grazing system.
1-3
Exclusion of livestock grazing is proposed for several areas summarized in
Table 1 2. Figure 1-2 shows the location of these exclusion areas. Most of
the exclusion is proposed in order to improve the wildlife habitat condition
ripai;ian areas and wetlands. Exclusion is proposed on one allotment
(UO/) m order to protect a population of the plant species Eriogonum
prociduum, a plant under review by the Fish and Wildlife Service for listing
as threatened or endangered status. Allotment 714 receives very little
grazing due to lack of livestock water. The grazing preference would be
transferred to Allotment 716.
Table 1-2 Livestock Exclusion Areas
Existing 1/ Proposed Total
Number
Acres
Number
Acres
Number
Acres
Stream (miles)
17.0
1,849
10.7
683
•
r^.
CM
2,532
Springs (each)
91
82
1
3
92
85
Reservoirs (each)
7
2,236
1
160
8
2,396
Other (each) 2/
23
579
5
11,010
28
11,589
Total
4,746
11,856
16,602
— / A11 exclusion areas anticipated as being completed Spring 1981 have been
shown as existing in this table and Figure 1-2.
2/ Other includes study plots, air strips, T&E plant areas, Fossil Lake,
etc. *
Temporary exclusion or restrictive use is proposed for several areas in the
Lost River Resource Area and one area in the High Desert Resource Area (see
Figure 1-2).
On 1,720 acres in the Lost River Resource Area, livestock would be excluded
by fencing for 3-5 years or until the riparian vegetation improves to good
condition. The areas would remain fenced from the balance of the pasture for
livestock control. After the desired improvement is obtained, livestock
grazing would be allowed in the restricted area at the same time as the
pasture in which it is located. However, because livestock tend to concen¬
trate on these sites, the desired degree of utilization would occur earlier
on these sites than in the surrounding pasture. Therefore, when the desired
degree of utilization occurs within the restrictive areas, livestock would be
removed. At no time would utilization of key species be allowed to exceed 50
percent within the restrictive areas.
In the High Desert Resource Area, 12 riparian acres along Upper Bridge Creek
would be fenced to restrict livestock grazing. Livestock grazing would be
allowed every other year during the month of October. Herbaceous key species
would be heavily utilized during this period.
1-4
PORTLAND
PegcNjtjg Co.
\ X/ t ^
} f f-i' r \
<v-. Lava /
Bunch-
gross
Green
, Mfn.
Fort Rock
i Dunes
Christmas
Christmas Lake Valley
Horse Mtn.
SILVER
S. LAKE
Rise.
\ VENATOR
BUTTE
SUMMER
, LAKE
ABERT LAKE
Coglan
Butte
PAISLEY,
Chewaucan
Marsh
y Lower
| Ch iwaucan
Marsh ^
5 4 3 210
SCALE IN MILES
(USE,
R.20E.
T.22S.
R.I7E,
RISE.
T.2ZS.
IU4I
nx i
K4HE.
T29S.
T.23S
FUSE.
T.24S
T.24S
T.25S
T.29S.
T.26S-
T.26S
PU2E.
T.27S.
T20S.
d
©! O
JT.28S. ^
I
FUZ!
ISOS.
LEGEND
T.3IS
T.32S.
123E.
T.338.
T33S.
R.I6E
T.34S.
T.34S
T.33S.
T35S
R.22E.
RISE.
T.36S.
T36S.
|T.3IS.
1 1 Existing Exclusion
I I Proposed Exclusion
HI Proposed Restrictive Use
LIVESTOCK EXCLUSION &
RESTRICTIVE USE AREAS
| T32S.
Figure l-2a
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUHEAU OF LAND M A NAGE M ENT
LAKEVIRW DISTHICT
HIGH DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
- -■
U. S. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
IU8I
ALKALI
V LAKE
Horney Co.
Loke Ccifc
ABERT LAKE
Bluejci
Lake j
Rock Creek
s.'Thi Res.
Rabbit HH'tt
R30E
Cay.obe Its
fSwampm /,
Lake W /
BEATTYS
HART LAK
BUTTE
CRUMP
LAKE
Mud Lake
. Spalding
t Res.
Greaser
\Lake |
Big
[ Lake
Hawk Mtn.
OREGON
R27E NEVADA R28E
T3SS
Harney Co.
R30E
Humboldt Co.
LEGEND
T30S
lr "71 I Existing Exclusion
I 1 Proposed Exclusion
LIVESTOCK EXCLUSION &
RESTRICTIVE USE AREAS
Figure 1 - 2b
T 37 S
HIGH
DESERT
R. A.
LEGEND
'?/('£>?
UPPER
^KLAMATH
■^lIake
Existing Exclusion
Proposed Exclusion
Proposed Restrictive Use
NAYLOa
j, MTN1
YAINAX
UTTE
LIVESTOCK EXCLUSION &
RESTRICTIVE USE AREAS
SWAN*
LAKE
^KLUMATH
f G FALLS
Horsefly
Mtn.
UIBoncmta
8arn*s
Hound s (_
1Adob9 *•
Res. *
KLAMATH
-j-lHILLS
GOOSE
LAKE,
Burfoheat
Malin
OREGON
Res.
Klamath
Jtjamath J_Co.
VV<Tl'"'f
Lake Co.
OREGON
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
LOST RIVER RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
S.BE. R.9E.
CALIFORNIA
I Lakeview
SCALE IN MILES
5
Several allotments are proposed to be combined in order to facilitate grazing
management. These combinations are:
400 Paisley Common and 417 C&J Use Area
404 Willow Creek and 405 East Clover Flat
412 Fir Timber Butte and 413 Mill Creek
705 Oatman Flat and 715 Connelly Hills
711 South Hayes Butte and 912 East Hayes Butte
876 Bear Valley, 889 Timber Hill, 890 Willow Valley and 891 Willow
Valley Chaining
836 Harpold Chaining and 837 Bryant-Horton
856 Bryant-Stastny , 857 Bryant-Taylor and 895 Harpold Canyon
831 War low, 833 Bryant-Johnson and 839 Bryant-Loveness .
Range Improvements
Additional range improvements are usually needed to implement intensive
grazing management. Exact numbers of improvements have not been determined.
However, Appendix B, Table B-3, presents an approximate number and type of
water development, miles of fence and acres of vegetation manipulation needed
to implement the proposed grazing systems. In the long term, implementation
of vegetation manipulation projects would produce an additional 46,420 AUMs
and implementation of the proposed grazing management would result in an
additional 18,302 AUMs of forage.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION
This alternative constitutes a continuation of the present situation. There
would be no change from present management conditions. Grazing permits and
leases would continue to be issued at present levels of use. As shown in
Appendix B, Table B-4, the vegetation allocation would continue at the
present level (shown in Appendix B, Table B-l) of 166,454 AUMs for livestock
and 13,813 AUMs for wildlife. For purposes of impact analysis, it is assumed
that no additional range improvement projects would be undertaken or
additional intensive grazing management implemented. By periodic control
measures as described in the Wildhorse Herd Management Plans, wild horse
numbers would be maintained at 60-110 head in the Paisley Herd Management
Area and 100-250 head in the Beatys Butte Herd Management area. No specific
vegetation allocation would be made for wild horses.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - ELIMINATE LIVESTOCK GRAZING
This alternative would eliminate all authorized livestock grazing on public
lands administered by BLM except trailing use. Domestic livestock trailing
permits would continue to be issued when necessary to allow livestock
movement to or from private and State lands and lands administered by other
Federal agencies. The wild horse herds would be allocated 3,420 AUMs to
maintain the same levels of horses as in the proposed action (100-250 in
Beatys Butte herd and 60-110 in Paisley herd).
1-11
Timber, wildlife, minerals, soil, water and recreation resources would be
managed in accordance with the proposed Management Framework Plans (MFPs).
To achieve complete elimination of livestock grazing on public lands, an
undetermined amount of fencing may be required to fence private and State
lands. While existing range improvements on public lands would be left in
place, only those benefiting other resource values would be maintained. No
range improvements would be constructed.
ALTERNATIVE 3 - OPTIMIZE LIVESTOCK GRAZING
The objective of this alternative would be to allocate a high level of forage
to livestock while maintaining or improving range conditions. See Appendix
B, Table B-4, for anticipated long-term vegetation allocation. Vegetation
allocation to wildlife and livestock would be at the same proportion as in
the proposed action.
In the long term, this alternative would provide 127,494 additional AUMs
above the proposed action level for livestock and would differ from the
proposed action in the following ways:
— Protecting riparian areas on live streams to maintain existing water
quality only through the use of grazing systems.
Managing the Paisley and Beatys Butte wild horse herds for maintenance of
30 animals (360 AUMs) in each herd.
— Developing all practical and economically feasible range improvements for
the benefit of livestock and wildlife.
Additional range improvements above those in the proposed action (Appendix B,
Table B-3 ) are shown in Appendix B, Table B-5.
The proposed grazing systems would be the same as the proposed action. All
riparian areas except those which are presently excluded from livestock
grazing would be grazed. All other aspects of the proposed action would
apply in implementation of this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 4 - OPTIMIZE WILD HORSE NUMBERS OF EXISTING HERD UNITS
The objective of this alternative would be to allocate forage for the maximum
number of wild horses (approximately 1,500 in Beatys Butte herd and 600 in
the Paisley herd) which can be maintained within the present carrying
capacity on the two wild horse herd management areas. In the long term, this
alternative would provide 44,384 AUMs less than the proposed action level for
livestock. See Appendix B, Table B-4, for anticipated long-term vegetation
allocation. All livestock grazing would be discontinued in these herd
management areas (see Chapter 2, Figure 2-4) to allow for maximum allocations
of forage to wild horses. Long-term vegetation allocation to wildlife would
be at the same level as in the proposed action, except in the wild horse herd
areas.
1-12
In the wild horse herd areas, the allocation to wildlife would be made on the
same percentage basis as under the proposed action for the available forage.
However, there would be less total forage produced because some of the
proposed vegetation manipulation projects would not be completed in the wild
horse herd areas .
Wild horses are located within portions of three allotments. The proposed
action range improvements located within wild horse herd management areas
would not be constructed under this alternative. Table 1-3 shows the range
improvements that would be constructed in the remaining portions of the three
allotments as compared to the proposed action.
An additional 11 miles of fence with let-down gaps would be constructed in
the Beatys Butte herd management area. All aspects of the proposed action
would apply to the remaining portion of the EIS area.
Table 1-3 Range Improvements to be Constructed in Allotments
with Wild Horses under Alternative 4
Allot. #103
Allot. #400
Allot. #600
Proposed
Alt. 4 Action
Proposed
Alt. 4 Action
Proposed
Alt. 4 Action
Fence (miles)
46.0
63.0
38.3
85.3
39.3
72.3
Wells (each)
3
3
4
5
0
0
Pipeline (miles)
23.0
27.0
21.5
23.5
6.0
20.0
Reservoirs (each)
2
2
4
4
10
52
Seeding (acres)
Spray
31,903
31,903
14,355
27,795
0
16,960
Burn
13,830
20,870
14,014
14,014
17,320
22,480
Chain
0
0
0
0
0
1,760
Brush Control (acres)
Spray
0
0
0
0
4,000
26,000
Burn
0
0
0
0
2,280
11,520
ALTERNATIVE 3 - OPTIMIZE WILDLIFE AND NONCONSUMPTIVE USES
The objective of this alternative is to benefit wildlife and nonconsumptive
uses by allocating more forage to these uses and less to livestock grazing
and wild horses than in the proposed action. See Appendix B, Table B-4, for
anticipated long-term vegetation allocation.
This alternative would differ from the proposed action by:
- Allocating 22,135 fewer AUMs to livestock and 2,700 fewer AUMs to wild
horses .
1-13
Excluding livestock from major riparian areas and wetlands except for water
gaps.
Excluding livestock from 26,000 acres of bighorn sheep seasonal and
migratory ranges and from 19,500 acres of crucial deer winter range.
Limiting utilization of key species to 40 percent in pastures with a
majority of the area having a soil surface factor of 41 or more; and to 50
percent utilization on pastures with a soil surface factor of 40 or less.
Managing the Paisley and Beatys Butte wild horse herds for maintenance of a
herd size of 30 animals (360 AUMs) each.
Using burning as the method of vegetation manipulation on all sites which
will carry fire except on soils with high erosion potential.
Livestock would be excluded from the riparian areas by fencing with some
small water gaps (normally less than an acre) to allow livestock access to
water. See Chapter 2, Figure 2-2, for location of riparian areas. Approxi¬
mately 191 miles of fence would be required.
All other range improvements would be the same as the proposed action except
in Allotment 523 where 5 miles of fence would not be constructed, and the
vegetation manipulation projects which would be burned instead of sprayed, as
shown on Table 1-4. The grazing systems would be the same as with the
proposed action except that the degree of utilization by livestock on key
species would be 40 percent on pastures having a soil surface factor of 41 or
more .
Table 1-4 Vegetation Manipulation Projects to be Burned Instead
of Sprayed under Alternative 5
A1 lot-
ment
Seeding (acres)
Brush Control (acres)
Proposed
Action
Alternat
.ive 5
Proposed
Action
Alternative 5
Number
Spray
Burn
Spray
Burn
Spray
Burn
Spray
Burn
212
1,600
1,440
0
3,040
280
1,080
0
1,360
215
800
0
0
800
0
1,280
0
1,280
511
4,240
4,800
4,240
4,800
2,240
0
0
2,240
514
1,760
680
0
2,440
4,800
0
0
4,800
600
16,960
22,480
0
39,440
26,000
11,520
0
37,520
103
31,903
20,870
10,551
42,222
0
0
0
0
400
27,795
14,014
4,005
37,804
0
0
0
0
1-14
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
A summary comparison of impacts is displayed in Table 1-5. Detailed
explanations of the impacts are given in Chapter 3 by resource.
Major issues include range condition, forage production, wildlife habitat
condition and wild horse population. Alternative 3 would produce the most
acres in good range condition, chiefly due to the implementation of
vegetation manipulations. Economic benefits would be highest under this
alternative. The most beneficial impacts to wetlands, riparian areas and
fish habitat would occur under Alternatives 2 and 5. Antelope habitat would
improve most under the proposed action and Alternatives 3 and 5. Wild horse
populations would benefit most by implementation of Alternative 4.
COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The proposed grazing management is composed of three elements which are
interdependent. For purposes of analysis, they are described separately
below and in the Environmental Consequences section.
Vegetation Allocation
The vegetation allocation proposed for each alternative would allocate the
existing and anticipated livestock forage production to various uses
including wildlife, wild horses, livestock and nonconsumptive uses. The
allocation under the proposed action is designed to provide sufficient forage
to maintain wild horse populations at the herd management plan levels, meet
ODFW wildlife population objectives and make available increased amounts of
forage for livestock. Appendix C describes the methodology used in
determining the proposed allocations. Appendix B, Table B-l, shows the
proposed action initial allocation. The allocations for the alternatives are
designed to optimize different uses under each alternative. By implementing
grazing management and range improvements, it is anticipated that the
existing level of forage production would increase. Appendix B, Table B-4
shows the anticipated long-term vegetation allocation 10 years following
implementation of the proposed action or alternatives.
Grazing Systems
A grazing system consists of one or more planned grazing treatments which use
livestock grazing to bring about changes in the kind and amount of vegeta¬
tion. These changes are determined by measuring vigor, reproduction and
composition of key species. Key species are those plants which serve as
indicators of changes occurring in the vegetation communities. Grazing
systems which allow plants to complete the growth stages (see Table 1-6)
generally result in increases in key species. An improvement in range
condition is normally due to an increase of the key species and conversely, a
deterioration of range condition is normally the result of a decrease in the
key species.
1-15
Table 1-5 Summary Comparison of Long-Term Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
Significant
Resource
Exist ing
Situation
Proposed
Act ion
Alt. 1
No
Act ion
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imize
Livestock
Alt. 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Opt imize
Other
Soils
Eros ion
—
+L
-L
+M
+L
+L
+L
Streambank erosion
(miles improving)
—
93.0
71.1
102.2
85.8
93.0
100.6
Water
Runof f
—
NC
NC
-L
NC
NC
NC
Fecal coliforms
—
+L
-L
+M
+L
+L
+M
Sediment yield
—
+L
-L
+M
+L
+L
+L
Vegetat ion
Range condition
(3,204,182 acres total)
Good
18%
65%
24%
63%
78%
58%
65%
Fair
56%
17%
29%
11%
14%
25%
15%
Poor
23%
15%
44%
23%
5%
18%
17%
Unknown
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Residual ground cover
—
+L
-L
+H
+L
+L
+M
Forage production (AUMs)
183,187
248,022
183,187
183,187
384,621
231,217
248,011
Riparian
—
+M
+L
+H
+M
+M
+H
Wildlife Habitat Conditions
Deer (305,000 crucial
acres )
Up
23%
26%
5%
4%
8%
26%
29%
Static
0%
65%
85%
16%
33%
65%
62%
Down
0%
6%
7%
77%
56%
6%
6%
Unknown
77%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Ant elope
(96,700 crucial acres)
Up
—
81%
7%
0%
81%
35%
81%
Static
—
13%
87%
0%
13%
13%
13%
Down
—
6%
6%
53%
6%
52%
6%
Unknown
100%
0%
0%
46%
0%
0%
0%
Bighorn sheep
—
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Wetlands (12,696 acres)
Up
—
68%
6%
87%
63%
68%
74%
St at ic
—
17%
73%
4%
17%
17%
11%
Down
—
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unknown
100%
15%
21%
9%
20%
15%
15%
Riparian areas (621 acres)
Excellent
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
Good
5%
38%
17%
96%
17%
38%
90%
Fair
26%
30%
36%
2%
36%
30%
5%
Poor
19%
13%
18%
0%
18%
13%
0%
Unknown
50%
19%
29%
1%
29%
19%
4%
Fish (65 stream miles)
Excellent
5%
9%
5%
9%
9%
9%
9%
Good
19%
31%
25%
48%
21%
31%
45%
Fair
25%
24%
23%
19%
23%
24%
18%
Poor
29%
16%
20%
9%
19%
16%
12%
Unknown
22%
20%
27%
15%
28%
20%
16%
1-16
Table 1-5 Summary Comparison of Long-Term Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
Significant
Resource
Existing
Situat ion
Proposed
Action
Alt. 1
No
Act ion
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imi ze
Livestock
Alt. 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. !
Opt imi
Other
Wildlife Populations
Deer
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Antelope
—
+L
NC
NC
+L
NC
+L
Small mammals
—
-L
NC
+M
-H
-L
-L
Upland game birds
—
+L
NC
+L
-M
+L
+L
Other birds
—
-L
NC
+M
-H
-L
-L
Reptiles
—
-L
NC
+M
-H
-L
-L
Amphibians
—
+L
NC
+M
+L
+L
+M
Wild Horses (Numbers)
495
360
360
360
60
2,100
60
Recreation
BLM Visitor Use - 1990
(visitor-days /year)
72,285
80,130
80,237
85,320
72,750
80,010
80,530
Cultural Resources
Trampling and setting
int egr ity
—
-L
-L
+L
-M
-L
-L
Visual Resources (Contrast)
—
-L
NC
+L
-M
-L
-L
Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern
—
NC
NC
NC
-M
NC
NC
Special Areas
Degradat ion
—
-L
NC
NC
-M
-L
-L
Energy Use
Trillion Btu's consumed
for new project
1.13
0
0
3.85
.88
1.34
construct ion
Socioeconomics 1/
Operators losing more than
10% of forage needs
1
0
67
0
3
2
Local personal income:
($1000)
Livestock production
19,900
+581
0
-1,195
+1,617
+212
+390
Recreat ion
+7
0
+48
-6 7
+4
+12
Note: NC = no change +
= beneficial
— =
adverse
L = low
M = medium
H = high
1/
Socioeconomic impacts are shown as changes from the existing situation. Personal income (at annual
rates) is in thousands of 1977-79 dollars.
1-17
Table 1-6 Approximate Growth
S tart
of
Species U Growth
Bluebunch wheatgrass 3/20
Basin wildrye 4/1
Idaho fescue 3/15
Crested wheatgrass 2/ 3/ 3/1
Squirreltail 3/10
Thurber's needlegrass 3/20
Sandberg bluegrass 3/ 3/1
Bitterbrush 4/ 4/15
Spiny hopsage 4/ 4/1
Currant 5/ 4/15
Willow 57" 3/1
Chokecherry 5 / 4/15
Quaking aspen 5/ 5/1
Creek dogwood 5/ 4/15
Kentucky bluegrass 5/ 5/1
Timothy 5/ 5/1
Bulrush 5/ 5/1
Sedge 5/ 5/1
1 V Scientific names for the plants li
2/ Key species for seeded areas.
3 J Key species for deer and antelope
A/ Key species for deer winter range.
5/ Key species for riparian areas.
Stage Dates for Key Species
Peak
of
Seed
Flowering
Ripe
Dormancy
6/15
7/20
9/1
7/1
8/1
9/15
6/10
7/15
8/15
6/10
7/20
8/15
6/10
7/10
8/1
6/15
7/15
9/1
5/15
7/1
7/15
6/1
7/1
10/1
6/1
7/15
9/1
5/20
7/15
9/15
4/15
6/22
10/15
6/1
8/15
9/15
N/A
N/A
10/1
6/10
7/1
9/1
8/1
9/1
10/1
8/1
9/1
10/1
8/1
8/15
9/1
8/1
8/15
9/1
ted are shown in Appendix D.
pring range.
Although each of the following descriptions outlines the typical period of
grazing use and degree of utilization, there is some variation among the
different allotments. Figure 1-3 shows examples of the proposed systems with
sequence of treatments.
Spring Grazing
Spring grazing would occur each year for 1 to 2 months between March 1 and
May 15, depending upon the elevation. Utilization of the production of key
species during the scheduled period of grazing would not exceed 50 percent.
Spring grazing is proposed for one or more of the following reasons:
- The system meets the operator's management needs.
Better livestock distribution occurs since the cool temperatures result in
less water requirement.
Best advantage is made of early season (non— lasting) water sources.
- Livestock are removed early enough for regrowth of the key species to
occur.
1-18
SPRING GRAZING:
Every
Year
Graze early during the
growing period
3/16 5/16 10/31
///Graze ////
SPRING/SUMMER GRAZING:
Every
Year
ZZZZZ& Graze/:/:/:
4/16 7/15
Graze during the cri tical part
of the growing period
10/31
ROTATION GRAZING:
Graze during the cri ti cal part
of the growing period
Graze early during the
growing period
4/1 5/16 7/15
Year 1.
Year 2
//Graze/;
//Graze®
DEFERRED GRAZING:
Every
Year
7/15 10/31
Graze®/;:®
Graze after seedripe
WINTER GRAZING:
Graze during dormancy
11/1 2/28
Every
Year
•/Graze®;
SPRING/FALL GRAZING:
Every
Year
Graze early during growing period
and again in late fall
4/1 5/31 10 71 10/31
//Graze;:/;
//Graze/
FIGURE 1-3 - EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL GRAZING SYSTEMS
DEFERRED ROTATION:
I. Two Pasture System
Year 1
;:;:;:;/:;:;:;/G r a z e i;:;////:/!
Year 2
|;j; j; j;j; j d'r a *z e j; j;|; j; ji j-j
Graze early
Graze after seedripe
4/16 7/15
2. Three Pasture System
10/31
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
//Graze//
//Graze/::
;///■;;;;;;;; Graze;///;;;;;;:;:;;
Graze early during the
growing period
Graze later during the
growing period
Graze after seedripe
4/15
REST ROTATION:
5/31 6/15
10/31
1. Three Pasture System
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
/Graze :;/;/;/;/
/G raze/
Rest
Graze during the
growing period
Graze after seedripe
Rest the enti re year
4/16
7/15
10/31
2. Four Pasture System
Graze early during the
growing period
Graze later during the
growing period
Graze after seedripe
of the key speci es
Rest the ent i re year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
//Graze
■Graze;/;
/Graze/
Rest
4/16 6/1 6/15 10/31
SEQUENCE OF TREATMENT BY PASTURE
Spring /Summer Grazing
Spring/summer use consists of grazing during the spring and early summer
every year, with use in some allotments occurring into fall. Utilization of
the annual forage production of key species would not exceed 50 percent.
Spring/summer grazing is proposed for one or more of the following reasons:
The limited amount of public land in many of these allotments does not
justify the cost of the additional fences and water developments needed to
initiate a rotation system.
~ This system meets the operator’s management needs.
- Reliable stock water during the grazing use period would be assured.
- Natural barriers and different turn out locations allow some deferment.
Rotation Grazing
Rotation grazing results in the key species being grazed 1 to 2 months during
the critical part of the growing season, alternating with spring grazing the
following year. Utilization of the annual forage production of key species
would not exceed 50 percent. Rotation grazing is proposed for one or more of
the following reasons:
Best advantage is made of early season (non-lasting) water sources.
- Advantage is taken of the early green growth, resulting in best use of the
annual vegetation.
- Allows use of natural barriers (rims) and existing pasture layout.
Deferred Grazing
Deferred grazing would begin each year after seed ripening of key species
(see Table 1-6). The deferment or delay of grazing occurs on the same area
each year and would not be rotated because only one pasture would be
involved. Utilization of the annual forage production of key species would
not exceed 60 percent. Deferred grazing is proposed for one or more of the
following reasons:
Allows for a high level of restoration of plant vigor and seed production.
- Maintains or improves existing range condition.
- Accomplishes effective litter and seed trampling.
- Limited resource values do not justify cost of improvements necessary for a
more intensive system.
Winter Grazing
Winter grazing is a form of deferred grazing in which use occurs in the
winter months, after plant dormancy, usually from November to February.
Utilization of the key species would not exceed 65 percent. Winter grazing
is proposed for one or more of the following reasons:
1-20
- The system meets the operator's management needs.
- Lower livestock water requirements allow better livestock distribution.
- Livestock accomplish effective litter and seed trampling.
- Allows for maximum restoration of plant vigor and seed production.
- Limited resource values do not justify the cost of major range improvements
necessary for a more intensive system.
Spring/Fall Grazing
Spring/fall grazing involves use for 1 to 2 months between March 1 and May
30, a rest period during the summer, and another grazing period of 1 to 2
months in the fall every year. Utilization of the key species would not
exceed 50 percent. Spring/fall grazing is proposed for one or both of the
following reasons:
- The system meets the operator's management needs.
- The system facilitates cooperative management with the U.S. Forest Service.
Deferred Rotation Grazing
Deferred rotation is the discontinuance of grazing on various parts of an
allotment in succeeding years. This allows each part or pasture to rest
successively during the growing season. One or more pastures would be grazed
during the spring, while the remaining one or more pastures would be rested
until seed ripening of key species and then grazed. Deferred rotation
grazing differs from rest rotation grazing in that there is no year-long rest
provided for any part of the allotment.
Utilization of the key species on an allotment basis would not exceed 50
percent of the available forage annually. On crested wheatgrass seedings,
utilization of up to 60 percent of the available forage would be allowed.
Deferred rotation grazing is proposed for one or more of the following
reasons :
- The deferred rotation system is expected to maintain or improve the present
range condition.
- The system allows for improved grazing management on some small pastures.
Rest Rotation Grazing
Rest rotation grazing is a rotation system in which at least one pasture
within an allotment is rested from grazing for a minimum of a full year. A
pasture or unit of range is rested from use after a season of grazing to
allow plants an opportunity to make and store food to recover vigor, allow
seed to be produced, allow seedlings to become established and allow litter
to accumulate between plants. The amount of rest needed for these purposes
depends on management objectives that are determined for each individual
allotment, the plants involved and character of the range.
Utilization of the key species in the grazed pastures would not exceed 60
percent. Rest rotation is proposed for one or more of the following reasons:
1-21
- m substantlal improvement and/or maintenance in range condition is desired.
possibl1ee.Xlblllt:y ln srazing use durinS variable climate conditions is
" yHd?MC1°? manipudatlon Projects can be carried out within pastures without
additional control or major changes in grazing plans.
ce^tai^l u,a“f srowth forms and vegetation production is available for
tercain wiialire species.
" ye-tnTil^s0^ ^ UVe“OCk graZl"8 ^
Federal Range Fenced
Federal Range Fenced (FRF) consists of small tracts of public land fenced
usmIIv H^VT1*5' W1\h large amounts of Private land. These tracts are
. . y sed for the grazing capacity of the public lands only.
restricted "““h klnd °f anlraals and period of use are most often not
si * d,- eHrV6r- aCt 8raZlng USS 13 USU3lly after the growing season
the use is in conjuction with private land (often crop lands).
Non-Use
Non use presently occurs in part or all of six allotments. The livestock
operators have taken authorized non-use for several years in these areas.
DrespSfl 1S pr0p°sed for the Abert Rim pasture of Allotment 400, which is
presently under winter grazing. Grazing use would be phased out as AUMs
become available elsewhere in the allotment. Grazing could occur if aDDlira-
tron were made in the future. Trailing use would occur in ^ spring^d/or
Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range Improvements
The following standard procedures and design elements would be adhered to in
ran8e lmprovements ln the EIS area. Design elements have been
standardized over time to mitigate adverse effects encountered during range
improvement installations. B 8
Whenever evidence of historic or prehistoric occupation is identified
determine n^si1^'163’ A"1*1"®* resource surveys would be undertaken to
p ssible conflicts in management objectives. Further, these
— !ya ?nSare thaC cultural resources on public lands and on lands
ected by Bureau undertakings are properly inventoried and evaluated.
A Class III intensive cultural resources inventory would be completed on
the nre3? Pri°r C° any SFl °und-dis t urbing activities. This would be part of
the preplanning stage of a project and the results would be analyzed in the
ironmental assessment addressing the action (BLM Manual 8100, Cultural
TrlTeTl Maaagen,en‘>- “ significant cultural remains are discovered, the
be moved ad trecat’ redesiSned or abandoned. If the project cannot
construction. recoverF salvage program would be completed before
1-22
i^very effort would be made to avoid adverse impacts to cultural resources.
However, where that is not possible the BLM would consult with the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation in accordance with the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
(PMOA) by and between the Bureau, the Council and the National Conference
of State Historic Preservation Officers, dated January 14, 1980, which sets
forth a procedure for developing appropriate mitigative measures. This PMOA
identifies procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (1966) and Executive Order 11593, as implemented
by 36 CFR Part 800.
Prior to vegetative manipulation and development of range improvements, BLM
requires a survey of the project site for plants and animals listed or
under review for listing on Federal or offical State lists of threatened
and endangered species. If a project might affect any such species or its
critical habitat, every effort would be made to modify, relocate or abandon
the project in order to obtain a no effect determination. Consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated (50 CFR 402;
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) for plants under review for
Federal listing when BLM determines that such a project cannot be altered
or amended. In addition, 13 plants in the Lakeview EIS area classified by
BLM as sensitive (Crosby 1980) are managed under the same procedures as
plants under review for Federal listing except that no consultations with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur.
The wilderness inventory required by Section 603(a) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) has been completed on the public lands in
the EIS area. Impacts would be assessed before allowing rangeland
management activities in Wilderness Study Areas (see Glossary). All
rangeland management activities in Wilderness Study Areas would be
consistent with the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands
Under Wilderness Review (USDI, BLM 1979a).
Surface disturbance at all project sites would be held to a minimum.
Disturbed soil would be rehabilitated to blend into the surrounding soil
surface and reseeded as needed with a mixture of grasses, forbs and browse
as applicable to replace ground cover and reduce soil loss from wind and
water erosion.
All State of Oregon water-well drilling regulations would be adhered to, in
both drilling and equipping.
Significant spring sources and associated trough overflow areas would be
fenced to prevent livestock grazing.
Ramps, rocks or floatboards would be provided in all water troughs for
small birds and mammals to gain access to the water and/or escape.
Proposed fence lines would not be bladed or scraped, unless physical
features (such as a cut bank) would make it absolutely necessary.
1-23
- Proposed fences in antelope areas
Bureau Manual 1737. Any proposed
coordinated with Oregon Department
would be constructed in accordanc
fences Drawings No. 08-33-9105.4 -
and 13.
would be constructed in accordance with
deviations from this manual would be
of Fish and Wildlife. All other fences
e with Bureau standard wire livestock
1, 2, 3, 10 and 0-01-9105-1, 3, 11, 12
Cates or cattle guards would be installed where fences cross existing roads
with significant use.
The 1f'nr COwro1 “°uld consist of chaining, burning or falling juniper trees.
The cut and/or chained trees would be left in place and made available for
public use on a request basis.
Most vegetation manipulation projects would be designed using irregular
Pa^r pS * untreated patches, etc., to provide for optimum edge effect for
wild iite .
- Important wildlife habitat would be excluded from vegetation manipulation
projects unless treatment would provide direct wildlife enhancement.
Brush control would be by burning, chaining or chemical means. Burning
would use one or more of the following types of fire breaks: natural
barriers, retardant lines, existing roads and/or bladed lines. Each fire
would have its own prescription, to be based on the conditions needed (wind
speed, air temperature, etc.) to burn the plant material within the area to
e burned. . Chaining would consist of dragging either an anchor chain or an
anchor chain with sections of railroad rail welded across each link between
two tractors. The chemical applied would be 2,4-D (low volatile formula¬
tion) using a water carrier at a rate of 2 pounds active ingredients per
acre on sagebrush and 3 pounds active ingredients per acre on rabbitbrush.
o minimize drift and volatilization, aerial spraying would be confined to
periods when wind speed is less than 6 miles per hour, air temperature is
un er . egrees, relative humidity is over 50 percent, precipitation is not
occurring or imminent and air turbulence will not affect normal spray
patterns. Either fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters would be used for all
graying. A protective buffer strip at least 100 feet wide on both sides of
all live streams (those flowing water at the time of application) and around
water sources would be required. In the design of each spray project, any
crucial riparian or wildlife habitat would be identified by district
personnel and such areas would be excluded from the project. If spraying is
to be undertaken adjacent to private lands containing cropland, pasture or
dwellings, a buffer strip at least 100 feet wide would be required. Flight
patterns would be adjusted for wind, topography or any factor which could
cause the herbicide to drift within the 100-foot buffer strip. Any
Man^rQ?™ °f a2’4 ° W°Uld be in accordance with State regulations and BLM
ual 9220 A more thorough description of design features applicable to
the proposal may be found in BLM's final environmental impact statement,
Vegetative Management with Herbicides- Western Oregon. Design features are
also applicable in eastern Oregon.
1-24
- Seeding would be accomplished by use of the rangeland drill in most cases.
Broadcast seeding would occur on small disturbed areas, rough terrain and
rocky areas. Preparation for seeding would be by burning, chaining or
chemical means (2,4-D). BLM would determine seeding mixtures on a site
specific basis, using past experience and recommendations of the Oregon
State Extension Service and Experiment Stations and/or Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W). Some shrubs and/or trees would be planted in 24
allotments for wildlife cover (see Appendix B, Table B-3). Anticipated
increases in production through vegetative manipulation projects would not
be allocated until seedings are established and ready for use. All seedings
would be deferred from grazing to allow seedling establishment. Usually
this will require two full growing seasons.
- It is anticipated that the existing road and trail system would provide
access for range improvement construction. Cross-country use of motor
vehicles to reach construction sites could create unimproved trails and
tracks. These trails could continue to be utilized to allow maintenance of
the projects.
- Normal maintenance such as replacement of pipeline sections, fence posts and
retreatment of vegetation manipulations would be required. Most major
maintenance of range improvements would be the responsibility of BLM, except
for livestock management fences, which would be maintained by the operator.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION
The District Manager will begin to develop the proposed decision after the
final EIS is published. The proposed decision may be to select one of the
EIS alternatives (including the proposed action) intact, or to blend features
from several alternatives that fall within the range of actions analyzed in
the EIS.
After release of the final EIS (but not before conclusion of the 30-day
comment period) the District Manager will review the public comments on both
draft and final EISs and prepare a draft of the Rangeland Program Summary
(RPS) which includes a recommended decision. In addition, the District
Manager and/or State Director will consult with the District Multiple Use
Advisory Council, local county commissioners, appropriate county associations
and the Governor's Natural Resources Assistant. As part of the local
consultation, the District Manager will seek assurance that the decision
being considered is consistent with county comprehensive plans.
Within about 4 months after the release of the final EIS, and after making
any needed modifications, the District Manager will distribute the Draft
Rangeland Program Summary to interested parties (including A-95
Clearinghouse) for public comment. A 45-day comment period will be provided
and one or more public meetings held.
After the comment period closes, the District Manager will submit a revised
(if appropriate) proposed decision to the State Director for concurrence or
modification.
1-25
This will be _the decision point. The final decision will be published in a
atnathatanMmand P^°®ram Summa.ry and "ill consider all information available
. , 6. ancluding public opinion, management feasibility, policy and
legal constraints as well as the EIS analysis. policy ana
This program summary will incorporate the record of decision required by the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations. This document should be
released approximately 6 to 7 months after issuance of the final EIS.
After announcement of the final program decision, allotment management plans
will be developed through consultation and coordination with the operators.
staJtineS„°ithVer8h':a':l0n all°catlon to individual operators would be effective
® che second full grazing season after the EIS becomes final.
Proposed reductions over 15 percent may be phased over a 5-year period as
provided in 43 CFR 4110.3-2(c). y penoa as
Implementation of gazing systems would occur first on those allotments where
ia k tH ,needed ran8e improvements have been completed. Grazing systems
would be implemented on the remaining allotments as needed range improvement
givetTtose thatlrsolveri°ritdy- f°r C°mpletlon of ran8e improvements would be
g en those that solve immediate resource problems and/or result in high
had oast USe Values: Second P^o^ity would be those allotments which have
livestock “a^V “ and/°r 316 pr°p0aad eductions
m
Further Environmental Assessment Requirement;
require
Standard procedures
assessment prior to implementation of range improvements. oimnar action'
to t n T ft"t0°“e assessment- Each analysis would reference applicabli
preparation of a site specific environmental
Similar actions
,cu xiiLu one assessment. Each analvsie
portions of this EIS. Proposed
abandoned if this assessment indicates a conflict.
range improvements may be modified or
Monitoring and Management Adjustments
A monitoring program would be developed to assure that resource objectives
1^: andin”:"3 otdbeS ^ ^ 311 3ll°—
" d in some other allotments where warranted by resource values. Water
11991 and T208°8rinBSLMWMUld accordance with Executive Orders
Act (P L. 95-2l’7 p tot,™* 3 SeCtlons 208 and 313 the Clean Water
j . .I, * *L* 92 500 as amended). Standard analytical methods as
detailed m Federal directives would be followed.
Studies would be established in representative riparian zones to determine
anges m the habitat conditions and populations of fish and wildlife
resulting from implementation of the proposed action. Such monitoring would
comply with Executive Orders 11514 and 11990 and BLM Manual 6740
1-26
Existing browse studies would be continued. Wildlife habitat and popula¬
tions would be monitored to determine the effectiveness of design features
for vegetation manipulation and grazing systems.
Other resource studies as appropriate would also be conducted. Climate,
actual use, utilization and trend studies would be conducted in accordance
with BLM Manuals 4412 and 4413 to evaluate vegetation changes. Results of
these studies would be summarized and evaluated at the end of each grazing
system cycle. The data would then be used to assess progress toward
achieving AMP objectives and to recommend adjustments in the grazing system
or stocking rate.
If an evaluation supports an increase in livestock grazing use, the
additional use would first be granted on a temporary basis. An evaluation of
forage production must confirm the availability of additional forage before
an increase in use would become permanent. Grazing management would be
revised if the evaluation determines that the specific objectives established
for the allotments are not being achieved. Other revisions may include
changes in amount of livestock use permitted, period of use, or any
combination of these.
Each operator would be issued term permits which specify allotment, period of
use, and numbers and kind of livestock. Livestock grazing use would be
supervised throughout the year. If unauthorized use should occur, action
would be taken by BLM to eliminate it in accordance with regulations in 43
CFR 4150.
INTERRELATIONSHIPS
BLM Planning
The BLM planning system is essentially a decisionmaking process utilizing
input from the public and data about the various resources. Land use
objectives and rationale for each resource category are developed and
incorporated into the proposed Management Framework Plans (MFP) . Specific
MFP recommendations relating to the grazing program were used as a basis for
developing the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. The proposed
MFPs are available for review in the Lakeview District Office.
Federal Agencies
Grazing on lands administered by other Federal agencies is not contingent on
grazing on BLM-administered lands. However, each portion is an integral part
of the ranchers total operation. In the EIS area, 43 BLM operators also have
grazing permits on the Fremont, Deschutes, Modoc and/or Winema National
Forests. In addition to agencies which manage grazing on Federal lands, the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) develops plans for private ranches.
Coordinated planning among the concerned Federal agencies and ranchers
assures that resource conflicts are resolved and management goals are met.
1-27
State and Local Governments
The Intergovernmental Relations Division for the n
clearinghouse for the various State agencies All rim 1 aCts as a
actions are coordinated through this State Clear- s ^ pla"nln8 and maJor
coordinated with the Clearinghouse • Planning is also
planning
commissions .
with the county commissioners and/or the county
-23--T SSu-JXZ
conservation aL by La"d
have adopted comprehensive plans and ^r^n^^^
compliance with Vatewide^goals* ^LCDC^a *“ by LCDC f°r
^ -n^edgeme^t^U^y^
dispUy^ iS Table The troli0; \"? altfaa“ves to LCDC goals is
Alternative 2 are consistent Xh/TTi the alte™atives except
goals. “ h th adoPted comprehensive plans and LCDC
1-28
1-29
Table 1-7 Relationship of The Proposed Action and
Alternatives to LCDC Goals J J
LCDC Statewide Goal
Number and Description
1. To insure citizen involve¬
ment in all phases of the
planning process.
2. To establish a land use
process and policy framework
as a basis for all decisions
and actions.
5. To conserve open space and
protect natural and scenic
resources .
6. To maintain and improve
the quality of the air,
water and land resources.
J J Goals 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12 and
Discussion
2/
LCDC Statewide Goal
Number and Description
Discussion
u
BLM's land-use planning is a process 8. To satisfy the recrea-
providing for public input at various tional needs of the citizens
stages. Public input was specifically of the State and visitors,
requested in developing the proposed
grazing management program and alter¬
natives described in this EIS. Public
input will continue to be utilized in
the environmental process and final
decision.
The BLM actively coordinates its
outdoor recreation and land use
planning efforts with those of
other agencies to establish
integrated mananagement objectives
on a regional basis. Under the
proposed action and all alternatives,
opportunities would be provided to
meet recreational needs.
The proposed action and all alterna¬
tives have been developed in accord
with the land use planning process
authorized by the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 which
provides a policy framework for all
decisions and actions.
9. To diversify and improve Short term economic losses would occur
the economy of the State. under the proposed action and Alter¬
native 3 due to reductions in livestock
use. Economic gains would occur in the
long term due to increased forage
production, resulting in improved local
economy.
The Bureau planning system considered
natural and scenic resources in
development of the proposed grazing
management programs and alternatives.
Fencing and vegetation manipulation 13. To cons
projects in the proposed action and
Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would impact
open space and natural and scenic
resources .
Alternative 2 would result in an
adverse impact to local economic
condit ions .
energy. Conservation and efficient use of
energy sources are objectives in all
BLM activities. Because range
improvements construction is energy
intensive, Alternative 3 utilizes the
most energy.
Water quality would be maintained or
improved under the proposed action and
all alternatives. Proposed burning
for brush control in the proposed
action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5
would temporarily affect air quality.
14 are not generally applicable to the proposed action or alternatives.
2/ See Chapter 3 for impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on the various resources.
r
CHAPTER 2
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the resources within the Lakeview EIS area as they
existed in 1979 (base year). The base year of 1979 was chosen because the
primary data sources (Bureau planning system documents) were compiled during
that year. The planning system documents consisting of Unit Resource
Analysis, Planning Area Analysis and Management Framework Plans are available
for review in the Lakeview District Office in Lakeview, Oregon.
Emphasis has been placed on those resource components most likely to be
impacted if the proposed action or one of the alternatives were implemented.
Analysis, including the scoping process, indicated that resource components
such as minerals, timber and air quality would not be affected and,
therefore, they are not discussed. Other information is included only to the
extent necessary to provide a basis for analysis.
VEGETATION
The Lakeview EIS area has 18 distinct vegetation types. These have been
grouped into major vegetation types as shown on Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1.
Big sagebrush and low sagebrush are the dominant vegetation types, covering
nearly 73 percent of the EIS area. The wetland vegetation type is inter¬
mingled with the silver sagebrush, big sagebrush and greasewood types. As
the result of mapping done during the range survey of 1958-1963, the meadow
type as shown on Figure 2-1 does not display all of the riparian and wetland
types. The most recent and detailed mapping of wetland and riparian vegeta¬
tion is shown in Figure 2-2. All further discussion of these types is
contained in sections on wetland and riparian vegetation types.
Condition and Trend
Range condition, as the term is .used in this document, is a relative measure
of the condition of the forage stand and the soil. Range condition was
determined for the EIS area in 1978 and spot checked in 1979 using the Deming
Two-Phase survey method (see Appendix E for a discussion of the methodology).
The condition rating considers site potential in judging the relative health
of the plant community, but the emphasis placed on forage species by the
rating system results in poor condition ratings for areas of low forage
production potential such as greasewood flats or rocky slopes. Table 2-2
shows range condition and trend for the EIS area; Appendix F shows range
condition and trend by allotment.
Range trend is a measure of whether the range condition is improving,
remaining static or deteriorating. The range trend data shown in Table 2-2
and Appendix D are based on a comparison of the data collected in 1978 and
1979 with the data collected in the late 1950's and early 1960's in the same
area.
2-1
Table 2-1 Vegetation Types i
Vegetation Type
Pub lie
Land
Acres U
Percent
of Total
Common Plant Species Z!
Big Sagebrush
1,731,147
54.0
Big sagebrush, bluebunch wheat-
grass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg
bluegrass, squirreltail, cheat-
grass, needlegrass , phlox, aster
Low Sagebrush
604,950
18.9
Low sagebrush, Sandberg blue-
grass, squirreltail, bluebunch
wheatgrass, Junegrass, needle-
grass, phlox, buckwheat
Juniper
245,761
7.7
Juniper, Idaho fescue, squirrel¬
tail, cheatgrass, low sagebrush,
big sagebrush, bluebunch wheat-
grass, phlox, buckwheat
Greasewood
185,843
5.8
Greasewood, saltgrass, squirrel¬
tail, creeping wildrye
Seed ing
154,762
4.8
Crested wheatgrass, intermediate
wheatgrass, cheatgrass
Rabbitbrush
78,502
2.4
Rabbitbrush, creeping wildrye,
saltgrass, cheatgrass
Shadscale
71,133
2.2
Shadscale, hopsage, squirrel¬
tail, cheatgrass
Mt . Shrub/Conifer
53,510
1.7
Ponderosa pine, bitterbrush,
ceanothus, manzanita, mountain
mahogany, Idaho fescue,
neddlegrass, bluebunch
wheatgrass, yarrow
Silver Sagebrush
22,750
0.7
Silver sagebrush, saltgrass,
poverty weed, dock, knotweed
Wetland
12,696
0.4
Rushes, spikerushes, mat muhly,
smartweed
Ri par ian
694
<0.1
Quaking aspen, sedge, rush,
Kentucky bluegrass, creeping
wildrye, willow
Miscel laneous
42,434
1.3
Cheatgrass, various forbs
Total 3,204,182
J_/ Acreage shown does not include unallotted acres.
2V Scientific names for the plants listed are in Appendix D.
the EIS Area
Remarks
Occurs on soils over 12 inches deep. Bluebunch wheatgrass is most
commonly on the drier sites and Idaho fescue on the moister.
Occurs on shallow clay soils. A variety of understory species also
occur .
Occurs on shallow rocky soils. The understory vegetation is
generally sparce.
Occurs on saline soils in lowland areas. The understory
vegetation is sparce.
Occurs on areas formerly dominated by big sagebrush or low
sagebrush which were seeded.
Occurs on sandy soils formerly dominated by big sagebrush and then
farmed. When farming was abandoned, rabbitbrush invaded the
disturbed areas.
Occurs on saline soils in lowland areas. The understory
vegetation is very sparce.
Occurs in the higher elevations in the EIS area which receive
higher precipitation. Includes the Lost Forest, a mature stand of
ponderosa pine outside of its normal range.
Occurs on playa lakebeds which are covered with water in the
spring.
Intermittently flooded areas intermingled with silver sagebrush,
greasewood and big sagebrush. Includes some of the areas labeled
meadow in Figure 2-1.
Vegetation is associated with permanent water. Occurs as wet
meadows or streamside riparian vegetation.
Includes lava flows, rock, sand dunes, saline flats, cheatgrass,
dry lakebeds, annual forbs, cropland and barren and unsurveyed
1 ands .
5 4 3 2 10
SCALE IN MILES
5
T.22S
R.I6E. R.I7E. R.I8E. R-I9E-
R.20E.
T.22S.
R.I3E.
Lava
Bunch-
grass
Butte
unes
iristmas
R.I2E.
Christmas LokeVolley
T.27S.
R.I2E
RISE.
VENATOR
BUTTE
LEGEND
SUMMEI
, LAKE
Mountain Shrub/Conifer
Big Sagebrush
Low Sagebrush
Seeding
Juniper
Rabbi tbrush
Grease wood
Shadscale
R.I7E.
R.I6E.
Silver Sagebrush
I I Miscellaneous
VEGETATION TYPES
R.I8E
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
liUliEAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIF.W DISTItIC'T
R.I4E.
T23S.
Deschutes Co.
R.15E
Fox
Butte
R.2IE.
T.23S.
R.I9E. R.20E. R.2IE.
HIGH DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
l«J8l
■ST*'*—-
U. S. DLI’A liTM ENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Eiiviroiiiiiental Impact Statement
1981
Wagontire
| Littli
Junip
iMtn.
alkali;
v LAKE
ABERT LAKE
Rabbit Hi
der son
\Lake
HART LAK
/ Pe I i c i
La k(
Hawk Mtn
Harney Co
R2SE
R 24 E
R25E
5 4 3 2 10
SCALE IN MILES
LEGEND
Mountain Shrub
□
KlUU II t 41 M v> 1 1 1 LI L.
/Conifer
mm
Big Sagebrush
mm
Low Sagebrush
□
Seeding
■i
J u n i p e r
ESS
Meadow
□
(i re as e wood
ESI
S had scale
mm
Silver Sagebrush
mm
M iscel 1 an eou s
T 2 7 S
R 2 6 E
T28S
R27E
R28 E
T2es
K 2 9 E
Rock Creek
T 3 3 S
Res
T 34S
R 30 E
VEGETATION TYPES
Figure 2- lb
R3IE
T36S
T 37 S
T30S
T39S
R 2 2 E R 2 3 E
CALI FORNIA
R26t R 27 E NEVADA R28E
Washoe Co.
T40S
T4IS
R30E R 3 1 E
Humboldt Co.
HIGH
DESERT
R. A.
LEGEND
&/!/£/?
UPPER
^KLAI
MATH
.AKE
Mountain Shrub/Conifer
Big Sagebrush
Low Sagebrush
Seeding
NAYLO>
L MTN
YAINAX
UTTE
Meadow
S WAN®
LAKE
TYPES
VEGETATION
? KLAMATH
G FALLS
i|| Horsefly
Mtn.
Bonan
KLAMATH
-iHILLS
GOOSE A
lake!;
errill
OREGON
KJamath j_Co
amath
Lake Co
OREGON
U S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
bureau of land management
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
LOST RIVER RESOl'RCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
R.8E.
R.9E.
R. 10 E.
R. 8 E
R. 9 E .
CALIFORNIA
R. 10 E.
-
R.lt E. R.IZE.
Siskiyou Co.
R. 20 E.
T. 37 S
n
Lakeview
T. 3 9 S,
R. 16 E.
T.38S.
T.4I S,
R. I 3 E.
R. 1 4 E .
R . I 8 E .
R. 15 E.
SCALE IN MILES
The data in Appendix F represent the average range condition and trend of
each allotment. However, within most allotments there are small areas which
are not average. For example, in an allotment with 2,000 acres listed in
fair condition and static trend, there would likely be small areas in poor
condition and downward trend near water sources. Conversely, other areas
located away from grazing pressure would likely be in good condition with an
upward trend.
Table 2-2 Range Condition and Trend
Condition
Good
Fair
Poor
Unknown
Acres Percent
Acres
Percent Acres Percent
Acres Percent
596,154 19 1,
773,713
55 738
,970 23
95,345 3
Upward
Trend
St at ic
Downward
Unknown
Acres Percent
Acres Percent
Acres Percent
Acres Percent
1,533,458 48
1,416,
306 44
116,782 4
137,636 4
Forage Production
That portion of the total vegetation production suitable for use by livestock
is called forage production. Forage production for each allotment is shown
on Table 1-2. The methodology used for determining the forage production is
described in Appendix C. Within the EIS area, forage production is typically
30 percent or less of the total vegetation production. The remaining vegeta¬
tion includes plants which are not palatable to livestock and that portion of
the vegetation production which is reserved for plant maintenance. Forage
production is dependent upon climate, soils and range condition. Large year-
to-year fluctuations in precipitation result in corresponding differences in
total vegetation production. Production is low on certain soils such as the
very shallow and very stony soils due to low moisture holding capacity.
Residual Ground Cover
Residual ground cover expresses the amount of live vegetation, standing dead
vegetation and litter which remains after grazing. Over time, the accumula¬
tion of this material provides protection for the soil surface and replaces
soil nutrients. There is some decrease in live vegetative cover as range
condition declines in each vegetation type, but generally, as range condition
changes, one plant replaces another. However, areas in good range condition
often have higher production than fair or poor condition range and as a
result have more total residual ground cover.
2-9
Riparian Vegetation
Riparian vegetation occupies approximately 694 acres of public land. It
consists of the vegetation on riparian areas adjacent to perennial streams
and springs. Vegetation around lakes and reservoirs and on other areas where
soils are saturated throughout most of the growing period are classified as
wetlands. The location of significant riparian areas and wetlands on public
lands is shown on Figure 2-2.
The riparian areas and wetlands are potentially the most productive of the
vegetation types in the EIS area. When relatively undisturbed, riparian
vegetation is generally composed of thick clusters of shrubs and trees
interspersed with dense herbaceous vegetation. With increasing disturbance,
the dominant tree and shrub species are replaced by herbaceous species and
the riparian area decreases in size.
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants
There are no plants found in the EIS area presently listed as either
threatened or endangered under authority of the Endangered Species Act.
However, there are 10 plant species that have either been found or are
suspected to be in the EIS area that are under review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for possible listing as endangered or threatened status (45
CFR 82480). Information concerning the 10 plant species is found on Table
2-3. In addition, 13 plant species classified by BLM as sensitive occur in
the EIS area. Information concerning these plants and their habitats (Crosby
1980) is contained in the Lakeview District files. Most of these plants are
confined to very specific sites in the EIS area. The effects of current
livestock grazing on the populations or habitat of these plants are generally
not known.
CLIMATE
The Lakeveiw EIS area has a semiarid climate, with long, cool, moist winters
and short, warm, dry summers.
The area has a winter precipitation pattern, with about 47 percent of the
annual total occurring during the months of November through February. Much
of this comes as snow, especially in December and January. Spring rains
occur in May and June while the months of July, August and September are
generally quite dry.
Precipitation tends to be elevation-dependent, ranging from less than 10
inches around Silver and Summer Lakes (4,100 feet elevation) to 30 inches at
Yainax Butte (7,200 feet). Most of the area receives 10 to 15 inches of
precipitation annually.
Temperatures below zero occur nearly every winter, and summer temperatures
over 100° F are not uncommon. Frost-free days range from 94 days at Klamath
Falls to 25 days in the higher elevations. Appendix G shows precipitation
and temperature data for selected weather stations.
2-10
PORTLAND
- N
OREGON
HIGH DESERT R.A.
I
5 4 3 2 10
SCALE IN MILES
IT.30S.
□ Wetland at Lake or Reservoir
__ Riparian Area along stream
or drainage
RIPARIAN & WETLAND AREAS
Figure 2 - 2a
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HUHEAU OF LAND MANAOEMENT
LAKEVIF.W DISTRICT
HIGH DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environ mental Impact Statement
1981
■■
' , ' - tj>. ; f- ' . ; j •/ 4' . i
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1081
PORTLAND
Wagontire
T27S
WARNER
|Littldy
jjunipe
Mtn.
LAKEVIEW
T28 3
R27E
SCALE IN MILES
ALKALI
V lake
LEGEND
T30S
I I Wetland at Lake
_ Riparian Area alo
or drainage
'juniper
T3IS
RIPARIAN & \
AREAS
T 52 S
Harney Co.
Lake C2k
ABERT LAKE
Bluejoi
Lake
Rock Creek
Res.
Rabbit Hills
T 34S
R30E
R3I E
Coyote Hills
iderson
Lake
BEATTYS
HART LAK
BUTTE
Friday
Res.
CRUMP
LAKE
Mfkiud Lake
J Shirt
f La k s
-fPeliai
Lake
Spalding
( Res.
Greaser
\Lake
Hawk Mtn
Lake |Co.
Modot Co
OREGON
Harney Co
R27E NEVADA R28E
R23E
R26t
S30E
R 31 E
U S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
LOST RIVER RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
3 4 3 2 | o
SCALE IN MILES
-17
Table 2-3 Plant Species Under Review for Listing as Threatened or Endangered Status U
Which Are Located or Suspected in the EIS Area
ho
Notice of
Scientific Plant Review
Species Name _ Category 2/
Habitat Information
Public Land
Occurrence
Astragalus tegetaroides
2
Dry, gravelly soils associated with ponderosa pine None confirmed
Calochortus longebarbatus var. 2
longebarbatus
Streamside riparian areas, intermittently wet None confirmed
areas, aspen groves
Cypripedium montanum
2
Streamside riparian areas, undisturbed duff under None confirmed
ponderosa pine canopy
Eriogonum cusickii
1
Shallow, rocky volcanic soils associated with Allotment 400
sagebrush and juniper vegetation types
Eriogonum prociduum
1
Variable soils, vegetation types range from big Allotments 103,
and low sagebrush to conifer/mountain shrub 1307 and 517
Eriogonum sp. /sp.nov. ined.
1
Lomat ium peckianum
1
White tuffaceous hills associated with sagebrush State lands
within Allotment
600. Potential
sites on public
lands within
Allotments 600
and 215
Rocky slopes and flats associated with ponderosa None confirmed
pine
Pleuropogan oreganus
Rorippa columbiae
Thelypodium brachycarpum
1*
2
2
Not available
Moist sandy soils, intermittently flooded areas
Margins of inland lake basins and alkali meadows
None confirmed
None confirmed
None confirmed
1 / As published in "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened Species" Federal Register Vol. 45 No. 242 12/15/1980
2/ Category 1 = sufficient biological justification exists for listing as Endangered or Threatened status;
Category 2 = further study is needed to determine if biological justification for listing exists.
1* = Possibly extinct. Categories are subject to change as new information becomes available.
SOILS
Soils in the EIS area have been surveyed and described in Oregon's Long-Range
Requirements for Water (Lindsay et al. 1969; Lovell et al. 1969; Cahoon and
Simonson 1969). A summary of the soil units and their properties appears as
Appendix H.
The EIS area has been divided into seven soil groupings, as shown on Figure
2-3, General Soils. Location of soil groups relevant to allotments may be
seen by comparing Figure 2-3 with Figure 1-1. Appendix I contains a list of
soil units within the mapping divisions.
The Basin Land and Terrace soils (12 percent of the total land acreage within
allotments surveyed) are generally deep and well drained. The Alkali
Affected soils (3 percent) have excessive levels of exchangeable sodium,
which make these soils generally unfavorable for plant growth. The Poorly
Drained soils (3 percent) occur in marshes and the lowest parts of basins.
The Sandy soils (8 percent) are susceptible to wind erosion. The Ashey soils
(1 percent) have formed from pumice from volcanic eruptions which created
Crater Lake and Newberry Crater. The Volcanic soils (58 percent) are the
most extensive, and are stony and shallow. The Very Shallow and Very Stony
soils (15 percent) are naturally low in productivity.
Erosion in the EIS area was determined by measuring soil surface factors
(SSFs) (see Glossary) during Phase I of BLM's Watershed Conservation and
Development inventory (see Appendix J for methodology). The SSF rating
obtained for each area sampled falls into one of five erosion condition
classes. The erosion condition class is a measure of an area's present state
of erosion. Table 2-4 shows erosion condition class acreages for the EIS
area.
Table 2-4 Summary of Present Erosion Condition
Erosion Condition
Class
Stable
Slight
Moderate
Critical
Severe
Source: USDI, BLM 1979
Present Condition
( acres ) percent )
120,216
3.7
1,361,415
42.5
1,606,403
50.1
118,126
3.7
0
0
3,206, 160
100.0
2-18
PORTLAND
Fox
Butte
Walker
HButte
Bunch-
grass
Butte
Green
Mtn.
Cnristmas
iristmas LokeValle;
irse M;
RI5E.
v VENATOR
V BUTTE
SUMMER
, LAKE
Coglan
Butte
T.24S.
LEGEND
mm Basin Land & Terrace
□ Alkali Affected
| V' } Very Shallow & Very Stony
I | Poorly Drained
m Volcanic
B Sandy
1 I Ashey
T. 2 2 S
T.22S
Deschute^a
Lake Co. I
R.I4E
R.15E.
R.2IE.
T.23S
RISE
T.24S.
T.25S
T.25S.
T.26S.
T.26S
R.23E.
R.I2E.
T.27S
T28S.
IT.29S.
R.I3E.
R.I2E.
T30S.
T.3IS.
T.32S
R23E.
T.33S.
R.I7E
R.I6E.
T.34S.
T.35S
T. 35S
R.22E
RISE.
T.36S.
X36S.
GENERAL SOILS
Figure 2- -la
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ItUKEAU OF LAND MANAOEMENT
LAKEVIF.W DISTIIICT
HIGH DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
R.I9E.
T.30S.
IT.3IS.
T32S.
5 4 3 2 10
SCALE IN MILES
R.I9E.
R.20E
R.I6E.
R.I7E.
R.I8E.
.
U S. DEPAHTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LANO M A NAGF.M ENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
l'J8l
R 2 3 E
R25E
5 4 3 2 10
SCALE IN MILES
LEGEND
T 30S
1 _ 1
Basin Land <!k Terr,
□
Alkali Af fected
Very Shallow
& Very Stonv
EZ3
Poorly Drained
1 1
Volcanic
r~i
Sand y
GENERAL SOILS
Figure 2 -3b
T 3 5S
R22E R 2 3 E
CALIFORNIA
T36S
T 37 S
T 3 8 S
T 3 9 $
T40S
Washoe Co.
R 27 E NEVADA R28E
T 4 1 S
R 30 E
Humboldt Co.
R 31 E
'
R.7 E.
R. 1 1 E.
R. 12 F
P i A r
R. 20 E.
U S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEV1EW district
LOST RIVER RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Knv iron mental Impact Statement
WATER RESOURCES
The water resources of the area lie within the Klamath River and Goose and
Summer Lakes watersheds.
Water Quantity
Snowmelt in spring and early summer provides the major part of runoff for
perennial streams. During the remainder of the year, groundwater and
subsurface flow are the major contributors to streamflow. Nearly all the
streams in the closed basin Goose and Summer Lakes watershed are
intermittent. These flow only for brief periods as a result of snowmelt or
rainfall in which the intensity exceeds the capability of the soil to absorb
water (Branson et al. 1972).
Annual yields from the area usually range from 0.5 to 5 inches per acre. The
total annual yield from public lands averages 328,607 acre-feet per year
(Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission 1970; California Region Framework
Study Committee 1970).
Water on public lands is used mainly by livestock, wildlife and fish. The
sources of water are streams, reservoirs, springs and wells. Over 90 percent
of water on private land is used for irrigation.
Groundwater resources are found in alluvial deposits in valley areas and in
volcanic rock materials. Studies made prior to 1970 indicated that
groundwater withdrawal did not exceed the natural recharge in the watersheds
(Oregon State Water Resources Board 1971; Pacific Northwest River Basins
Commission 1970, Appendix V). Since that time, groundwater withdrawals have
increased in the Fort Rock-Chris tmas Valley area. Technical studies to
determine the effects of current withdrawals on the groundwater supply are in
process.
Water Quality
Groundwater quality is generally good; dissolved solids are usually less than
1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/1) in the Goose and Summer Lakes watershed and
less than 100 mg/1 in the Klamath River watershed. In the Goose and Summer
Lakes watershed, excessive arsenic, sodium, boron and fluoride cause problems
in some places (Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission 1970; Oregon State
Water Resources Board 1971).
According to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ 1976a,
1976b), the instream water quality in the Klamath River and Goose and Summer
Lakes drainages generally meets the established standards for the State with
the following exceptions:
1. Water temperature - temperatures above 64°F are common from June to
September as a result of solar heating, often on diminishing flows and
unshaded streams.
2-25
2* Turbidity snowmelt adds silt to streams. Algal blooms occcurring
during low flows in the summer and fall also increase turbidity.
3. Fecal coliform bacteria — the standard of 1,000 counts per 100
milliliters is occasionally exceeded, with high concentrations occurring
during periods of surface runoff.
Appendix K shows the ranges for temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal
coliforms, pH and turbidity for six stations in or near the EIS area.
WILD HORSES
All unbranded and unclaimed horses in the EIS area as of December 15, 1971
are considered wild, free roaming horses as defined in The Wild Horse and
Burro Act (Public Law 92-195). Two herd management areas, as shown in
Figure 2-4 and discussed in Table 2-5, currently contain the wild horses in
the EIS area. There were also six horses counted in 1979 (first observed in
1973) in the Browns Valley Area of Allotment 103. Approximately 28 miles of
fences within the Paisley Desert Herd Management Area restrict the movement
of horses. These fences generally do not cause injuries because the horses
have become accustomed to fence locations. See the Wild Horse Herd
Management Plans on file at the Lakeview District Office for additional
information concerning the wild horses in the EIS area.
Table 2—5 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas
Herd Management
Area
Horses Counted
1979 1981
Allotments Condition of
Involved 1/ the Horses
Paisley Desert
184 215 400, 103 Good,
reproduct ive
Beatys Butte 305 170 2J 600 Good,
reproduct ive
U Herd Management Areas are located only in portions of the listed
al lotment s .
2/ In January-February 1981, 272 horses were gathered in the Beatys Butte
Herd Management Area.
2-26
PORTLAND
Deschutes Co.
Fort Rock
Sam I Dunes
Christmas
Christmas Lake Valley
RISE.
\ VENATOR
V BUTTE
SUMMER
, LAKE
ABERT LAKE
Coglan
' Butte
PAISLEY
Chewaucan
Marsh
\1 Lower (
I Ch »waucan \
Marsh
RISE.
R.lTE.
R,I8E.
R.I9S.
R.20E.
T.22S.
T30S,
T36S.
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUHEAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW IHSTBIL'T
HIGH DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Liikeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
R.22E.
T.3SS.
RUE.
T23S.
T.26S.
Fox )
Butte f
r—\->
)
^ f Lavo
Gre®r*
, Mtn.
o ^
T.23S.
T.24S.
T.25S.
LEGEND
Boundary Herd
Management Area
• X Fences
LI 1 1 Rims
WILD HORSE HERD
MANAGEMENT AREA
PAISLEY DESERT HERD
Figure 2 — 4a
H23E.
T.338.
T.34S.
T.34S.
T.3SS.
T.26S.
8.I2E.
T.3IS.
T.32S.
T.24S.
FI I Sc
FUSE-
T.27S.
. >T28S.
fi3
1T.29S.
T.23S.
) VO i
Lm®
— V
T.3IS.
T29S.
T.27S.
T.28S.
-
U. S. DEPAItTM ENT <)E THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
Wogontire
| Lit 1 1 A
:Jur>ip#'
Mtn.
T2SS
T28S
ALKALI
v lake
iJUNIPER
Homey Co.
Loke C~ik
ABERT LAKE
Bluejoi
Lake )
Rock
Ro.bbi t HHH|
R3IE
Coyote Hills
j! Swamp'
if Lake
Anderson
Lake
BEATTYS
HART LAK
BUTTE
CRUMP
LAKE
II
JfMud Loka
l Shir t
i! .
Lak !
ii Spalding
' i Res.
La ki!
.Greaser/
IK Lake j
T 39 3
T4IS
Lake
OREGON
NEVADA
R23E
R 26 t
R28E
SCALE IN MILES
T 33 S
T 37 S
R30E
Humboldt Co.
LEGEND
T30S
Boundary Herd
Management Area
-x- Fences
T3IS
| | | Rims
WILD HORSE HERD
MANAGEMENT AREA
BEATYS BUTTE HERD
Figure 2 — 4b
T34S
J P30E
'
WILDLIFE
Animals discussed are those whose habitat and resulting populations would be
significantly changed by the proposed action or alternatives. Data for mule
deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, water-associated birds, upland game
birds and fish are summarized in Table 2—6. A complete species list with
general habitat relationships is published in Wildlife of the Pacific
Northwest (Guenther and Kucera 1978). A more detailed discussion of wildlife
is available at the Lakeview District Office.
Mountain lion, bobcat and coyote are not discussed because populations are
not expected to change significantly as a result of the proposed action or
alt ernat ives .
Crucial habitat is a small part of an animal's range or habitat that contains
special qualities or features which are essential for the animal's existence.
Due to its scarcity, water and associated vegetation is crucial habitat for
most species. Meadows and riparian vegetation along perennial and intermit¬
tent streams, wetlands, edges of reservoirs, seeps, springs and overflows at
livestock troughs are very important sources of food, water and cover. Acres
of crucial riparian habitat in various condition classes are listed in Table
2-7. The following photographs illustrate good and poor wildlife habitat in
riparian areas. Some other examples of crucial habitat are winter food and
cover for deer, sage grouse strutting grounds and spawning gravel for fish.
In general, the greatest numbers and kinds of wildlife are found in areas
with the highest habitat diversity. Habitat diversity refers to the mixture
or variety of land forms, vegetation and water. Interspers ion of vegetation
types increases habitat diversity. Sagebrush adjacent to seeded grass
increases habitat diversity around the perimeter of the seeding (edge
effect). A variety of plant species also increases habitat diversity. A
seeding which also contains perennial forbs, shrubs and trees has higher
habitat diversity than a seeding dominated by crested wheatgrass. Structure,
or the physical aspects of vegetation, can increase habitat diversity. Some
examples are clumps of high grass in a grazed meadow, several age classes of
aspen along a stream and snags.
Habitat diversity can be correlated with the range condition described in the
vegetation section. Vegetation types with good range condition would have
greater habitat diversity than similar areas in poor or fair condition.
Seedings are an exception since they usually have very low habitat diversity
although they are rated in good range condition. Wildlife habitat in
riparian areas rated as good has much higher habitat diversity than areas
rated poor (see photos and Table 2-7.)
2-31
A Riparian Area Along Willow Creek Excluded from Livestock Grazing
Good Wildlife Habitat
A Riparian Area Along Willow Creek Which is Grazed
Poor Wildlife Habitat
by Livestock
2-32
Table 2-6 Data on Wildlife in the EIS Area
Animal or Animal Habitat
Groups
(Public Acres)
Populat ion
Mule Deer
Crucial Range
Noncrucial Range
305,000
770,000
Resident 4,
Migratory
800-5,200
55,700
Pronghorn Antelope
Crucial Range
Noncrucial Range
96,700
815,000
Resident
Migratory
3,100
700
Bighorn Sheep
Year-long Range
35,000
Res ident
Migratory
10-15
10-25
Water-Associated Birds
Crucial Wetlands
Noncrucial Wetlands
13,000
50,000
Moderate to
Abundant
Upland Game Birds
Riparian
Upland Habitat
621
900,000
Low
Fish U
65 Stream Miles
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Unknown
3.0
12.5
16.5
18.5
14.5
Trout are scarce
to common on public
lands .
JV See Table 2-8
Source: USDI, BLM, Lakeview District, Bureau Planning Documents
Table 2-7 Existing Condition of Wildlife Habitat in
Riparian Areas and Stream Miles
Condition ]J
Riparian
Acres
Riparian
Stream
Miles
Excellent
0
0
Good
28
4
Fair
163
34
Poor
115
16
Unknown
388
52
1/ Riparian inventory methodology shown in Appendix L.
Source: USDI, BLM Lakeview District, 1979 Riparian Inventory
2-33
Mule Deer
Mule deer are found throughout the EIS area. Populations are increasing and
are about 20 percent above Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife objectives
in the Silver Lake, Fort Rock and Wagontire Management Units (ODFW 1980).
Within the last 5 years, deer numbers in Warner, Beattys Butte and Juniper
Management . Units have been increasing; however, ODFW has not set herd size
objectives. Populations in the Klamath Falls and Interstate Management Units
are about 30 percent below ODFW objectives. Public lands are used by about
53,000 deer during the winter when snow forces them out of higher elevations
(Figures 1~1 and 2 — 5). Food and cover provided by crucial winter habitat are
especially important because the deer's fat reserves decrease during the
winter. Winter ranges are the first areas to greenup in the spring. The
spring greenup of grasses on public lands is needed by deer to improve their
weakened condition.
About 4,000 deer summer on public lands, primarily in the Warner Lakes
Resource Area. Most deer in the EIS area use private or National Forest
lands during the summer. Summer and early fall forage is important because
it increases fat reserves needed to sustain deer through the winter.
Predation, housing developments and livestock grazing have been in conflict
with deer management. Coyote predation on fawns has been high. Housing
developments in Klamath County and northern Lake County have encroached on
winter ranges. Spring/summer livestock grazing on public lands reduces
forage and cover available to deer. Significant early season competition for
the spring greenup occurs whenever livestock are continuously allowed to
graze deer winter range prior to mid- April. Some seedings, water develop¬
ments, juniper chainings and grazing systems have improved habitat for deer.
Pronghorn Antelope
Antelope prefer flat or rolling terrain in the low sagebrush vegetation type
(Figures 2—1 and 2—5). Populations have generally been stable. Existing
livestock fences do not appear to be limiting population levels. Seedings,
wild fire and livestock water developments have improved antelope habitat.
Dense stands of big sagebrush have been converted to low growing herbaceous
vegetation which is preferred by antelope.
California Bighorn Sheep
A total of 10 bighorn sheep were released near Abert Rim during 1974-1977.
Reestablishment appears to have been successful. Livestock do not use the
steep, rugged Abert Rim, consequently forage competition is not a problem.
Bighorn sheep from Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge are occasionallv
observed in the the Blue Joint Lake area and on Orijana Rim. See Figure 2-5
for location of bighorn sheep range.
2-34
Klamath Go.
PORTLAND
Deschutes Co.
7 fA<,> C
N Lava >
Bunch-'
gras*
Bytts
Green
Mfn.
Fort Rods
Sami Dunes
stmas
Valley
Christmas LakeVolley
Horse Mtn.
SILVER
\ LAKE
R.1JE.
VENATOR
BUTTE
SUMMER
, LAKE
ABERT LAKE
•oglan
’ Butte
PAISLEY,
Chevraucan
Marsh
Marsh
RISE
R.I7E,
W.I8E.
R.I9E.
R.20E.
T.22S.
T.22S.
U. S. DEPARTM ENT OF THE INTERIOR
HUH t AU OF LAND M A NAOEM ENT
LAKEVIFW D I ST It K'T
HIGH DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
T.27S.
128 S
IZ9S,
T30S.
LEGEND
T.SiS
T.32S
T33S.
R.I7E.
R.I6E,
T.34S.
C3 Cruc ial Deer Winter Range
E3 Cr ucial Antelope Winter Range
* Sage Grouse Strutting Ground
£ZZ2 Bighorn Sheep
WILDLIFE HABITAT
Figure 2— 5a
T.24S.
T.25S.
T.23S.
R.I3E.
T23&
R.I3E.
‘Fox
Butt*
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEV1EW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
5 4 3 2 I 0
SCALE IN MILES
LEGEND
SOS
HZ! Crucial Deer Winter Range
Crucial Antelope Winter Range
T3)g • Sage Grouse Strutting Ground
1ZZ1 Bighorn Sheep
WILDLIFE HABITAT
Figure 2— 5b
R22E
CALIFORNIA
R 2 3 E Co, R2 5E
R27E NEVADA R28E
Woshoe Co.
s
\ .
R. 20 E.
LEGEND
ff/VER
UPPER
^.KLAI
E3 Crucial Deer Winter Range
MATH
LAKE
NAYLOX
■ MTN1
YAINAX
UTTE
SWAN*
LAKE
WILDLIFE
Figure 2
HABITAT
.V'-'i’KLttMATH
SAf G FALLS
■&*' Horsefly
•nl Mtn.
KLAMATH
— n.HILLS
'ANT
MTN.
GOOSE
LAKE,
Bumphea^'
errill
a^a Molin
Res.
Klamath
OREGON
KJamrith [_Co.
Lake Co.
OREGON
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
LOST RIVER RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
Modoc Co.
R.I6E.
CALIFORNIA
R. I7E.
Modoc Co.
- A.
R.flE. R.I2E.
Siskiyou Co.
CALIFORNIA
Lake''
> T.4I5,
1_
SCALE IN MILES
5
Upland Game Birds
Sage grouse are widely scattered over the EIS area primarily in the low
sagebrush type (Figure 2-1). Populations are low, reflecting a downward
trend over the past 20 years. Thirty-eight strutting grounds and associated
nesting areas have been located (Figure 2-5). Additional strutting grounds
are suspected to exist but their exact location is undetermined. Strutting
grounds and nesting areas are crucial habitat because grouse mate each year
in these natural clearings in the sagebrush. Most nesting occurs within 2
miles of a strutting ground. Upland meadows are crucial habitat because they
supply insects and succulent forbs to young birds (Savage 1969). Sage grouse
use sagebrush extensively for food and cover.
Chukar partridge are the most common game bird in the area. Chukars
concentrate in steep, rocky areas adjacent to streams and water developments.
California quail are closely associated with riparian areas along streams on
public lands. (Figure 2-2). However, most populations are found on private
lands. Low populations are scattered throughout the area.
Small populations of blue grouse and mountain quail are found primarily in
the mountain shrub/conifer vegetation type in the Lost River Resource Area
(F igure 2-1) .
Water-Associated Birds
Approximately 80 species of birds use the area's wetlands during migration or
for nesting. Some representative species are the Canada goose, mallard,
pintail, snipe, greater sandhill crane, killdeer and long-billed curlew.
Millions of birds feed and rest in Klamath Basin, Summer Lake State Game
Management Area and Warner Valley. In comparison with State and private
lands, relatively little feeding and nesting habitat is found on public
lands. Approximately 12,700 public acres are periodically inundated and
provide crucial nesting or feeding habitat. Some examples of nesting areas
on public lands are the potholes at the north end of Warner Valley, Greaser
Lake area, Gerber Reservoir, nearby potholes and small reservoirs (Figure
2-5). Habitat condition for nesting on public lands is often poor because
residual cover heights after livestock grazing are too low for good nesting
cover the following spring. About 50,000 acres of wetlands are permanant
open water and not accessible to livestock. Some examples are Abert Lake and
Summer Lake which are used primarily by migrating birds for resting.
Other Mammals, Other Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians
Approximately 225 of these species inhabit the EIS area. Representative
species include the black-tailed jackrabbit, beaver, ravens, golden eagle,
western rattlesnake and spotted frog. Some species such as the beaver are
found in specific habitat types; others, such as the deer mouse, are
widespread over the EIS area. Highest species diversity occurs in riparian
areas (Figure 2-2).
2-41
Fish
Condition of fish habitat on the public lands is displayed in Tables 2-6 and
The present poor and fair stream condition is largely the result of
irrigation, livestock grazing and flooding. Water withdrawal and release for
irrigation causes fluctuating stream flows which disrupts fish production.
Irrigat ion return flows degrade water quality by increasing water tempera¬
tures, sediments and pollutants. Livestock remove riparian vegetation and
trample streambanks resulting in siltation, loss of cover and increased water
temperatures. Periodic flooding and ice scouring removes riparian vegetation
along streams such as Deep Creek and the Chewaucan River.
Twenty-two reservoirs/lakes ranging in size from 5 to 4,000 acres are on
public lands. Some are periodically stocked with trout by ODFW, others
support a warm water fishery (bass, crappie, catfish, etc.).
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Animals
Those wildlife species determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be
threatened with extinction are on the "endangered species" list published in
the Federal Register (44 FR 12: 3544, 1979).
The American peregrine falcon is classified as endangered throughout its
range. Four sightings were made in 1978 involving at least three adult
birds. Nesting is suspected because peregrines were observed near good
nesting habitat during the breeding season. However, nesting inventories
during 1978 and 1979 failed to locate a nest.
The bald eagle is classified as threatened in Oregon. Nesting has occurred
at four known sites on public lands. Two nests were active during 1979.
Approximately 25 to 30 bald eagles winter in the vicinity of Silver Lake. A
roost has been located on adjacent Forest Service lands.
The western snowy plover and kit fox are classified by Oregon as threatened
(ODFW 1977). Approximately 600 plovers inhabit the EIS area primarily at
Summer Lake and Lake Abert. Populations appear healthy. Habitat suitable
for kit fox occurs in the EIS area, however no sightings have been made.
The Warner sucker, Foskett Springs dace and the Hutton Springs Tui Chub are
managed by the BLM as sensitive species and are on the Oregon State List of
Protected Species (ODFW 1981). Their populations are small and restricted to
limited habitats in the EIS area. Irrigation diversions, water withdrawals
and channelization on private lands are major factors in the decline of the
Warner sucker. Each spring, Warner sucker adults in Crump and Hart Lakes
enter adjacent streams to spawn. Irrigation diversions have been a major
obstacle to spawning fish. In addition to the migratory fish entering the
streams to spawn, there are resident populations in each stream. Suckers
occur on public lands in Deep Creek, Honey Creek, Snyder Creek, Fifteen Mile
Creek, Twelve Mile Creek (Honey Drainage) and Twelve Mile Creek (Twenty Mile
Drainage). Fencing projects presently under construction will eliminate
2-42
Table 2-8 Fish Habitat Condition and Estimated Trend
St ream
Public
Stream
Mi les
A1 lotment s
PresentJ_/
Condit ion
Est imated
Trend
Species
Comments
Barnes Valley Cr.
4.0
882
?
7
RB , SD
Intermittent water flow
Bear Creek
.5
Unal lot ed
?
7
RB,BR,TC, SD,
Intermittent water flow
Ben Hall Creek
1.0
885
?
7
BG , SD , RB , LB , B C , YP
Intermittent water flow
Buck Creek
3.8
704, Unalloted
Poor/Fair
7
RB , BR, TC , SD
Low water flow, irrigation diversions, heavy livestock
grazing
Bridge Creek
1.7
701, Unalloted
Poor/Fair
7
RB, BR,TC, SD
Low water flow, irrigation diversions, heavy livestock
grazing
Camas Creek
4.5
202,206
?
7
RB,TC,SD
Low flows, silting, high water temperature
Chewaucan R
3.1
412
Fair
7
BB,RB,BT,BR,SD,TC
Ice scouring and cemented spawning gravels
Crane Creek
.3
1307
Fair
7
Deep Creek
8.0
201,208
7
7
RB ,TC, SD , WS
Low flow, high water temperature
Dicks Creek
.9
1306
Poor
Down
Drakes Creek
2.7
202,206
Poor/Fair
7
RB ,TC, SD
Catastrophic flooding from dam failure in 1979
Guano Creek
.3
600
7
7
CT
Fifteen Mile Creek
3.0
211
Good/Excel .
7
RB ,TC , SD
Livestock excluded from Warner sucker habitat
Honey Creek
2.6
517
Fair
?
RB,TC, SD, WS
Livestock excluded from Warner sucker habitat
Lost River, E. Branch
5.0
890,891
Good
Up
CT , SD
Existing exclosure improving trout habitat
Loveless Creek
.5
1305
?
7
Miller Creek
5.0
882,885
Poor
Static
RB , SD
Intermittent water flow
Moss Creek
.8
407
Fair
7
SD ,TC
Livestock trailing in creek
Rock Creek
2.0
888
7
7
RB , SD
Low flows, high water temperature
Silver Creek
1.8
700
Good
7
RB ,BR,TC, SD
Heavy livestock grazing and recreation use
Silver Creek, W.F.
1.7
700
Fair
7
RB,BR,TC,SD
Heavy livestock grazing and recreation use
Snyder Creek
1.6
502,517
Poor
7
RB ,TC , SD , WS
Livestock excluded from Warner sucker habitat
Twelve Mile Creek
(Honey Cr. drainage)
2.5
502,519
Good
7
RB ,TC, SD,WS
Livestock excluded from 2.4 miles
Twelve Mile Creek
(Twenty Mile drainage)
3.0
211
Good/Excel .
7
RB ,TC, SD, WS
Livestock excluded from Warner sucker habitat
Twenty Mile Creek
.7
211
Good/Excel .
7
RB ,TC , SD , WS
Willow Creek
2.1
405
Poor
Up
SD,TC
Loss of riparian vegetation and spring flooding limit
fish production; existing exclosure improving habitat
Key to Symbols
? Undetermined or Unknown
BB Brown Bullhead CT Cutthroat Trout TC Tui chub
BC Black Crappie LB Largemouth Bass YP Yellow Perch
BG Bluegill RB Rainbow or Redband Trout WS Warner Sucker
BR Brook Trout SD Speckled Dace
J J Condition class definitions and criteria for evaluating stream condition are shown in Appendix M. Where more than one condition class is shown
this indicates portions of the stream are in two condition classes.
Source: USDI, BLM, Lakeview District, 1978 Stream Survey
2-43
livestock from many sections of sucker habitat on public lands (Table 2-8 and
Figure 1-2). A few thousand Foskett Springs dace occupy a very small spring
on private land. Livestock on surrounding public land have access to this
spring. A much smaller population of dace is found in a nearby spring on
public land. Livestock use of this spring is excluded by an exclosure fence.
The total habitat of the Hutton Springs Tui Chub is on private land and
entirely fenced from surrounding public land.
RECREATION
Developed recreation sites on public land include Gerber Reservoir, Crack-
in-the-Ground , Sunstone Area, Highway Well, Duncan Reservoir and five hunter
camps in the western portion of the EIS area. A number of other primitive
sites offer opportunities for camping and picnicking.
Some recreation areas are formally designated or withdrawn for special
management. Within the EIS area, these recreation management areas include
Sunstone rockhound area and Abert Rim scenic area.
Hunting opportunities exist for big game, upland game, waterfowl and other
species. High quality hunting opportunities occur at Warner Lakes, Drakes
Flat, Coyote Hills, Colvin Timbers and Fish Creek Rim. Trout fishing occurs
in perennial streams and reservoirs throughout the EIS area. Gerber
Reservoir and Honey Creek offer high quality fishing opportunities.
General sightseeing is often referred to as driving for pleasure and is
associated with travel along established roadways. Based on BLM records of
traffic counts along minor roads in the EIS area, an estimated 6,600 visitor
days annually of general sightseeing were attributed to public lands within
the EIS area. Many people visit public lands with specific sightseeing goals
or may sightsee while participating in other activities. A number of areas
attract botanic, geologic, zoologic, scenic, archeologic, historic and
cultural sightseeing use. Examples of high quality sightseeing opportunities
include Crack-in-the-Ground, Abert Rim, Fort Rock, Aspen Lake, and Deep,
Miller and Camas Creek Canyons.
High quality opportunities also exist for waterskiing (Crump and Hart Lakes),
riding ORVs (sand dunes), hiking/backpacking (Deep Creek Canyon, Abert and
Fish Creek Rims), cross country skiing (Deep Creek vicinity) and hang gliding
(Stukel Mountain, Doughtery Slide and Abert Rim).
Table 2-9 shows the estimated current and projected recreational visitor use
for the EIS area. Of the total visitor use in the EIS area, about 11 percent
is attributable to public land.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The BLM has a cultural resource inventory program composed of three classes
of inventory (BLM Manual 8111). Minor et al. (1979) conducted a Class I
existing data inventory to review and summarize existing cultural resource
2-44
2-45
Table 2-9 Estimated Current and Projected
Recreational Visitation to the Lakeview EIS Area
Recreat ional
Total Annual
Area-Wide Use (1975-77)
Visitor Days Attributed
Demand Project
Visitor Days
ion-1990
/Year-1/.
Act ivity
Visits
Visitor Days
to Public Land
Tot al
BLM
Hunt ing
26,428
85,831
21,978
95,272
24,396
Fishing
General
No Data
No Data
8,796
No Data
9,764
Sight seeing
ORV Use U
667,636
111,440
6,625
123,698
7,354
140,718
42,991
11,844
47,720
13,147
Camping
Picnicking _!/
267,928
312,582
8,397
346,966
9,321
120,347
16,047
1,712
17,812
1,900
Hiking
63,623
19,167
1,395
21,275
1,548
Horseback Riding
51,632
15,530
945
17,238
1,049
Pleasure Walking
432,855
6,322
3,784
7,017
4,200
Collect ing !±f
5,714
5,714
5,714
6,343
6* 343
Other
36,019
10,805
1,095
11,994
1,215
Tot al
1,812,900
626,429
72,285
695,335
80,237
\J Visitor use projections to 1990 are based upon an estimated 11 percent increase in the
populations of Klamath and Lake Counties from 1974 to 1990 (Portland State University 1976).
Oregon Department of Transportation (1976) also forecasts an 11 percent increase for
recreational visitation in Lake County from 1975 to 1990.
_2/ ORV use in the Warner Lakes Resource Area is low or unquant if iable .
— J Picnicking use in the High Desert and Lost River Resource Areas is low or unquant i f iable .
hJ Collecting use in the High Desert and Lost River Resource Areas is low or unquant i f iable .
Source: USD I, BLM 1979c.
information to depict human use and occupation of the area from prehistoric
times to the present. All recorded cultural resource sites were identified
through a compilation of the existing data for the Lakeview EIS area.
Class II field sampling inventories are undertaken to provide a data base for
making an objective estimate of the nature and distribution of sites within
the study area. Class II inventory requirements, outlined in the Program¬
matic Memorandum of Agreement among the BLM, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers,
dated January 14, 1980, were modified for the EIS area and found acceptable
by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer. In their Class II
inventory in Christmas Lake Valley, Toepal et al. (1980) utilized field
survey methods based upon a systematic interval sampling scheme. This
resulted in intensive survey coverage of 9,785 public land acres.
Class III intensive field inventories are undertaken prior to BLM actions
which would result in ground disturbance or land ownership changes. The
objective of a Class III inventory is to identify and record all cultural
resource sites within a specified area. Class III intensive field
inventories have been performed on 42,504 acres within the EIS area.
Prehistoric Sites
While little of the area has been thoroughly surveyed, 772 archeologic sites
and numerous isolated finds have been documented as being within the Lakeview
EIS area. Table 2-10 categorizes the 772 known archeologic sites into seven
broad site types.
Table 2-10 Categorization of Archeologic Sites
Rock
Stone
Rock
Countv
— ■ - t
Open
Shelters
Structures
Art
Quarry
Burials
Trail
Harney
9
2
0
1
1
0
0
Klamath
26
1
20
4
0
0
0
Lake
546
31
22
89
16
2
l
TOTALS
581
34
42
94
17
3
1
About 79 percent of the known prehistoric sites within the EIS area are on or
include land administered by the BLM. Because of the lack of data to
adequately evaluate these sites, significance ratings have not been assigned.
In this area where little information is available, all known sites are
significant to some extent.
2-46
Four archeologic sites and one district in south-central Oregon are on the
National Register of Historic Places (see Glossary):
1. Abert Lake Petroglyph Site (BLM)
2. Greaser Petroglyph Site (BLM)
3. Fort Rock Cave (Private)
4. Picture Rock Pass Petroglyph Site (BLM)
3. East Abert Lake Archeologic District (BLM)
The BLM has also identified 11 sites as potentially eligible for the National
Register:
1. Gerber Reservoir District
2. Lost River/Duncan Spring District
3. Bumpheads District
4. Connley Caves
3. Five Mile Butte Caves
6. Lake Abert Area
7. Long Lake Petroglyph District
8. May Lake Archeologic District
9. Fish Creek Rim Archeologic
District
10. Lucky Reservoir Site
11. Twenty Mile Slough Site
Determinations of eligibility for these sites under 36 CFR 1202 would be made
prior to ground disturbance or land ownership changes which would affect the
sites (36 CFR 800.4).
The potential archeologic site density for the EIS area is suspected to be
high. Some areas intensively used by prehistoric people (e.g. Christmas
Valley, Fort Rock Valley, Silver Lake) have a known density of about 60 sites
per square mile. A density of more than 10 sites per square mile can be
expected in much of Lake and eastern Klamath Counties (Oregon Department of
Transportation 1978). Due to the lack of sufficient inventory data, however,
only general trends can be used to predict site locations and density. In
general, site distribution can be correlated to certain environmental
features and resource availability. Areas with water, game, edible plants
and rock for tools often contain sites. Archeologic sites are frequently
found at springs, drainages, meadows and old lakeshores and lakebeds. Upland
plateau areas contain numerous sites, but they are usually smaller and more
concentrated than lowland sites.
Historic Sites
The vastness and isolation of south-central Oregon have played an important
part in shaping the region's history. Fur trade, exploration, Indian-white
relations, mining, cattle raising, overland migration, settlement, land
speculation and townsite development were characteristic activities of the
historic period. Transportation, lumbering and farming contributed to the
economic development of the area. While parts of the EIS area have had
limited historical activity, other areas such as Goose Lake and the Klamath
Basin produced a fairly substantial record of events.
Table 2-11 categorizes the 166 known historic sites on or near public lands
into nine broad site types according to the activities which took place at
each site. Some sites have been listed twice as more than one main activity
occurred there.
2-47
Table 2-11 Categorization of Historic Sites
Site Type
Number
Site Type
Number
Wagon Road/
Military and/or
7
Emigrant Trail
14
Scientific
Settlement
67
Cemetery
3
Post Office/
Towns ite
32
Sawmill
4
Agriculture 36
Mining 2
Government 4
A great majority of the known sites require further documentation involving
site examination and evaluation. Three portions (about one-quarter mile) of
the Oregon Central Military Wagon Road on public land are currently on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Paleontologic Sites
Vertebrate and certain invertebrate fossils are protected within the scope of
the Antiquities Act. While the EIS area has not been thoroughly surveyed,
certain fossils (including mammoth, fish, bison) are known to exist. Most
sites are on private land, and there are few data dealing with site
locations, significance and conditions.
The Fossil Lake locale is highly significant in North America as it is a
representative site for many Pleistocene Era animals. The BLM's proposal to
designate the 30,000 acre Lost Forest-Sand Dunes-Fossil Lake area as an Area
of Critical Environmental Concern (see Glossary) includes 6,560 acres in the
Fossil Lake area.
Further information concerning the paleontologic resources of Fossil Lake is
available in Elftman 1931; Howard 1946; Martin and Howe 1977; Shufeldt 1913;
and Sternberg 1884.
VISUAL RESOURCES
Three factors are considered in developing visual resource management (VRM)
objectives which specify the amount of modification the natural landscape can
sustain. These factors are the inherent scenic quality of the landscape, the
visual sensitivity the public has for the landscape, and the visual distance
(whether the landscape can be seen as foreground-middleground , background, or
is seldom seen from a travel route or sensitivity area). Examples of highly
scenic areas include Abert Rim, Deep Creek, Camas Creek and Twenty Mile Creek
Canyons. Public lands seen from Highway 140, the Sunstone area and Highway
Well Recreation Site are examples of lands highly sensitive to landscape
modification.
2-48
After scenic quality, sensitivity levels and distance zones are determined,
they are compared to determine the VRM classes (see Glossary) for the area.
VRM classes specify management objectives and allow for differing degrees of
modification in the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) of landscape
features. The four classes are defined as follows:
Class I: This class provides primarily for natural ecological changes only.
It is applied to primitive areas, some natural areas and other similar
situations where management activities are to be restricted.
Class II: Within this class, changes in any of the basic elements (form,
line, color, texture) caused by a management activity should not be evident
in the characteristic landscape.
Class III. Within this class, changes in any of the basic elements (form,
line, color, texture) caused by a management activity may be evident in, but
should remain subordiante to, the existing characteristic landscape.
Class IV: Within this class, changes may attract attention and be dominant
landscape features but should reflect those basic elements inherent in the
characteristic landscape.
Figure 2-6 shows VRM class delineations for the Lakeview EIS area.
WILDERNESS VALUES
Under the terms of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA), roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more that have wilderness
characteristics are to be reviewed within 15 years for possible wilderness
des ignat ion.
After consideration of public comments on the BLM wilderness review, the
Oregon State Director has announced his final decisions for public lands in
the EIS area included in the intensive wilderness inventory. As a result, 13
areas (totaling 492,440 acres) in the EIS area were identified as Wilderness
Study Areas (see Glossary).
The intensive wilderness inventory and accompanying maps for Oregon (USDI,
BLM 1980a) are available in the Lakeview District Office.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are areas within the public
lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent
irreparable damage to important historic, cultural or scenic values; fish and
wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes; or to protect life
and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA Section 103(a)). Designation of an
area as an ACEC does not necessarily preclude development but rather ensures
the protection of sensitive values in those cases where appropriate develop¬
ment may take place. Prior to designation, site-specific management
prescriptions are developed for each proposed ACEC. Following designation,
activity plans are prepared to translate the special management requirements
into on-going on-the-ground implementation actions.
2-49
Of the eight areas nominated for ACEC consideration during the Lakeview
District's planning process (see Table 2-12, page 2-57), two have been
proposed for designation (Devil's Garden Lava Beds, Lost Forest-Sand
Dunes-Fossil Lake) . The remaining six areas were found not to meet the
criteria of relevance and importance, as described in the August, 1980 Final
Guidelines for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (USDI, BLM 1980b).
SPECIAL AREAS
In 1972, about 8,960 acres of the Lost Forest were designated as a Research
Natural Area (see Glossary). This area, covered with pumice sand (see
Chapter 2, Soils), contains interesting geologic, botanic and zoologic
features (J.F. Franklin et al. 1973, Nature Conservancy 1978).
Three sites on public land (Lost Forest, Crump Lake and Warner Valley) have
been identified by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) as
potential National Natural Landmarks (see Glossary) . The Lost Forest
Research Natural Area was recommended by Daubenmire (1975) for Landmark
designation. Crump Lake is a shallow, intermittent lake and marsh with
waterfowl habitat (Goodwin and Niering 1971; Bostick and Niles 1975; Nature
Conservancy 1978) . The Warner Valley/North Warner Valley area has geologic
significance and outstanding waterfowl habitat (ibid.). Action on a recent
proposal by the HCRS to designate parts of Warner Valley as a National
Natural Landmark has been suspended pending further site evaluation and
public input. Landmark designation is not a land withdrawal and would not
affect ownership of a given area.
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The EIS area is located in south-central Oregon, east of the Cascade Range,
off major transportation routes and distant from the major population centers
of the Pacific Coast. The area lies mainly in Lake County, but also includes
portions of Klamath and Harney Counties as shown in Table 2-13.
Table 2-13 Distribution of Lands Managed by Lakeview District by County
Percent of Total
County
Acres
County Area
Harney
787,522
12.1
Klamath
175,726
4.6
Lake
2,864,598
53.4
Total
3,827,846
24.5
Since the part of the EIS area in Harney County is uninhabited and used
mainly by Lake County residents, discussion of socioeconomic conditions is
limited primarily to Lake and Klamath Counties with only incidental reference
to other areas including Harney County.
2-50
PORTLAND
Desehutet Co,
Fox
Butt*
Walker
SQutte
Bunch-
gr ot*
Bgff
Green
, Mtn.
For f Rock
San$ Dunes
Christmas
Christmas Lake Valley
Horse Mtn.
SILVER
V LAKE,
ENATOR
BUTTE
SUMMER
him
ABERT U
T.3SS.
Lower
T.2&S
T.25S
T.26S.
T.26S.
R.23E.
T.27S
T28S.
T29S
RJ3E.
USE
SJSE
TSOS.
LEGEND
i » a
T.32S
M53E-
T.53S.j
R.I7E
R.J6E
T.34S
T.34S
T.33S
T35S
R.2ZE
n lot
T.36S.
T36S.
□
Class I
1 1
Class 11
CD
Class II!
(=□
Class IV
VISUAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT CLASSES
Figure 2-6a
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
liUHKAU OF LAND M A NAOE M ENT
LAKEVIF.W DISTRICT
HIGH DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1118 1
5 4 3 210
SCALE IN MILES
T.22S,
T.228.
W.I6E-
R.I7E.
R.I6£.
fU9£.
R.20E.
T23S.
RISE.
T.23S.
T.24S.
T.24S.
T.27S.
T.32S.
T.3IS.
U S. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
ALKALI
V LAKE
Homey Co.
Loke
Bluejoi
.Lake ]
Rock Creek
Res.
Ra.febiV HMIsl
Coyote Hills
womp'
Lake
derton
ART LAKE
BtlTTE
Frido\
I Res.
lud Loke
\Res.
Shirk
Lak i
Spalding
' Res.
Hawk Mtn.
EGON
R27E NEVADA RZ8E
LEGEND
E3
Class
n
G3
C lass
in
n
Class
IV
VISUAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT CLASSES
Figure 2 -6b
Harney Co.
RSOE
Humboldt Co.
T 33 S
T 40S
T36S
T37S
'
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
LOST RIVER RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
3 4 3 2 I Q
SCALE IN MILES
2-57
Table 2-12 Nominated and Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Proposed for
ACEC
Designation
Approximate
Size (acres)
Description
Resource Values
Allot¬
ment/s
1. Devils Garden Lava
Beds
29,640
Unique lava tubes, cinder
cones and spatter cones in a
relatively recent lava flow,
forest to desert transition
zone
Geologic
907
2. Lost Forest-Sand Dunes-
Fossil Lake 1/
Nominated but not Proposed
30,000
Relict, isolated ponderosa
pine stands and sand dunes
within a low rainfall,
shrub-steppe region, signifi¬
cant cultural resources
Archeologic, Paleonto-
logic. Scenic,
Recreational, Research
Natural Area
103
for ACEC Designation 2/
1. Duncan Springs
112
Large spring, native hawt-
horne, cutthroat trout,
birds, mammals
Wildlife, Vegetation
890
2. Aspen Lake
480
Wide variety of vegetation
within a small lake basin,
bird and mammal habitat
Wildlife
822
3. Miller Creek Canyon
800
Varied habitat for many bird
species
Wildlife
882, 884,
885
4 . Black Hills
1,740
Sensitive plants
Vegetation
400
5 . Crane Mountain Front
1,200
High fault bench, sensitive
plants
Vegetation
1307
6. Alkali Lake
160
Chemical dump ground
Water
1001
1/ The Lost Forest is currently designated a Research Natural Area (see Glossary).
2j These areas do not meet the criteria of relevance and importance, as described in the August, 1980
Final Guidelines for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (USDI, BLM 1980b).
Population and Income
Population trends are shown in Table 2-14. About one-third of the population
of Lake County resides in the town of Lakeview (2,763; 1980 population).
Population density in the rest of the county is less than 0.5 persons per
square mile. About three— fifths of the population of Klamath County resides
in Klamath Falls (16,649) and the unincorporated suburb of Altamont (19,728).
Population density in the rest of the county averages about two persons per
square mile.
Table 2-14 Population Trends, Lake
Lake County
and Klamath Counties, 1960-1980
Klamath County
Year
Populat ion
Annual Rate
of Change
Populat ion
Annual Rate
of Change
1960
7,158
47,475
1970
6,343
-1.2
50,021
0.5
1975
6,500
0.5
54, 100
1.6
1980
7,523
3.0
59,002
1.7
Source
: U.S. Bureau of
Census 1972, 1977,
1980a
Personal income in 1978 amounted to $50,496,000 in Lake County and
$415,136,000 in Klamath County. Income per capita was $7,139 and $6,994,
respectively, as compared with a statewide average of $8,076 (U.S. Dept, of
Commerce 1980b).
Farm/ranch proprietors experience wide variations in net income from year to
year. Income in the farm/ranch sector from 1973 through 1978 is shown in
Table 2-15.
Table 2-15 Farm Labor and Proprietors Income, 1973-78 1/
(Thousands of dollars)
Lake County _ _ Klamath County
Year
Labor
Proprietors
Total
Labor
Proprietors
Total
1973
1,908
3,967
5,875
4,500
9,153
13,653
1974
1,999
1,642
3,641
4,670
9,833
14,503
1975
2,5 33
388
2,921
5,958
-4,214
1,744
1976
2,623
1,181
3,804
6,137
-3,060
3,077
1977
3,651
- 426
3,225
8,578
-9,241
- 663
1978
3,809
2,619
6,428
8,934
1,510
10,444
1/ Not
adjusted for social
insurance
contributions, dividends
, intere
rent
and 1
transfer payments.
Source :
U.S
. Department of
Commerce
1980b
2-58
Economic Activity
In recent years (1977 79) the labor force — people working or looking for
work has averaged about 44 percent of the population in Lake County and
about 43 percent of the population in Klamath County as compared with a 48
percent ratio for Oregon as a whole. Table 2-16 shows labor force and
employment data for the two counties and the State averaged over the years
1977 through 1979.
Unemployment rates averaged about 8.4 percent in Lake County and 8.0 percent
in Klamath as compared with 6.7 percent for Oregon as a whole in these years.
In Lake County, self-employed proprietors amounted to over twice as large a
percentage of the labor force (18.7 percent) as the statewide average (8.6
percent) due to the number of farmers and ranchers in the county.
Manufacturing employment as a proportion of total employment is below average
in Lake County, but above average in Klamath County. Most of the
manufacturing activity in both counties is lumber and wood products
manufacture. During the years 1977-1979, employment in the construction
industry averaged 60 workers in Lake County and 713 in Klamath County.
According to the 1978 Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Commerce
1980c) there were 306 farms and ranches in Lake County and 904 in Klamath
County in that year. Farms and ranches were large on the average - Lake,
2,773 acres; and Klamath, 827 acres. A large proportion of these farms and
ranches were engaged in beef production - Lake, 180; and Klamath, 485. About
Table 2-16 Average Resident Labor Force and Employment, 1977-1979
(Average number of workers during the 3-year period)
Lake
County
Klamath
County
State
Tot al
Item
Number
Percent
of Total
Number
Percent
of Total
Number
Percent
of Total
Resident labor force
3,063
100.0
24,880
100.0
1,179,600
100.0
Unemployment
257
8.4
1,987
8.0
79,300
6.7
Employment
2,807
91.6
22,893
92.0
1,100,300
93.3
Proprietors 1 J
573
18.7
2,617
10.5
102,000
8.6
Wage and salary
2,233
72.9
20,277
81.5
996,600
84.5
Manufacturing
450
14.7
5,323
21.4
217,000
18.4
Non-manu f actur ing
1,783
58.2
14,953
60.1
779,600
66.1
1/ Derived as difference between total employment and wage and salary employ¬
ment and workers involved in labor-management disputes.
Source: Oregon Department of Human Resources 1978, 1979, 1980
2-59
half of those with cattle (including dairy cows) had less than 100 animals,
but ranches with 100 or more accounted for about 90 percent of the cattle in
each county as shown in Table 2-17.
Table 2-17
Cattle and
Calves by Herd Size
Class ,
(Number on farm
(ranch )
on December
31)
Lake County
Farms
Animals
Herd Size
Number
% Total
Number
% Total
1-19
36
17.0
315
0.3
20-99
60
28.3
3,179
3.3
100-499
69
32.5
16,815
17.5
500 or more
47
22.2
76,103
78.9
Tot al
212
100.0
96,412
100.0
Klamath
County
Farms
Animals
Herd Size
Number !
l Total
Number !
l Total
1-19
185
31.1
1,687
1.6
20-99
201
33.8
9,338
8.8
100-499
162
27.2
35,077
33.1
500 or more
47
7.9
59,758
56.5
Tot al
595
100.0
105,860
100.0
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1980
Table 2-18 shows the value of agricultural sales from 1974 through 1978.
These amounts represent the gross annual production value of all commodities
and services used in agriculture. Livestock production accounts for the bulk
of agricultural gross sales value in Lake County. In Klamath County,
livestock production is approximately equaled by crop production consisting
mainly of grain, potatoes, and hay.
Table 2-18 Value of Agricultural Products Sold, 1974-1978
(Thousands of dollars)
Lake
County
Klamath
County
Year
Livestock
Crops
Livestock
Crops
1974
6,876
2,691
20,230
28,640
1975
10,920
2,6 21
23,339
23,709
1976
8,322
4,134
21,704
23,279
1977
9,135
3,304
20,691
21,092
1978
13,213
3,883
24,022
25,776
Source: Oregon State University, Extension Service, Commodity
Data Sheets, 1979.
2-60
The business of livestock production creates additional local sales activity
through the purchases of ranchers and their business associates. A portion
of these gross sales are earned by individuals as personal income. Estimates
of the relationships of ranchers' sales to total gross sales and to personal
income generated have been obtained from inter-industry models for these
counties developed by the Forest Service for the year 1977 (USDA, FS 1980).
(See Appendix N.) Applying these estimates to 1978 livestock sales figures,
the total gross sales generated locally by livestock producers in 1978 is
estimated at about $31 million in Lake County and about $52 million in
Klamath County.
Local personal income generated by these gross sales in 1978 was $7.4 million
in Lake County and $12.5 million in Klamath County or about $20.0 million in
total.
Economic Significance of Public Rangeland Resources
The following sections describe the economic importance of public rangeland
resources in terms of: users' forage needs, ranch property values, and
financial viability; and local income and local employment dependent upon
public land grazing, wildlife and recreational uses.
Dependence of Users on BLM Grazing Permits
In 1979, 145 operators with 83,965 cattle (or equivalent) held grazing
permits or leases on public lands in the EIS area. The total amount of
forage for which permits/leases were issued (permitted use) in 1979 amounted
to 15.3 percent of the total annual herd forage requirements for these herds
(17.1 percent in the Lake and Harney Counties and 6.2 percent in Klamath
County) .
Table 2-19 shows the average dependence on forage from public lands for
operators classified by herd size. The information in this table is based on
1979 permitted use as distinguished from active preference (see Glossary).
Most of the permitted use is held by the operators in larger herd size
classes in Lake and Harney Counties. Only 7 percent of permitted use is held
by Klamath County operators.
2-61
-62
N3
Table
2-19 Operator Dependence on BLM Forage,
by Herd Size
Class, 1979
1/
Operators
Animal
2/
Units
Permitted Use on
3/
Public Lands
Percent
Percent
Amount
Percent
Percent of
Size of Herd
Number
of Total
Number
of Total
(AUMs)
of Total
Requirements
LAKE AND
HARNEY COUNTIES
Under 100
13
17.1
815
1.2
1,545
1.1
15.8
100 - 399
19
25.0
3,969
5.7
5,712
4.0
12.0
400 - 999
24
31.6
13,741
19.7
26,473
18.4
16.1
1,000 & Over
20
26.3
51,240
73.4
109,780
76.5
17.9
Total
76
100.0
69,765
100.0
143,510
100.0
17.1
KLAMATH COUNTY
Under 100
27
39.1
1,131
8.0
1,580
15.0
11.6
100 - 399
31
44.9
6,040
42.5
4,399
41.6
6.1
400 - 999
10
14.5
5,813
40.9
3,505
33.2
5.0
1,000 & Over
1
1.5
1,216
8.6
1,084
10.3
7.4
Total
69
100.0
14,200
100.0
10,568
100.0
6.2
EIS
AREA
Under 100
40
27.6
1,946
2.3
3,125
2.0
13.4
100 - 399
50
34.5
10,009
11.9
10,111
6.6
8.4
400 - 999
34
23.4
19,554
23.3
29,978
19.5
12.8
1,000 & Over
21
14.5
52,456
62.5
110,864
72.0
17.6
Total
145
100.0
83,965
100.0
154,078
100.0
15.3
1/ Data pertains to livestock operators holding forage permits from BLM within the EIS area.
Forage on National Forest and State lands is not covered.
2 J Reported livestock herds were converted to animal units (AU) each equivalent to one cow, one
horse, or five sheep.
3/ Represents forage use for which a permit/lease was issued in 1979 grazing year
(3/1/79-2/29/80).
Table 2 20 shows the seasonal pattern of grazing use on public lands. Use is
heaviest in May and June and declines sharply in the fall months.
Table 2 20 Percentage of Monthly Forage Requirements
Supplied by BLM Forage, by Herd Size Class, 1979 —
Under
100-
400-
Over
All
Month
100
399
999
1,000
Operators
March
2.0
8.3
6.0
April
5.3
4.8
16.8
19.0
16.8
May
40.8
24.5
39.8
30.8
36.8
June
40.8
23.5
24.0
33.0
30.0
July
34.5
15.0
15.3
22.8
20.3
August
30.3
9.5
10.3
22.5
18.3
September
15.5
7.5
8.3
10.5
10.3
October
10.0
4.3
6.0
4.0
4.8
November
4.0
0.5
4.8
—
1.5
December
1.0
1.0
14.3
1.0
3.8
January
-
1.0
12.0
1.0
3.8
February
—
—
4.8
1.5
1.8
Average
13.4
8.4
12.8
17.6
15.3
1/ Data is for 1979 grazing year, March 1, 1979 to February 28, 1980.
BLM Grazing Licenses and Ranch Property Values
The Bureau of Land Management does not recognize grazing permits/leases as
vested property rights; however, de facto effects on private asset valuation
may occur. Based on BLM file data and contract appraisal studies in the
Lakeview area, the asset value of public forage licenses is estimated to be
about $40-$45 per AUM.
Estimates of the values placed on grazing permits/leases associated with
ranch properties when sold have varied widely from the estimate of $40-$45
per AUM given above. A recent study of ranch sales in Grant and Umatilla
Counties found no statistically valid evidence that public grazing use
affected ranch sale values (Winter 1979). However, grazing preferences have
sold at prices ranging from $22 to $55 per AUM in southern Idaho according to
the Owyhee Grazing Management FEIS (USDI, BLM 1980c).
Active preference in 1979 is shown in Table 2-21 for each herd size class in
total and for the average and maximum individual holding.
2-63
Table 2-21 Active Preference by Herd Size
and by Area, 1979 Grazing Year
Herd Size
Total
AUMs Per
Operator
Class
AUMs
Average
Maximum
LAKE
AND HARNEY
COUNTIES
Under
100-399
400-999
1,000 or
100
more
2,734
7,713
27,323
116,669
210
406
1,138
5,833
917
1,684
3,460
32,657
Total
154,439
2,032
—
KLAMATH COUNTY
Under
100-399
400-999
1,000 or
100
more
1,752
5,544
3,666
1,162
65
179
367
1,162
220
977
2,655
1,162
Total
12,124
176
—
EIS AREA
Under
100-399
400-999
1,000 or
100
more
4,486
13,257
30,989
117,831
112
265
911
5,611
917
1,684
3,460
32,657
Total
166,563
1,149
—
Financial Viability of Ranch Enterprises
In this discussion, reference is made to three terms which may require
explanation: overall carrying capacity, debt service capacity and debt load.
Overall carrying capacity is the herd size which can be prudently maintained
on the forage sources which a ranch has available. It is a concept used by
lenders in appraising a ranch for loan purposes. Debt service capacity is
the amount of money regularly available (cash flow) to the rancher which
could be used to make interest and principal payments if any debt were
incurred. It represents the maximum amount of debt for which the rancher
could meet the payments. The debt load is the relative size of debt payments
among other costs.
2-64
The ability of ranch enterprises to survive the adjustments which might be
required by a loss of grazing privileges is related to their ability to make
the necessary payments on additional debt. A ranch free of debt is able to
borrow more to make necessary adjustments in operations, but also (initially
at least), has no fixed debt payments to be made if ranch operations must be
scaled down. The greater the proportion of fixed costs such as debt payment
m a ranch budget, the more inflexible the operation becomes because a
certain level of operation must be sustained in order to cover the fixed
costs. Differences in debt loads (per unit of carrying capacity) account for
a major part of the differences in overall costs among ranches of the same
size .
In the absence of information on existing debt loads, this discussion focuses
on the debt service capacity of a ranch in total rather than on any capacity
remaining after current debt service needs are met.
As a means, of measuring debt service capacity, ranch budget information
(presented in Appendix 0) on income and expenses is used to develop estimates
of return above cash costs" for several ranch herd size classes. Return
above cash cost is the amount of money available after payment of cash costs
(See Appendix 0) to cover the support of the rancher’s household, replacement
of capital equipment (depreciation), and repayment of interest and principal
on intermediate or long-term loans.
The estimates are presented in Table 2-22. A representative ranch with less
than 100 cows, in the Lake County portion of the EIS area for example, is
estimated to have about $10,200 left out of the average year's receipts to
cover household expenses, depreciation and non-short-term debt. This amount
divided by annual forage requirements (12 x herd size) is the return above
cash cost per AUM.
Return above cash cost is a guide to the effect of public grazing reductions
on ranch operations, but its defects need to be kept in mind. First, it does
not take into account the differential effects among individual ranchers with
different debt loads. Second, it does not reflect the changes in average
costs (and returns) which may occur with substantial changes in the level of
operations. That is, if operations are reduced, and costs are not reduced
proportionately, then average cost per unit increases and return above cash
cost per unit will decline.
Local Income and Employment Effects
The gross sales of ranchers holding BLM grazing permits/leases in the EIS
area is estimated to have been about $13.5 million annually on the average
for the years 1977-1979. These estimates represent price conditions during a
period which included the high beef price years, 1978 and 1979. Gross sales
for operator using grazing land in Lake and Harney Counties was about $10.4
million, and gross sales for those in Klamath County about $3.1 million.
2-65
Table 2-22 Average Return Above Cash Costs Attributable to Forage
from Public Land and to All Forage Sources —
(1977—79 average prices)
Herd Size
Amount
per AUM
Amount per Operator
Public land All sources
LAKE AND HARNEY COUNTIES
Under 100
100—399
400—999
1,000 or more
All sizes
$13.53
10.46
12.55
$11.53
$ 1,600
3,100
13,800
63,300
$22,100
$ 10,200
26,200
86,300
354,500
$128,800
E IS AREA 2/
Under 100
100 - 399
400 - 999
1,000 or more
All sizes
$13.53
10.46
12.55
$11.53
$ 1,100
2,100
11,100
60,900
$ 12,400
$ 7,900
25,100
86,600
345,600
$ 81,200
1/ Based upon estimates of average "Return Above Cash Cost" developed by
Economics and Statistics Service (Gee 1981). (Appendix 0)
2/ No budgetary survey data were obtained for Klamath County ranches, but it
was assumed that survey estimates for Lake and Harney County ranches were
applicable to Klamath County ranches in developing estimates for the EIS
area.
Based on the estimated multiplier effect of the industry, the total gross
sales generated among all businesses in these counties by these ranchers'
dealings amounted to about $24.2 million annually in Lake County and $6.7
million in Klamath County.
Estimates of local personal income derived from the beef raising activities
of ranchers who hold grazing permits/leases are presented in Table 2-23.
Based on 1978 personal income levels, beef production accounted for $7.4
million, or 15 percent of Lake County income, and $12.6 million, or 3.0
percent of Klamath County income. The $5.8 million generated by operators in
the EIS area in Lake County amounted to 11 percent of Lake County income,
and the $1.6 million in Klamath County amounted to 0.3 percent of that
county's income. The portion of their forage derived from public lands was
responsible for about 2 percent of the total personal income in Lake County
and 0.02 percent in Klamath County.
2-66
Employment in livestock and other local industries attributable to grazing
public lands is about 94 workers. This estimate was made by dividing the
income estimates in Table 2-23 by 1978 average annual earnings in covered
employment in Lake and Klamath Counties ($11,676) (Oregon Employment Division
1 y > y j I 7 OU/ i
Income from Recreational Activity
Some local economic activity is generated by hunting and fishing and by other
recreational acitivity on public lands. Public lands in the 1975-77 period
accommodated 26 percent of hunting activity, an unknown percentage of fishing
activity, and about 8 percent of the recreational acitivity in the EIS area.
(See Recreation, Table 2-9.)
In the 1975-77 period, expenditures related to hunting and fishing on public
lands in the EIS area amounted to about $672,000 annually. Expenditures of
other recreationists using public lands were about $356,000 more. Personal
income to local residents resulting from these expenditures amounted to about
$250,000 per year.
Table 2-23 Local Personal Income Generated by Livestock
Production J_/j BLM Operators and All Ranchers
(1977-79 average prices)
BLM Operators
Pub lie
All
All
County
Forage
Forage
Ranchers
Lake 2/
$1,000,000
$5,800,000
$ 7,400,000
Klamath
100,000
1,600,000
12,600,000
EIS Area
$1,100,000
$7,400,000
$20,000,000
_!/ Derived as
amount of total
personal
income (direct
induced) generated in the private sector by a unit
decrease) in total gross output in the agriculture
inter-industry tables shown in Appendix N.
indirect and
increase (or
sector from
2/ Includes operators with cattle operations in Harney County.
Social Conditions
Social conditions which might be affected by any of the alternative
management plans for the EIS area are primarily those relating to the
residents of Lake and Klamath Counties. Groups interested in these public
lands include the ranching industry, the timber industry, the mining
2-67
industry, conservation groups, historical groups, archeological groups, wild
horse groups, hunting and fishing groups, other recreation-oriented groups
and local resident groups. Use of the lands involved or their products by
people living outside the local area is generally too minor to affect social
condit ions .
The group most likely to be affected is the ranching industry, or more
properly, the ranching subculture. This group is strongly cohesive because
its members share a similar environment and experiences differentiated and
isolated from the rest of society. The social and attitudinal
characteristics of this group appear to be similar to those discussed by
Grigsby (1976) for adjacent Harney County. That study showed that the
ranching subculture perceives itself as characterized by the traditional
strengths and values associated with the "pioneer spirit": independence,
rugged individualism, adaptability, practicality, and enjoyment of the
variety of types of labor and direct contact with nature which ranching
provides. Bureau planning documents for the EIS area indicate many Lake
County ranches are owned by "old" families and many ranches are operated in
traditional ways. Within the past 10 years, more young adults are remaining
on family ranches, apparently to maintain a way of life. Ranchers may
mistrust the BLM and its planning process since the use of public land for
cattle production is an integral part of the ranch operation.
A second group which may be differentiated in the local area is the rural or
small town population, which comprises the bulk of the remaining population
of the area. This group is generally less dependent on use of the public
lands in the EIS area, but tends to share the views and attitudes of the
ranch subculture as a social role model.
A third group is the metropolitan population of Klamath Falls. This group
being farther removed from the ranch subculture is likely to place higher
priority on recreational use of public lands.
2-68
CHAPTER 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
'
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
Throughout this chapter, environmental consequences (impacts) are compared to
the existing situation, as described in Chapter 2.
The significant impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed action
and each of the alternatives are analyzed in this section. If a resource is
not affected or if the impacts are considered insignificant, no discussion is
included. Analysis, including the scoping process, indicates that there
would be no significant impacts upon air quality, minerals, climate, geology
or timber. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act prohibits expanded
grazing uses or proposed range improvements which would impair areas for
wilderness preservation (see Standard Procedures and Design Elements for
Range Improvements, Chapter 1).
The major actions which cause impacts are allocation of existing and future
forage production, implementation of grazing systems, change in period of use
and installation of range improvement projects. No change is expected from
the existing situation on the unalloted areas (137,844 acres); therefore,
these areas are not discussed further. Management of those public lands
fenced m with and/or administered by the U.S. Forest Service (approximately
1,000 acres) is not analyzed.
The following criteria were used to determine the nature and extent of
impacts identified:
Beneficial impact: Resource conditions would improve relative to the exist¬
ing situation.
Adverse impact
Resource conditions would deteriorate relative to the
existing situation.
No impact
Resource conditions would remain the same as the existi
situat ion.
ng
Short term:
Long term:
The 10-year period needed to complete the range improve¬
ment projects and implement grazing systems.
Twenty years after initiation of the proposed action or
alternative (10 years for implementation plus 10
additional years).
The following assumptions have been made as a basis for the impact analysis:
The proposed action or any alternative selected would be fully implemen¬
ted as described in Chapter 1.
- Monitoring studies would be completed as indicated and adjustments made
as needed.
3-1
- Grazing systems would be followed.
- The principal resource directly impacted would be vegetation. Any
changes in production, condition and trend of vegetation would affect
other resources.
Personnel and funds would be provided to implement the proposed action
or any alternative within the stated timeframe.
- Standard procedures and design elements would be effectively carried out
for construction of range improvement projects in the proposal or any
alternat ive.
- Regular maintenance would be carried out to maintain the functional
capability of all range improvements.
IMPACTS ON VEGETATION
Each component of the proposed action and the alternatives is expected to
have an impact on the vigor and reproduction of the key species (Table 1-1).
Actions which enhance a species' vigor and reproduction cause an increase in
the number and size of that species in a plant community. Conversely, if the
action adversely affects a plant's vigor and reproduction, the species
affected will decrease in number and size in the plant community. (Through¬
out this section, this occurrence will be referred to as increase or decrease
in composition.) For purpose of analysis, it is assumed that available
nutrients, primarily water, are now essentially fully utilized by the present
vegetation. Consequently, any increase in the amount of the key species
would result in a similar but opposite change in the amount of some other
herbaceous species. However, no significant reduction of woody species is
expected. A decrease in key grass species would result in an increase in
woody species such as sagebrush and herbaceous species such as cheatgrass.
Changes in other vegetative characteristics such as forage production, range
condition and trend, residual ground cover, as well as riparian vegetation
and threatened or endangered plants, are dependent upon composition changes.
Consequently, discussion of general changes in composition expected from each
component of the proposed action and each alternative will precede the
analysis of impacts to the above characteristics. A summary of the impacts
to characteristics is shown in Table 3-1.
Impacts to the seven major vegetation types will not be discussed separately
by group because the plants most affected by the proposed action and the
alternatives are found in a greater or lesser extent in almost every vegeta¬
tion type. Consequently, the expected changes in key species would occur in
nearly every vegetation type although in somewhat different proportions
depending upon the present composition and potential of the site and the
actions being proposed.
In general, composition changes in the mountain shrub conifer and juniper
vegetation types are not expected to be significant except where juniper
control is proposed.
3-2
Table 3-1
Long-term Vegetation Impact Assessment
Veget at ive
Characteristic
Existing
Situation
Proposed
Act ion
Alt. 1
No
Act ion
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imi ze
Livestock
Alt. 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Opt imize
Range Condition (Acres)
ucnsr
Good
Fair
Poor
No Data U
596,154
1,773,713
738,970
95,345
2,082,920
517,130
508,996
95,136
839,877
1,061,691
1,207,345
95,269
2,023,007
347,481
738,970
94,724
2,511,735
439,088
158,091
95,268
1,727,446
810,839
570,761
95,136
2,087,828
513,819
507,712
94,823
Range Trend (Acres)
Upward
St at ic
Downward
No Data
1,533,458
1,416,306
116,782
137,636
2,770,354
297,178
136,650
0
923,357
786,134
1,494,691
0
3,204,182
0
0
0
2,770,234
297,198
136,750
0
2,130,605
988,714
84,863
0
2,779,558
292,500
132,124
0
Residual Ground Cover (Acres)
Increas ing
St at ic
Decreasing
No Data
0
0
0
3,204,182
1,815,970
1,212,054
133,402
42,748
0
3,161,434
0
42,748
3,199,436
4,740
0
0
1,849,048
1,179,755
132,631
42,748
1,136,270
1,893,346
131,818
42,748
2,493,727
661,293
6,414
42,748
Forage Production (AUMs)
183,187
248,022
183,187
183,187
384,621
231,217
248,011
Riparian Vegetation Trend (Acres)
Improving
St at ic
Declining
No Data
0
0
0
694
568
89
2
35
409
122
128
35
660
0
0
34
506
118
35
35
568
89
2
35
657
0
2
35
1/ Acreage classified no data varies
by alternat
ive due to
the differences
in acreage
under exclusion
Vegetation Composition
This section analyzes the expected changes in plant composition within the
allotments proposed for intensive management. Because these changes are
caused by the three components of the proposed action and alternatives
(vegetation allocation, grazing systems and range improvements), a brief
description of each component precedes the impact assessment.
The following analysis identifies the general changes in composition of the
key species that are expected to result from the component of the proposed
action and each alternative. (See Table 1-1 for components by alternative.)
Since significant composition changes usually take several years, the follow¬
ing analysis is confined to a discussion of long-term impacts.
Estimates of changes in composition of desirable species were based upon
observations by district personnel, professional judgment, analysis of
similar systems elsewhere and cited studies. Much of this information is
believed to be applicable since it concerns similar actions and plant
communities .
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems
The vegetation allocation (Appendix B, Tables B-l and B-4) inherent in the
proposed action and the alternatives determines the degree of utilization of
the key species.
The vegetation allocation for all but Alternative 1 would result in forage
use being equal to or less than the present forage production. Utilization
of the key species except in Alternative 1 would be equal to or less than the
proposed action. Under Alternative 1, heavy utilization of the key species
would continue on 10 allotments. (See Appendix B, Table B-l for these allot¬
ments where a significant livestock reduction (10 percent or greater) is
scheduled . )
Under the proposed action and Alternatives 3 and 5, the current grazing
system would change on 1,753,706 acres or about 55 percent of the area.
Alternative 4 would result in grazing system changes on 1,038,644 acres.
Alternative 2 would result in the entire area being excluded from grazing;
impacts to vegetative composition are therefore discussed in the Exclusion
and Restrictive Use section.
Winter Grazing System
The winter grazing system would allow heavy (65 percent) utilization of the
previous season's growth. Herbaceous plants are in a state of dormancy at
this time with all of the food reserves stored in the roots. Livestock would
be removed prior to the plant initiating growth in early spring.
Grazing during this season favors reproduct ion and seedling establishment
because livestock trample litter and scatter seed further from water
developments than summer grazing.
3-4
Conclusion
Winter grazing would increase herbaceous key species composition on 311,010
acres under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Alternative 1
would result in similar increases on 328,543 acres. No riparian areas are
within areas proposed for winter grazing.
Spring Grazing System
Spring grazing would result in moderate utilization (50 percent) of a
combination of the previous season's growth and. the current season's early
growth of herbaceous key species. Livestock are removed while the plants are
still growing; therefore, only 20-30 percent of the current season's growth
is removed. The time the area is in a grazed condition is the shortest of
any grazing system since regrowth is almost complete by June 30, approxi¬
mately 45 days after livestock removal.
Grazing during this period requires plants to draw heavily upon food reserves
to replace the grazed portions. However, grazing would cease while adequate
soil moisture is still available for the grazed plants to reach full growth,
produce seed and fully replenish food reserves. Consequently, this form of
grazing is expected to promote the vigor of both herbaceous and woody key
species (Stoddart, Smith and Box 1975, p. 133; Cook 1971). This system would
enhance the production of perennial grasses since production of a large
number of viable seed is dependent upon vigorous mature plants (Hanson 1940).
Seedling establishment would depend upon the intensity of grazing in the
spring following germination. If seedling plants are not physically damaged J
through trampling or being pulled up, they would normally be firmly
established by the start of the third growing season (Stoddart, Smith and Box
1975, p. 483).
Cone lus ion
The composition of herbaceous key species would increase on 144,602 acres
under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Similar increases are
expected on 100,355 acres under Alternative 1. No riparian areas would be
within a spring grazing system under the proposed action and Alternatives 4
and 5, 3 acres of riparian vegetation would have increases in key species
under Alternatives 1 and 3.
Spring/Summer Grazing System
Spring /summer grazing would allow 50 percent utilization of the annual
production of key species during the late spring and summer each year.
Grazing would begin each year at a time when carbohydrate reserves are low
and would continue until after seedripe.
Although the proposed stocking rates would achieve 50 percent utilization on
most areas, factors such as terrain, location of fences and water, type of
livestock and the type of vegetation would often result in heavy grazing
(60-80 percent of the annual vegetation production) in one portion of an
3-5
allotment and light use (20-40 percent) in another area. A rapid decrease in
key species composition is expected on those areas within an allotment which
receive heavy utilization — primarily areas adjacent to water developments
and valley bottoms. Spring/summer grazing at the Squaw Butte Experiment
Station (approximately 50 miles north of the EIS area) resulted in heavy
utilization of 37 percent of the range; over an 11 year period, this produced
change in species composition toward dominance by less desirable bunchgrasses
such as Sandberg bluegrass. Cook (1971) showed in studies of the grazing
response of cool season perennial bunchgrasses that 50 percent utilization
was too severe for continuous late spring and summer use. The two species of
grasses in the study correspond in stages of vegetative growth to the key
bunchgrasses in the EIS area.
Cone lus ion
Approximately 60 percent of the area under spring/summer grazing would have
decreases in herbaceous key species composition. This would occur on 931,424
acres under Alternative 1; 81,990 acres under the proposed action and
Alternative 3; 79,274 acres under Alternative 5; and 50,918 acres under
Alternative 4. Declines in herbaceous and woody key species would occur on
124 acres of riparian vegetation under Alternative 1 and on about 2 acres
under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Key wetland species
such as meadow grasses would decrease on portions of 7,901 acres proposed for
spring/summer use under Alternative 1 and about 319 acres under the proposed
action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5.
Spring/Fall Grazing System
Spring/fall grazing would result in utilization of the herbaceous key species
during the early portion of their growing period. Very little use of the
woody key species is expected during this time. Grazing would occur again in
the fall when herbaceous key species are dormant; however, moderate
utilization of woody key species would be expected. This system would
maintain the vigor and reproduction of the herbaceous key species. Woody key
species would decrease slowly in composition because stocking rates would be
based upon 50 percent utilization of herbaceous species but utilization of
the more palatable woody species during the fall season is expected to be
heavier.
Cone lus ion
The spring/fall grazing system would allow maintenance of the existing
composition of herbaceous key species and woody key species on 21,237 acres
under Alternative 1 and on 12,991 acres under the proposed action and
Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Under Alternatives 1 and 3 approximately 30 acres
of riparian vegetation would be grazed under the Spring/fall system. Woody
vegetation is expected to decrease in these areas.
Deferred Grazing System
The deferred system would result in grazing after most of the herbaceous key
species have completed growth. Moderate utilization (60 percent) of shrubs
3-6
encourages growth of additional twigs and therefore increases forage produc¬
tion. Reproductive capacity, on the other hand, is decreased over the years,
since increased twig growth reduces the development of flowers and fruits
(Garrison 1953 Cited by Stoddart, Smith and Box 1975, p. 135). Where woody
key species are found in limited numbers, some individual shrubs would be
selected by cattle and heavily browsed, resulting in reduced vigor and
eventual death of these plants; however, the total shrub mortality is
expected to be insignificant. The critical growth period for woody key
species occurs in late summer.
Livestock normally concentrate in riparian areas under deferred grazing.
Livestock use of the riparian areas under deferred grazing is expected to be
light or moderate in several areas due to factors such as inaccessibility
(e.g. Guano Creek) and lack of adequate shade and water on adjacent upland
areas (e.g., Deep Creek). Some areas under Alternatives 1 and 3 would be
heavily grazed.
Cone lus ion
Deferred grazing is expected to increase the composition of the key herba¬
ceous species on 89,669 acres under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4
and 5. Alternative 1 would result in a similar increase on 96,956 acres, ’in
riparian areas, the proposed action and Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 would result
m maintenance of woody key species on 89 acres. Deferred grazing with heavy
utilization under Alternatives 1 and 3 would decrease woody riparian vegeta¬
tion on 4 acres and 32 acres respectively.
Deferred Rotation Grazing System
Under the deferred rotation grazing system, grazing use during the critical
growing period would be alternated with grazing during early spring or late
summer/fall in successive years. The early spring grazing would end early
enough to give most herbaceous key species an opportunity to replenish food
reserves and maintain good vigor. The late summer grazing would occur after
food reserves of the key species have been stored. As a result, the vigor of
the key species would be maintained at an acceptable level.
Reproduction of woody key species would not be improved because the sequence
of grazing treatments does not provide sufficient protection from grazing to
allow seed production and seedling establishment. No areas of riparian vege¬
tation are located within the areas proposed for deferred rotation grazing.
Conclusion
Deferred rotation grazing would result in the maintenance of the existing key
species composition on 169,205 acres under the proposed action and Alterna¬
tives 3 and 5. Similar results are expected on 145,679 acres under
Alternative 4 and on 17,958 acres under Alternative 1.
3-7
Rotation Grazing System
Rotation grazing results in the key species being grazed during part of the
growing season every year. This system would result in grazing during the
critical growing period being alternated with early spring grazing the
following year. The early spring grazing would end in time for the key
species to replenish food reserves (see Spring Grazing System). As a result,
the decline in vigor caused by use during the critical part of the growing
season is somewhat offset by early grazing in alternate years.
Since utilization levels would be moderate (50 percent), the rotation grazing
system is expected to only slightly enhance the reproduction of the herba¬
ceous key species on native range because every pasture is grazed each year.
Many new seedlings would be grazed or pulled up before becoming established.
Woody key species would improve in vigor and reproduction because they are
normally not grazed by livestock during the spring and early summer (Vavra
and Sneva 1978) .
Conclusion
As a result of the rotation grazing system, an increase in composition of
woody key species would occur on 7 acres of riparian vegetation under the
proposed action and Alternatives 3 and 4. On the remaining vegetation types,
the current herbaceous key species composition would be maintained on 72,234
acres under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, and on 960 acres
under Alternative 1.
Rest Rotation Grazing System
Rest rotation grazing results in moderate (60 percent) utilization of key
species in the use pasture. Most of the use occurs during the growing
season. Approximately 25-33 percent of the area is completely rested from
grazing each year. The need for periodic complete rest from grazing arises
from the fact that even at proper stocking rates, continuous grazing usually
results in utilization of the most palatable plants beyond the proper use
level. The heaviest use usually occurs on the most accessible areas result¬
ing in a decline in the key species composition. Hormay (1970) states that
these species can be maintained by periodically resting the range from use by
means of rest rotation grazing systems. Rest periods allow the plants to
complete the stages of vegetative growth, seed production and food storage.
In addition, it provides for seedling establishment and allows litter to
accumulate. Rest rotation would allow flexibility in livestock management
during periods of drought.
Photo studies in three allotments (207, 215 and 515) indicate that rest
rotation grazing increased the utilization of less desirable plant species
thereby reducing the total removal of key species during the period of use.
This results in less competition for moisture and nutrients between key
species and other plants. In Wyoming, a 10 percent reduction in utilization
of key species occurred on wet and dry bottom land after implementation of
rest rotation grazing (Johnson, W.M. 1965, Cited in Hickey 1966), leading to
3-8
an improvement in key species vigor. In the Lakeview District, a comparison
of the range conditions in allotments under rest rotation management with
conditions; in allotments under other systems showed that conditions were
significantly better on the allotments under rest rotation. Approximately 26
percent of the acres in the rest rotation system were rated good condition
while about 15 percent of the acres under all other systems were in good
condition.
Conclusion
Rest rotation grazing would result in significant increases in key species
composition on 2,208,471 acres under the proposed action; 2,209,177 under
Alternative 3; 2,145,809 acres under Alternative 5; 1,673,912 acres under
Alternative 4, and 633,486 acres under Alternative 1. A slight improvement
in key species composition would occur on 352 acres of riparian vegetation
under the proposed action and Alternative 4; 418 acres under Alternative 3;
321 acres under Alternative 1; and 90 acres under Alternative 5. Following
implementation of rest rotation grazing, increases in key species would occur
on portions of 9,122 acres of wetland vegetation under the proposed action
and Alternative 4; 9,935 acres under Alternative 3; 2,235 acres under
Alternative 1; and 1,760 acres under Alternative 5.
Exclusion and Restrictive Use
Exclusion consists of no authorized livestock grazing use. All public lands
within the EIS area would be excluded under Alternative 2. Under the
proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, small areas containing riparian
vegetation would be excluded from livestock grazing (see Table 1-2). The
implementation of Alternative 4 would result in the additional exclusion of
livestock from the two wild horse herd management areas shown in Figure 2-5.
Consumptive uses by wild horses and wildlife would continue within the
exclusion areas where they now occur.
There would be an initial improvement in vigor of herbaceous key species in
exclusion areas because the reduced level of utilization would allow most key
species to complete vegetative growth and reproduction. No significant
increases in key species composition are expected in areas dominated by poor
condition stands of sagebrush or on vegetation types such as greasewood which
have a low potential for herbaceous key species improvement. Studies in
higher precipitation zones (Owensby 1973) have indicated that as much as 40
years of complete rest would be required for range in poor condition to fully
recover. Following evaluation of sagebrush-grass vegetation excluded from
grazing for 23 years, Tueller (1960) concluded that no significant improve¬
ment in key species composition would occur due to exclusion alone. He
determined that supplementary treatment would be necessary to increase the
composition of key species on poor condition ranges.
Under Alternative 4, the annual consumption of approximately 24,000 AUMs --
much of it during the critical growing season by wild horses would prevent
key species increases from occurring within the two herd management areas,
offsetting any benefits expected from livestock exclusion. Herbaceous key
3-9
species would decrease in areas of concentration such as waterholes and
spring sites. One large area of exclusion in Allotment 103 (Fossil Lake
Exclusion) would result in significant increases in herbaceous species on
6,560 acres.
Exclusion of livestock would occur for a period of 3-5 years on 1,732 acres
under the proposed action and Alternative 4. This would allow the key
species, particularly those in the riparian areas, to increase in composi¬
tion. Key wetland species such as meadow grasses and sedges would increase
on about 855 acres during the period of exclusion. Upon resumption of
livestock grazing, management at the proposed levels of utilization would
maintain the improved species composition in these areas.
The impact of exclusion to riparian key species is discussed under the Impact
to Riparian Vegetation section.
Conclusion
Under Alternative 2, key species composition would initially increase
throughout the EIS area; however, the change would be insignificant on ranges
in poor condition. Under the other alternatives, exclusion would impact
primarily riparian vegetation and vegetation associated with wetlands. Key
species increases are expected on 129 acres under the proposed action and
Alternative 4; 565 acres under Alternative 5; 661 acres under Alternative 2;
77 acres under Alternative 3; and 76 acres under Alternative 1. Meadow type
vegetation would improve on portions of 9,330 acres proposed for exclusion
under Alternative 5; 12,516 acres under Alternative 2; 785 acres under the
proposed action and Alternative 4; and 745 acres under Alternatives 1 and 3.
Range Improvements
The removal of vegetation inherent in completion of the range improvements
(Appendix B, Table B— 5) would cause both a temporary (1-5 years) and perman¬
ent (over 5 years) change in composition of the key species as shown in Table
3-2 .
Table 3-2 Acres of Vegetation Disturbance Due to Range Improvements 1/
Water
Veget at ion
Developments 2/
Fences
Manipulation 3/
Temp .
Perm.
Temp .
Perm.
Temp .
Perm. 4/
Prop.
, Action
2,159
1,650
214
0
252,357
252,357
Alt .
3
3,032
2,353
215
0
1,284,659
1,284,659
Alt .
4
1,859
1,433
320
0
176,757
176,757
Alt .
5
2,159
1,650
614
0
252,767
252,767
U
u
V
4/
No range
Inc ludes
Inc ludes
Consists
improvements are proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2.
springs, reservoirs, wells, pipelines and waterholes.
juniper control, brush control and seeding,
of long-term changes in species composition.
3-10
Vegetation manipulation is proposed primarily on poor condition low sagebrush
and big sagebrush vegetation types where significant improvement would
require more than 10-15 years using grazing management alone. The acreage of
vegetation disturbance shown in Table 3—2 for vegetation manipulation
represents a conversion of approximately 55 percent of the sagebrush types
under Alternative 3; 11 percent under the proposed action and Alternative 5;
and 7 percent under Alternative 4.
The expected species composition of the treated area would depend primarily
on the proposed method of brush control and whether the area would be seeded.
Crested wheatgrass along with other suitable species would be seeded on
362,948 acres under Alternative 3; 189,499 acres under the proposed action
and Alternative 5; and 144,729 acres under Alternative 4. Based on observa¬
tions of existing seedings in the EIS area and studies of similar areas in
Oregon (Findley 1974), crested wheatgrass would compose 50-90 percent of the
seeded area but species composition would vary according to the success of
the brush control and the survival of other species in the seed mixture. (See
Appendix B, Table B-3 for a list of allotments which would have shrubs
included in the seed mixture.)
Sagebrush would be temporarily eliminated from the areas proposed for burning
(Appendix B, Table B-3) because sagebrush does not resprout following fire;
however, reestablishment on those sites not proposed for reseeding is
expected after a period of 30 years (Harniss 1973). If undesirable sprouting
shrubs such as rabbitbrush and horsebrush are present in the plant community,
burning may result in large increases in these species at the expense of more
palatable species (Blaisdell 1953). The effect of burning on perennial
bunchgrasses varies with the intensity of the fire, season of the burn and
the species of grass. Sandberg bluegrass, junegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass
and squirre It ai 1 , where present, would increase on areas proposed for
burning. Since Thurber need legr ass and Idaho fescue have been shown in some
studies to be significantly damaged by burning (Britton 1978), the amounts of
these species would be temporarily reduced in the burned areas. Several
studies in Idaho indicate that fall burning does not harm most forb species
(Britton 1978). Spring burning on Forest Service lands near the EIS area
significantly improved the vigor of forb species (Adams 1980).
The proposed spraying of 2,4-D for brush control would temporarily reduce
sagebrush in the treated areas (Appendix B, Table B— 3). Spraying would be in
accordance with the standard procedures and design elements described in
Chapter 1. Increases in native bunchgrass production of more than 200
percent have been shown to occur following spraying of sagebrush with 2,4-D
(Hyatt 1966). Annual forbs such as mustards would increase, while perennial
forbs such as lupine and buckwheat would decrease following spraying.
Muegler and Blaisdell (1958) showed about a 30 percent increase in total forb
production several years following spraying of sagebrush.
Following treatment, seeded areas would be dominated by crested wheatgrass.
Some forbs and sagebrush would be present depending upon the design of the
spray project, the success of the control, the seeding mixture, the
3-11
reestablishment of sagebrush seedlings in the first 2 years after treatment
and the following year's precipitation.
The proposed juniper control would significantly reduce the composition of
western juniper on 2,320 acres under the proposed action and Alternatives 4
and 5 and 3,070 acres under Alternative 3. Increases in key shrub and
herbaceous species composition would occur within the treated areas as a
result of the reduced competition.
Some of the new spring developments would cause a major change in species
composition in riparian areas. As springs are developed, water previously
supporting small areas of riparian vegetation would be diverted to livestock
water troughs. Fencing would protect any remaining vegetation on the over¬
flow areas. Over the long term, more riparian vegetation would be protected
by fencing than would be lost through spring development.
The construction of water developments would have a localized impact on the
vegetation around each development. Livestock tend to congregate around
water, eating all the available forage in the immediate vicinity. The
development of new water sources would also allow livestock to use an
unquantified amount of previously unavailable forage and thus would reduce
grazing pressure on areas near existing water sources. The new water areas
would lead to more uniform livestock grazing use and result in fewer heavily
grazed acres. Thus, water developments combined with grazing systems would
promote an increase in the composition of the key species.
Residual Ground Cover
The estimated changes in residual ground cover (see Glossary) shown in Table
3-1, Summary of Impacts to Vegetation, are based on expected changes in
livestock utilization, key species composition and total herbage production.
The lower levels of utilization on allotments where downward adjustments are
proposed (see Appendix B, Table B-l) would increase the amount of vegetative
cover remaining after livestock grazing is completed. Upward adjustments in
livestock use would result in higher levels of utilization and proportional
decreases in residual ground cover.
Rest rotation, deferred, winter or spring grazing systems and livestock
exclusion would all result in improved key species vigor with an increase in
fibrous-rooted perennial herbaceous species and increases in total herbage
produced. Perennial species provide more year around cover than annuals
because there is less year-to-year variation in production and most of the
plant material remains intact throughout the fall and winter. Annuals, how¬
ever, are subject to large year-to-year fluctuations in production. Herbage
production decreases associated with spring/summer grazing (see Forage
Production) would result in proportional decreases in the amount of residual
ground cover. Exclusion would result in decreases in live vegetative cover
but an increase in standing dead material and litter, hence an increase in
residual gound cover.
3-12
Vegetation manipulation projects which would reduce short-term herbage
production would also produce short-term decreases in live vegetative cover.
However, a long-term increase in residual ground cover would result. The
largest short-term reduction of residual ground cover would occur on the
areas using burning for the proposed method of brush control (See Appendix B,
Table B-3) because undecomposed litter would be consumed by the fire.
No significant change in wildfire occurrence is expected by the projected
changes in residual ground cover. Although more vegetation would remain
after grazing, a larger portion of the total vegetation would be composed of
perennial key species and less would be sagebrush and annual plants.
Perennials remain green longer than annuals and are not as susceptible to
fire as sagebrush overs tory/annual understory areas. An analysis of fire
occurrence records covering a period before and after livestock reductions
indicated that climate conditions and other factors such as access, type of
ftghting equipment and human activities were the primary factors in the
number and size of wildfires.
Range Condition and Trend
The future range condition of the study area is highly dependent upon the
changes in vegetation characteristics described in the previous section. As
key species composition and residual ground cover increases, range conditions
will improve. Expected range conditions over the long term are shown in
Table 3-1, Summary of Impacts to Vegetation.
Expected long-term changes in range condition and trend are based on several
assumptions which are derived from observations of district personnel, study
data, review of pertinent literature and professional judgment. See Appendix
E for methodology. The assumptions used to predict future range condition
include the following:
~ Grazing systems which satisfy the physiological requirements of plants for
growth and reproduction (see Grazing Systems) would improve fair condition
range to good condition. Although some improvement of poor condition
range can be expected, the rate of improvement is much slower than better
condition range. Studies by McLean and Tisdale (1972) and Owensby (1973)
showed that at least 20, and as much as 40, years of rest would be
required for poor condition range to completely recover. Under moderate
use, a similar period of time would be expected for these areas to improve
enough to be rated one condition class higher.
- Poor condition ranges proposed for vegetation manipulation would improve
to good condition over the long term. These areas would have significant
increases in key species composition and residual ground cover.
- Good condition ranges which would increase in key species and vegetative
cover would remain classified in good condition.
“ No significant changes would occur to the juniper, greasewood, rabbit¬
brush and miscellaneous vegetation types unless they are treated. These
3-13
areas generally have a sparse understory and have a low potential for
increases in cover and key species composition.
Under complete exclusion, all areas would be in good condition over the
long term.
Forage Production
Forage production is highly dependent upon the composition of the key species
and is thus also related to range condition. This relationship is due to the
key species being the preferred forage species. When key species increase
under proper grazing management, forage production also increases; vice
vers_a, as the key species composition decreases, forage production also
declines. Although the grazing exclusion proposed under Alternative 2 would
result in key species increases, forage production is not expected to
increase because of the effect of vegetation stagnation. In Nevada, Tueller
(1979) found that bitterbrush and sagebrush yields declined by 70 percent and
36 percent, respectively, as a result of total grazing exclusion. Grazing
stimulates lateral branching of shrubs and, by removing the coarse material
of perennial grasses, promotes production of fine-stemmed forage in the
spring.
The future forage production as outlined on Tables 1-5 and 3-1 was predicted
using the methodology outlined in Appendix C. The future forage production
of both the seeded and native range areas was based upon the present
production of areas which had similar treatments.
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
The riparian key species are mostly woody species. Impacts to vegetation in
the riparian areas are largely based upon the projected effect on the woody
vegetation. If the woody species are allowed to increase, the remaining
herbaceous species also would benefit. Inpacts to wetland vegetation are
based mainly upon the projected effect on sedges and meadow grasses.
Livestock exclusion would be beneficial to the woody key species. Exclusion
provides an opportunity to maintain vigor and sufficient time for establish¬
ment of seedlings and new sprouts. Therefore, an increase in composition of
key species is expected on the areas where this system is proposed.
Increases in woody key species would occur in the riparian areas under rest
rotation, spring and rotation grazing management. Very little change in
composition of the woody key species would be expected on the areas under
deferred grazing where utilization is light and moderate. A decrease in
composition of these key species is expected on the areas where the spring/
summer and spring/fall systems would be used and on the areas which would be
heavily grazed under the deferred system. Riparian vegetation does not occur
in areas proposed for winter and deferred rotation grazing systems. Restric¬
tive use under the proposed action and Alternative 4 would result in
significant increases on 80 acres of riparian vegetation. Table 3-1 shows
the acres where an increase, no change or decrease in riparian vegetation is
expected.
3-14
The maximum benefit to wetland species composition would occur under rest
rotation and exclusion. Spring/summer grazing would reduce herbaceous key
species m the wetland vegetation type. (See Table 3-6 for acres of wetland
vegetation by grazing system.) Impacts to wetland vegetation are also
described under Vegetation, Grazing Systems section.
f the proposed range improvements, only spring development would have a
direct impact on the riparian vegetation. These projects would cause
isturbance of up to 8 acres of riparian vegetation. However, in the long
term, fencing of spring developments and the subsequent exclusion of grazing
within the fenced areas would increase the composition and production of the
key species in the riparian area. (See analysis of spring developments in
Impacts to Vegetation Composition, Range Improvements.)
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants
Site specific information concerning the impact of current livestock grazing
is lacking for the 10 plant species under review for Federal listing as
threatened or endangered status shown in Table 2-3 and the 13 plants classi¬
fied as sensitive by BLM; therefore, the impact of proposed changes in
livestock management cannot be accurately predicted. Adverse impacts due to
vegetation manipulation and range improvement construction would be avoided
by conducting intensive plant inventories of the project area and modifying
the design as needed in accordance with Bureau policy (Chapter 1). A
potentially beneficial impact to populations of Eriogonum prociduum located
m Allotment 1307 would occur under all the alternatives except Alternative
1. Livestock would be excluded from this allotment under the other alterna¬
tives and the proposed action.
IMPACTS ON SOILS
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems
Under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, the proposed vegeta¬
tion allocation and grazing systems would increase protection of the soil
from erosion in the EIS area by increasing residual ground cover (vegetation
and litter accumulation). Under Alternative 2, ground cover (particularly
litter accumulation) would increase significantly, protecting the soil
surface from erosion. With the decrease in the amount of forage consumed by
livestock, more vegetation and litter would be left at the end of each graz¬
ing season. In the long term, perennial grasses would increase and annuals
would decrease (see Chapter 3, Vegetation, Residual Ground Cover, for
discussion). Perennial grasses have a more extensive root system to hold
soil in place and provide, on the average, more persistent ground cover than
annuals. Bailey and Copeland (1961 Cited by Mattison et al . 1977) found that
as vegetation and litter cover increased, overland flow of water and erosion
decreased. This protective cover would reduce soil movement, reduce raindrop
impact and decrease compaction, thus increasing infiltration into the soil.
Under Alternative 1, on allotments that are overstocked, soil erosion would
increase. Erosion would decrease on allotments with proper stocking rates.
Erosion would remain the same or increase slightly on wild horse herd manage¬
ment areas under Alternative 4, due to continuous use by wild horses.
3-13
Erosion would continue to be greater on the Sandy and Ashey soils and to a
lesser extent, Basin Land and Terrace soils, than on the Volcanic, Very
Shallow and Very Stony, Poorly Drained and Alkali Affected soils for the
proposed action and all alternatives, although the total amount of erosion
would be reduced.
Approximately 9.2 miles of streambanks under the proposed action and Alterna¬
tive 4, 31.1 miles under Alternative 1, 16.4 miles under Alternative 3 and
1.7 miles under Alternative 5 would continue to erode at present rates on
allotments with Federal range fenced, spring/summer, spring/fall, and
deferred grazing systems.
On allotments with spring, rotation and rest rotation grazing systems,
streambank erosion would decrease slightly on 44.1 miles under the proposed
action and Alternative 4, 49.4 miles under Alternative 1, 63.9 miles under
Alternative 3 and 3.7 miles under Alternative 5. These grazing systems would
allow riparian vegetation to increase slowly and help stabilize streambanks.
The elimination of livestock grazing in Alternative 2 and the exclusion of
livestock along 25.5 miles of perennial streams under the proposed action and
Alternative 4, 15.2 miles under Alternative 1, 15.4 miles under Alternative 3
and 90.4 miles under Alternative 5 would greatly reduce streambank erosion.
The expected increase in riparian vegetation along the protected streams
would help stabilize the streambanks. Streambank erosion would also decrease
along 16.9 miles proposed for restrictive use under the proposed action and
on 6.5 miles presently inaccessible to livestock under the proposed action
and all alternatives.
Range Improvements
The construction of range improvements under the proposed action and
Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would temporarily disturb the soil surface (see Table
3-3). The disturbance would subject those acres to wind and water erosion.
This impact would lessen as the areas became revegetated in 1 to 2 years.
Livestock would concentrate around the proposed reservoirs, springs and
waterholes. Approximately 5 acres around each of the proposed watering sites
would be heavily grazed. Residual ground cover would thus decrease on 1,500
acres under the proposed action and Alternative 5, on 2,130 acres under
Alternative 3, and on 1,290 acres under Alternative 4, thereby increasing
erosion. Erosion would increase along some new fence lines due to trailing
by livestock under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5.
Of the areas proposed for vegetation manipulation, erosion would not increase
on the acres proposed for spraying. The dead vegetation would help protect
the soil surface from erosion. Burning and chaining, however, would remove
much of the existing vegetation and expose the soil to wind and water
erosion. Wind erosion would occur to the greatest extent on Sandy and Ashey
soils where burning is proposed. The allotments with the most acres affected
would be Allotments 103, 512, 515, 516, 600, 705, 901 and 1001. Burning
would occur on 5,760 acres of Sandy and Ashey soils under the proposed
3-16
3-17
Table 3-3 Soil Disturbance by Proposed Range Improvements ^
Range Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Improvements
Proposed
Act ion
Opt imize
Livestock
Opt imi ze
Wild Horses
Optimize Other
(Acres )
(Acres
)
(Ac
res )
(Acres )
Units
Temp.
Perm.
Units
Temp. Perm.
Units
Temp.
Perm.
Units
Temp.
Perm.
Fences
427.7 mi.
21.4
0
429.7
mi .
21.5
0
319.7
mi .
16.0
0
613.7
mi .
30.7
0
Springs
18 ea.
4.5
0
32
ea.
8.0
0
18
ea.
4.5
0
18
ea.
4.5
0
Wells
28 ea.
7.0
0
42
ea.
10.5
0
27
ea.
6.8
0
28
ea.
7.0
0
Pipelines
103 . 8 mi .
207.6
10.4
129.8
mi .
259.6
13.0
83.8
mi .
167.6
8.4
103.8
mi .
207.6
10.4
Guzzlers
71 ea.
7.1
0
71
ea.
7.1
0
71
ea.
7.1
0
71
ea.
7.1
0
Reservoirs
OJ
1 Waterholes
147 ea.
147
73.5
249
ea.
249
124.5
105
ea.
105
52.5
147
ea.
147
73.5
135 ea.
135
67.5
145
ea.
145
72.5
135
ea.
135
67.5
135
ea.
135
67.5
Spray/Seed
110,618
ac .
110,618
0
344,653
ac .
344,653
0
80,218
ac .
80,218
0
74,356
ac .
44,356
0
Burn/ Seed
84,730
ac .
84,730
0
194,673
ac .
194,673
0
72,530
ac .
72,530
0
150,992
ac .
150,992
0
Chain/Seed
7,520
ac .
7,520
0
26,490
ac .
26,490
0
5,760
ac .
5,760
0
7,520
ac .
7,520
0
Brush Control/
Spray
33,320
ac .
0
0
778,560
ac .
0
0
11,320
ac .
0
0
0
ac .
0
0
Brush Control/
Burn
28,323
ac .
28,323
0
226,919
ac .
226,919
0
19,083
ac .
19,083
0
61,643
ac .
61,643
0
Brush Control/
Chain
105
ac .
105
0
210
ac .
210
0
105
ac .
105
0
105
ac .
105
0
Juniper Control
1,870
ac .
1,870
0
4,940
ac .
1,870
0
1,870
ac .
1,870
0
1,870
ac .
1,870
0
233,695.6
151.4
795,515.7
210.0
180,008.0
128.4
297,024.9
151
J_/ There would be no range improvements constructed under Alternatives 1 and 2.
action, 12,000 acres under Alternative 3, 3,560 acres under Alternative 4 and
10,560 acres under Alternative 5. The disturbed areas would be revegetated
within 1 to 2 years. In the long term, erosion from vegetation manipulation
would decrease due to the increase in vegetative ground cover.
No range improvements are proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2.
IMPACT ON WATER RESOURCES
Water Quantity
A number of studies (Rauzi and Hanson 1966; Alderfer and Robinson 1974;
Hanson et al. 1972) have shown that heavily grazed areas and areas in poor
range condition produce more runoff than lightly and moderately grazed areas
and those in good range condition. However, most of these studies were done
on the effects of grazing on runoff from rainfall. Most of the annual runoff
on sagebrush watersheds, such as in the Lakeview EIS area, occurs during the
snowmelt period (Sturges 1978), and thus occurs over frozen soils. Soil
compaction by livestock, therefore, may not be important since the runoff is
not controlled by the rate of infiltration of water into the soil. The
decrease in grazing intensity and expected improvment in range condition
under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 is not expected to
significantly affect runoff. Runoff is also not expected to change
significantly under Alternative 1. Elimination of livestock grazing under
Alternative 2 would lead to an increase in residual ground cover. An
increase in cover causes an increase in surface roughness, and a reduction in
the velocity of overland flow and detachment of soil. This would increase
infiltration during rainfall, thus decreasing runoff slightly.
Less water would also reach downstream users due to the construction of
reservoirs under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Since each
reservoir would hold approximately 1.0 acre-feet (ac-ft) the total impound¬
ment would be 147 ac-ft/year under the proposed action and Alternative 5, 249
ac-ft/year under Alternative 3 and 105 ac-ft/year under Alternative 4. The
total impoundment would be less than 0.1 percent of the annual runoff from
public lands in the EIS area. No reservoirs are proposed under Alternatives
1 and 2. Construction of waterholes would not affect downstream use since
waterholes are built in dry lakebeds that are sinks for small
internally-drained watersheds.
There are five wells proposed within the Fort Rock-Chr istmas Valley area.
Significant quantities of ground water would not be withdrawn from these
wells (approximately 35 ac-ft/year). The amount of groundwater withdrawn
from the remaining proposed wells would not significantly impact the
resource. No wells are proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Water Quality
Chemical constituents are not likely to change since the chemical composition
depends on the source of the water and the geological substrate. Most fecal
coliform degradation of water quality from livestock comes from use in or
3-18
directly adjacent to streams (Johnson et al . 1978; Robbins 1978). Fencing
25.5 miles of streams in riparian areas under the proposed action and
lternative 4 and 90.4 miles under Alternative 5 would remove livestock
concentration along perennial streams and thus decrease fecal coliform from
livestock. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, fecal coliform levels would remain
the same as the present situation. Under Alternative 2, fecal coliform from
livestock would be eliminated.
The herbicide 2,4-D would be sprayed on 143,938 acres under the proposed
action, 979,275 acres under Alternative 3, 91,538 acres under Alternative 4
and 44,356 acres under Alternative 5. Herbicides can enter streams by one or
more of the following methods: leaching or subsurface flow of water, overland
flow of water, direct application and drift on surface water (USDI, BLM
The herbicide 2,4 D is quickly adsorbed on the soil, so it is not readily
available for leaching. Afterward, it is degraded quickly by microbial
activity (Norris 1967 In USDI, BLM 1978). Also, less leaching would take
place on loamy and clayey soils than on sandy soils. Sandy soils mostly
occur m the northwest part of the EIS area, in an area with no perennial
streams.
The herbicide could enter streams by overland flow of water if a heavy rain
occurred soon after spraying. Abrahamson and Norris (1976) found that with
buffer strips along streams in western Oregon, maximum herbicide concentra¬
tions in the water were less than 0.01 ppm with residues detected for less
than one day after herbicide application. With a buffer strip 100 feet wide
on both sides of perennial streams and around other water sources there would
be a reduction in herbicide concentration in runoff water, which is filtered
as it moves over uncontaminated soil, since soil adsorbs the chemicals.
In western Oregon, nearly all herbicides found in streams resulted from
direct application of herbicides to the surface of water (USDI, BLM 1978).
The buffer strips around the perennial streams and other water sources
should prevent direct application or drift on to the streams. Most of the
proposed projects are located further than 100 feet away from perennial
streams.
No herbicides would be applied under Alternatives 1 and 2.
The construction of range improvements would temporarily increase the
existing sediment yield by less than 2 percent under the proposed action and
Alternatives 4 and 5, and by about 4.5 percent under Alternative 3. See
Appendix P for methodology. The disturbed acres are expected to become
revegetated within 1 to 2 years. After revegetation, sediment yields would
return to the previous undisturbed levels or lower, since residual ground
cover would increase. Reservoirs developed in alluvial soils (Soil Groupings
Basin Land and Terrace, Alkali Affected) could increase erosion and sediment
production because of these soils' erodible nature. Headcutting would occur
below the proposed reservoirs due to increased slope of the spillway.
3-19
In the long term, the increase in residual ground cover from vegetation
allocation, grazing systems and range improvements under the proposed action
and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would decrease the sediment yield in the area.
With the soil protected from erosion, less soil is detached and carried to
streams resulting in an improvement in water quality. Under Alternative 2,
residual ground cover would significantly increase, leading to larger
reductions in sediment yield. Under Alternative 1, sediment yield would
increase slightly within allotments that are presently overstocked.
The expected decrease in streambank erosion (see Impacts on Soils) would also
reduce sediment yield in streams from bank sloughing. The anticipated
increase in woody riparian vegetation would help shade streams and would lead
to decreases in water temperatures along the shaded sections.
IMPACTS TO WILD HORSES
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems
The proposed action and alternatives provide a vegetation allocation for the
maximum number of adult horses (based on average populations of about 80
percent adults and 20 percent colts), as shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Vegetation Allocation to Wild Horses
Herd Management
Plan Numbers 1/
Proposed
Act ion
No. 1
Alternat
No. 2 No. 3
ives
No. 4
No. 5
Paisley Desert
Minimum herd
60
60
60
20
350
20
Maximum herd
110
110
110
30
600
30
AUMs
1,020
0
1,020
360
7,200
360
Beatys Butte
Minimum herd
100
100
100
20
1,000
20
Maximum herd
250
250
250
30
1,500
30
AUMs
2,400
0
2,400
360
18,000
360
1/ The horses in the
Browns Valley
area
are proposed to
be relocated within
the Paisley Desert
Herd Management
Area under
the Paisley
Desert Herd
Management Plan.
•
The allocation of forage to planned levels of horses (except in Alternative
1) would decrease forage competition between horses and livestock under the
proposed action and Alternatives 3 and 5. The health and reproductive
capacity of the horses would be maintained or improved since adequate forage
would be allocated to the horses. Under Alternative 1, forage competition
would continue. In Alternative 4, eliminating livestock grazing and the
associated management activities would remove a major source of forage
competition and disturbance. Periodic removal of horses to maintain optimum
numbers would cause disturbances under the proposed action and all
3-20
alt ernat ives .
subsequent rs
remain viable.
Based on observations of past reductions of the herds and
subsequent rates of reproduction, the herd populations would be expected to
3 and 5
The proposed grazing systems in the proposed action and Alternatives
would cause about the same amount of disturbance from livestock operators
moving livestock as presently occurs under the existing grazing systems
(which would continue under Alternative 1). Grazing systems would not be in
effect under Alternatives 2 and 4.
Range Improvements
The design, construction and maintenance of range improvements under the
proposed action and Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in more people being in
the herd areas, temporarily disturbing the wild horses with increased
activity and noise. The 42 reservoirs proposed to be constructed in the
Beatys Butte herd area would be available to horses year-long and thus open
up areas of forage previously unavailable to horses because of long distances
from water. The 108 miles of fence to be constructed could cause injuries to
horses until the horses became accustomed to fence locations. The vegetative
manipulation projects would tend to attract horses, due to the abundance of
forage available.
No range improvements would be constructed in the herd management areas under
Alternatives 1 and 2. Under Alternative 4, 11 miles of fence with let-down
sections would be constructed in the Beatys Butte herd area in order to
rotate horses between three use areas.
IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
Impact analysis was based primarily on three considerations:
1. Condition and trend of habitat as based on visual observation of
district personnel and limited habitat inventory.
2. Potential of wildlife habitat to respond to a specific grazing system.
3. Predicted impacts to vegetation as they affect wildlife.
Wildlife populations have not been monitored to determine the impact of past
grazing systems and range improvements; therefore, predictions of population
changes are based on field observations and research. Impacts on wildlife
are summarized in Table 1-5.
An environmental change which reduces population size or carrying capacity is
an adverse impact to that species. Similarily, an environmental change which
increases populations or carrying capacity results in a beneficial impact.
An action which increases habitat diversity in an area would also increase
the numbers and kinds of wildlife. This analysis places emphasis on animals
and their habitats which would be significantly impacted.
Wildlife would experience both primary and secondary impacts. Primary
impacts affect wildlife populations directly. Some examples of primary
3-21
impacts are: avoidance of livestock by big game; deer and antelope fence
mortalities; nest disturbance or destruction from livestock trampling; animal
displacement from burning and seeding. Most primary impacts are not
discussed because they are believed to be insignificant in the long term.
Although individuals are lost, population trends are unaffected.
Secondary impacts affect wildlife populations indirectly by changing the
vegetation or wildlife habitat. Some examples are: loss of sagebrush cover
from herbicide spraying; increased nesting trees in riparian zones; siltation
of stream bottoms from exposed banks. These secondary impacts to wildlife
habitat have been found to be significant. Without the required habitat for
reproduction or for protection during severe winter weather, wildlife
populations will quickly decline.
Impacts to wildlife h_abitat are discussed first, followed by a conclusion
which estimates expected changes to wildlife populations.
Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas and Wetlands
Impacts in riparian areas and wetlands are significant because these areas
contain the greatest densities and varieties of species (Thomas et al . 1979).
Grazing systems, livestock exclusion and restrictive use would affect about
590 public riparian acres along 96 miles of stream (Table 3-5). Approxi¬
mately 12,700 acres of crucial wetland habitat at lakes and reservoirs would
be affected. (Table 3-6).
Impact predictions were made by comparing existing grazing, condition and
trend with proposed grazing at each riparian stream segment and each wetland
(Figure 2-2). Results from these site specific analyses were totaled to
indicate long-term condition and trend of riparian and wetland wildlife
habitats (Table 3-7 and 3-8).
Future conditions classes were not estimated for wetlands because the areas
have not been surveyed to determine existing condition. However, future
trend can be estimated even though existing trend data are not available. For
example, livestock grazing is presently degrading wildlife habitat at Greaser
Reservoir. Elimination of grazing in Alternative 2 would allow wildlife
habitat to improve, resulting in an upward trend.
Condition of wildlife habitat in riparian areas and wetlands is closely
related to range condition; however, there are differences. Structure or the
physical arrangement of vegetation is important to wildlife. For example,
grass along a stream may be in good range condition but still be poor nesting
habit at because the grass has been grazed to ground level.
Grazing Systems
Reductions m livestock numbers normally do not improve riparian areas or
wetlands because riparian vegetation is often severely grazed before light
use is made of upland vegetation. Grazing systems and the period of use are
the most important factors with riparian areas.
3-22
xc usion of grazing would result in rapid improvement of wildlife habitat
IWinegar 19 >77 ). Livestock exclusion and seeding along Willow Creek in
1 lotment 404 has resulted in an upward trend and greatly improved wildlife
habitat condition (see Chapter 2, Wildlife— photos ) . Riparian areas with a
high potential for improvement would be expected to improve two condition
Restrictive use would result in rapid improvement of wildlife habitat during
the exclusion phase. Subsequent grazing at proposed utilization levels would
maintain improved habitat as compared to the existing situation. Improved
vegetative composition m riparian areas would improve wildlife habitat at
east one condition class. An upward trend in wetland habitat can be
expected. Watergaps, provided by the proposed action and alternatives, would
receive heavy livestock use, resulting in poor wildlife habitat at these
n er rest rotation, increased cover during the rest year is often lost with
livestock use the following years. Depending on their potential, some
riparian areas would improve while others would remain in their present
condition. Area wide, a slow upward trend can be expected. Photo trend
Plots for the existing rest rotation system show static conditions in a
riparian area (Allotment 202) and improved vigor and species composition in a
wetland (Allotment 215).
and rotation grazing systems would result in an upward trend of
W1 1 e habitat. Livestock are less likely to concentrate along streams
early m spring because of abundant green growth in the uplands and low air
temperatures. Utilization of woody species (willow, chokecherry, rose, etc.)
^ lves^ock wouid be light. Sufficient regrowth would occur each year to
establish an upward trend.
Deferred grazing would concentrate livestock in riparian areas each year in
late summer. The spring/summer system would result in heavy livestock
utilization during the growing season each year. Wildlife habitat would
deteriorate with both of these systems.
While winter grazing would allow maximum summer growth of herbaceous vegeta¬
tion, it would reduce herbaceous cover for spring nesting. Habitat trend in
wetlands would be static.
Range Improvements
Development of springs would initially destroy some wildlife habitat in
riparian areas at each spring site. About 0.1 acre at each site would be
affected. Where fencing of overflows is proposed, lost habitat would be
replaced in the long term. Proposed waterholes and reservoirs would increase
wetland habitat by about 2 acres at each site. The number of spring develop¬
ments, reservoirs and waterholes for the proposed action and alternatives are
listed in Table 1-1 .
3-23
Table 3-5 Public Acres (miles) of Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas
which would be Affected by the Proposed Action or Alternatives
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Type of Grazing Proposed No Eliminate Optimize Optimize Optimize
or Management _ Act ion Action Livestock Livestock Wild Horses Other
Exclude Livestock
129
(26)
76
(13)
659
(96)
78
(15)
129
(26)
565
(90)
Restrictive Use
80
(17)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
80
(17)
0
(0)
Spring /Summer
2
(1)
132
(18)
0
(0)
3
(1)
2
(1)
2
(1)
Rest Rotation
352
(40)
321
(48)
0
(0)
418
(59)
352
(40)
90
(4)
Deferred
89
(8)
94
(10)
0
(0)
121
(12)
89
(8)
2
(1)
Spr ing/Fal 1
0
(0)
33
(3)
0
(0)
29
(3)
0
(0)
0
(0)
Rot at ion
7
(4)
0
(0)
0
(0)
7
(4)
7
(4)
0
(0)
Spring
Federal Range
0
(0)
3
(2)
0
(0)
3
(2)
0
(0)
0
(0)
Fenced
Inaccessible to
2
(1)
2
(1)
2
(1)
2
(1)
2
(1)
2
(1)
Livestock
15
(6)
15
(6)
15
(6)
15
(6)
15
(6)
15
(6)
Unallotted
18
(3)
18
(3)
18
(3)
18
(3)
18
(3)
18
(3)
Tot als
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694 (106)
Table 3 7 Public Acres (miles) of Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas —
Expected Long-Term Condition and Trend
Condit i
on
Existing
Situat ion
Propos ed
Action
Alt. 1
No
Action
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imize
Livestock
Alt . 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Opt imize
Other
Ac .
(Mi. )
Ac .
(Mi.)
Ac .
(Mi. )
Ac .
(Mi.)
Ac .
(Mi.)
Ac .
(Mi. )
Ac .
(Mi. )
Excellent
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
5
(1)
0
(0)
0
(0)
5
(1)
Good
28
(4)
234
( 46)
104
(19)
668
(94)
104
(20)
234
(46)
559
(86)
Fair
163
(34)
190
( 27)
222
(31)
13
(7)
223
(32)
190
(27)
30
(10)
Poor
115
(16)
82
( 14)
111
(19)
0
(0)
111
(18)
82
(14)
2
(1)
Unknown
2/
388
(52)
188
( 19)
257
(37)
8
(4)
256
(36)
188
(19)
98
(8)
Tot al
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694"
(106)
694
ri06)
394"
(106)
Trend
Up
1/
521
(72)
303
(36)
686
(102)
417
(50)
521
(72)
654
(94)
St at ic
1/
83
(24)
172
(37)
8
(4)
133
(36)
83
(24)
32
(9)
Down
1/
12
(4)
110
(20)
0
(0)
25
(5)
12
(4)
8
(3)
Unknown
2/
694
(106)
78
(6)
109
(13)
0
(0)
119
(15)
78
(6)
0
(0)
Tot al
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
694
(106)
J J Existing trend is unknown.
2/ Acres in the unknown category are different with each alternative because acres
excluded from livestock varies with each alternative. The assuption was made that
livestock exclusion would result in good wildlife habitat with upward trend even
though existing condition and trend is unknown.
3-24
Table 3-6
Public Acres
of Wildlife Habitat
in Wetlands
which would
be
Affected by
the Proposed Action
or Alternat
ives
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Type of Grazing
Proposed
No
Eliminate
Opt imize
Opt imize
Opt imize
or Management
Action
Action
Livestock
Livestock
Wild Horses
Other
Exclude Livestock
784
745
12,516
745
785
9,330
Restrictive Use
855
0
0
0
855
0
Spring/ Summer
317
7,901
0
319
317
319
Rest Rotation
9, 122
2,235
0
9,935
9, 122
1,760
Deferred Rotation
180
260
0
260
180
0
Deferred
242
300
0
242
242
122
Winter
750
750
0
750
750
720
Spring/Fal 1
0
60
0
0
0
0
Federal Range
Fenced
265
265
0
265
265
265
Unallot t ed
180
180
180
180
180
180
Tot al
12,696 12,696
12,696
12,696
12,696
12,696
Table 3-8 Public Acres of Wildlife Habitat
in Wetlands — Expected Trend
Trend
Proposed
Action
Alt. 1
No
Action
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imize
Livestock
Alt. 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Opt imize
Other
Up
8,670
715
11,015
7,945
8,670
9,400
St at ic
2, 142
9,332
470
2,182
2,142
1,432
Down
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unknown 1/
1,884
2,649
1,211
2,569
oo
00
T“ 1
1,864
Tot als
12,696
12,696
12,696
12,696
12,696
12,696
_!_/ Acres in the unknown category are different with each alternative because acres
excluded from livestock varies with each alternative. The assuption was made
that livestock exclusion would result in upward trend even though existing trend
i s unknown .
3-25
Conclusion
Alternatives 2 and 5 would improve almost all riparian areas and wetlands
through livestock exclusion. The proposed action and Alternative 4 would
improve about 70 percent of the riparian areas and wetlands, primarily with
livestock exclusion and restrictive use. Alternative 3 would slightly
improve about 60 percent of the riparian areas and wetlands primarily with
rest rotation grazing. Alternative 1 would provide the least riparian
protection. Recently implemented exclosures and grazing systems would
improve 38 percent of the riparian areas and 6 percent of the wetlands.
Mule Deer and Antelope
Trend of crucial
season of use,
projects. Acres
separately. The
big game range was predicted by considering grazing system,
changes in livestock allocation and range improvement
of winter range in each allotment or pasture were analyzed
results were tabulated in Tables 3-9 and 3-10.
Table 3-9 Deer Crucial Winter Range - Expected Trend
Proposed
Action
Alt. 1
No
Act ion
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imi ze
Livestock
Alt. 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Opt imize
Other
Up
79,200
14,200
13,500
23,100
79,200
89,600
St at ic
200,500
262,200
49,900
102,700
200,500
190,800
Down
17,400
20,700
233,700
171,300
17,400
16,700
Unknown
7,900
7,900
7,900
7,900
7,900
7,900
305,000
305,000
305,000
305,000
305,000
305,000
Table
3-10 Antelope Crucial
. Range -
Expected Trend
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt . 5
Proposed
No
Eliminate
Opt imize
Opt imize
Optimize
Act ion
Act ion
Livestock
Livestock
Wild Horses
Other
Up
78,700
7,500
0
78,700
33,700
78,700
St at ic
13,000
84,200
0
13,000
13,000
13,000
Down
5,000
5,000
51,700
5,000
50,000
5,000
Unknown
0
0
45,000
0
0
0
96,700
96,700
96,700
96,700
96,700
96,700
Grazing Systems and Vegetation Allocation
Initial livestock decreases (Appendix B, Table B-l) provide more forage for
big game, a beneficial impact. Several studies have shown that prescribed
livestock grazing during certain seasons is beneficial to big game (Andersen
3-26
1975, Leckenby et al . 1980, Tueller 1979, Urness 1966). Elimination of
livestock grazing, however, would decrease forage for deer and antelope
because of decreased availability of nutritious young grasses and reduced
productivity of browse. Portions of the crucial deer winter range are now
dominated by annuals. In Alternative 5, elimination of grazing would
increase perennial grass forage for deer in these areas.
Turn-out dates prior to mid-April would result in competition between live¬
stock and big game for the spring greenup of grasses (Appendix B, Table B-l).
Rest rotation, rotation and deferred rotation would rotate early turnout
dates among two to four pastures; therefore, competition would not occur in
every pasture each year.
Spring, spring/fall and spring/summer systems would result in forage competi¬
tion each year in the same pasture. Total pounds of forage produced with
the spring/summer system would decrease. Relatively small pastures and a
variety of grazing treatments (proposed action, Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5)
would prevent large blocks of continuous habitat (greater than 3,000 acres)
from being adversely affected in any one year.
Rest rotation grazing would increase forage production for big game. Obser¬
vations by district personnel and photo studies indicate improved bitterbrush
vigor with rest rotation systems.
Range Improvements
Under the proposed action and Alternatives 4 and 5, sagebrush control and
seedings would increase habitat diversity for wide-ranging big game animals
by introducing herbaceous food within monotypic stands of sagebrush.
Greatest habitat diversity would result from burning which would create the
most edge between sagebrush cover and herbaceous food. Forbs, an important
food source, would be increased with burning and decreased with herbicide
spraying. In Alternative 3, sagebrush control would decrease cover on large
blocks of winter range (Table 3-11, Figures 1-1, 2-5). Juniper chaining and
subsequent seeding improve habitat for big game by increasing forage.
Table 3-11 Acres of Crucial Big Game Range Affected by
Vegetation Manipulation
Alt. 1
Proposed No
Action Action
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imize
Livestock
Alt. 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Opt imize
Other
Crucial
Deer Range 10,300 0
Crucial
Antelope Range 9,300 0
0 98,000 10,300 10,300
0 46,800 900 9,300
3-27
New water sources would reduce forage competition with livestock near exist¬
ing waters and increase big game distribution. Some forage competition could
result from livestock grazing in areas previously used primarily by big game.
In seedings, improved distribution of livestock with water developments would
increase desirable green up of vegetation for deer and antelope. The
proposed 400 miles of fence to be built primarily on upland sites is not
expected to have a significant impact. A minor number of mortalities may
occur, especially immediately after construction. Existing fences on public
lands in the EIS area have not had a significant adverse impact to big game.
Conclusion
Deer population trend is the net effect of all interacting habitat components
on all portions of the annual range. No population trend can be predicted
since no single cause and effect correlation between deer habitat and popula¬
tion trend can be shown. However, mule deer populations are not expected to
change significantly as a result of the proposed action or any alternatives.
Expected improvement in habitat under the proposed action and Alternatives 4
and 5 could support slight population increases should they occur.
Antelope populations are expected to increase with the proposed action and
Alternatives 3 and 5. Sagebrush control would convert dense stands of big
sagebrush to low-growing herbaceous types preferred by antelope. Alterna¬
tives 1, 2 and 4 would maintain existing populations.
Bighorn Sheep
The proposed action and alternatives would not affect bighorn sheep popula¬
tions. There are no significant conflicts between livestock and the existing
small number of sheep. Exclusion of livestock from bighorn sheep range in
Alternatives 2 and 5 would prevent potential forage conflicts if sheep
populations were to increase greatly (Figure 2-5).
Water-Associated Birds
Livestock grazing in wetland habitat affects water-associated birds. Grazing
can reduce nesting success by removing the required herbaceous residual
cover. Nesting success can also be reduced by trampling or disturbance.
Food plants such as smartweed and sedge are often grazed before they can be
utilized by birds. Livestock trampling causes compaction and loss of
vegetation which reduces food and cover for birds. The acres of wetland
habitat affected by various grazing systems and resulting habitat trend are
shown in Tables 3-6 and 3-8.
Grazing Systems
Exclusion of livestock would greatly improve nesting success in wetlands such
as at Greaser Reservoir and Twenty Mile Slough. Restrictive use would
greatly increase bird production during the initial livestock exclusion
phase. When grazing is resumed, bird production would decrease but would
remain higher than existing levels.
3-28
The rest treatment of rest rotation systems would provide good nesting cover
the following spring. Grazed pastures in rest rotation systems would result
in poor nesting cover and food. The spring and rotation grazing systems,
which allow for regrowth of vegetation, would improve habitat. Deferred,
winter, spring/fall and deferred rotation would result in very low bird
production because of heavy utilization of vegetation in wetlands.
Spring/summer grazing would change plant composition to species less
desirable for most birds.
Livestock grazing in the Warner Valley potholes (Allotment 523) does not
significantly affect bird production. The amount of spring runoff is more of
a limiting factor than livestock. During low water years, bird use is low
regardless of previous grazing.
Range Improvements
Proposed waterholes and reservoirs would increase wetland habitat by about 2
acres at each site (Table 1-1). Bird distribution would be increased.
Conclus ion
Alternatives 2 and 5 would improve almost all nesting habitat on public
lands; greatly increased nesting success can be expected. Under the proposed
action and Alternative 4, about 70 percent of the wetlands would be improved.
Moderately increased bird production can be expected. In Alternative 3,
grazing systems would be used to improve wetlands. Slightly increased bird
production can be expected. In Alternative 1, no improvement is expected on
74 percent of the wetlands. The existing low level of bird production would
cont inue .
Other Mammals, Upland Game Birds, Other Birds,
Amphibians and Reptiles
These animals are grouped to avoid repetition. Impacts are described in
general terms and covering very broad areas; detailed analysis is not
possible because site specific or species specific impacts from existing or
proposed livestock management are largely unknown. Livestock grazing affects
these species primarily through changes in condition of riparian areas and
wetlands (see Wildlife Habitat in Riparian Areas and Wetlands, above), amount
of residual ground cover in upland areas and vegetative composition.
Residual ground cover includes dried herbaceous vegetation which persists
through winter and spring. In all areas, this cover is very important for
reproduction, escape from predators and maintenance of body temperatures.
Long term, subtle changes in vegetative composition would improve habitat for
some species and have adverse impacts on others (Egeline 1978).
Grazing Systems
Livestock exclusion and restrictive use would improve riparian habitat to at
least good condition (Table 3-5 and 3-7). Winter cover, nesting cover and
food would be increased. Increased shrub and tree growth in riparian areas
3-29
would allow birds to nest in previously unoccupied areas. Species such as
valley quail, spotted frog and beaver, which are strongly associated with
riparian areas, would be greatly benefited. Species such as chukar partridge
and sage grouse, which do not require dense riparian vegetation, would
benefit only slightly. Studies at the Willow Creek exclosures (Allotment
404) have shown greater bird species diversity and total numbers in protected
riparian habitat as compared to adjacent grazed habitat.
In upland areas, exclusion and restrictive use would increase residual cover
and food. Each year, ungrazed grasses and forbs would mature and produce
seeds used by many species. Long-term changes in vegetative composition
would favor species such as the least chipmunk and cottontail which are
benefited by ungrazed conditions. Some species, such as black-tailed
jackrabbits, may decrease as disturbed areas now dominated by annuals are
replaced with ungrazed perennial grasses.
Grazing systems which increase perennial grass vigor would improve nesting
cover for ground nesters such as horned larks. Rested pastures in rest
rotation systems would have the greatest amount of residual vegetation for
thermal cover and nesting. Grazing treatments during the following 2 or 3
years would result in decreased cover. The spring/summer system, which
allows grazing during the critical part of the growing season each year,
would result in very low amounts of residual cover. Decreased vigor of
perennial grasses would also decrease cover. Remaining systems are not
expected to have significant impacts.
Range Improvements
Range improvements by alternative are summarized in Table 1-1. Vegetation
manipulation has immediate and often adverse impacts because of dramatic
changes in vegetative composition. Removal of sagebrush through herbicide
spraying, chaining or burning would have a severe adverse impact on animals
which are dependent on sagebrush for food and cover (e.g. , sage grouse,
black-tailed jackrabbit) . Decreased sagebrush would be adverse to brush—
nesters such as sage sparrows and mammals such as the pygmy rabbit (Olterman
and Verts 1972). Loss of thermal cover would be adverse to reptiles such as
horned lizards and leopard lizards (Storm 1966). Grassland species such as
horned larks and ground squirrels would increase along with predators such as
ferruginous hawks.
Sagebrush control, while increasing edge effect, decreases habitat diversity
for animals with small home ranges. The number of different kinds of animals
in the treated areas would decrease. Untreated or leave patches would not
entirely offset losses of food and cover.
The herbicide 2,4-D is not expected to have direct impacts on wildlife. When
used as manufacturer's label prescribes, 2,4-D has not been reported to be
poisonous to wildlife. In a worst case situation, drift may result in
important food and cover patches being sprayed. Besides killing sagebrush,
2,4-D would also reduce perennial forbs which are an important wildlife food
source .
3-30
In the short term, burning would moderately reduce populations. Some animals
would be killed during the fire; others would be displaced to areas where
they could not compete with the existing populations. Burning would benefit
wildlife by creating a significant amount of edges. More herbaceous food
would be available adjacent to sagebrush cover.
Chaining would have adverse impacts on wildlife because of the severe
disturbance to soil and vegetation. Small mammal burrows and bird nest sites
in shrubs and trees would be destroyed. Chaining would permit good control
of leave patches. Important food and cover can be precisely located and
easily avoided.
Juniper chaining, burning or cutting would be beneficial to some species and
adverse to others. Decreased juniper would be adverse to tree nesters such
as Piny on jay and Clark's nutcracker. Increased grass and shrubs would be
beneficial to species such as the meadow lark, sage sparrow and deer mouse.
Numbers and kinds of small animal species would be expected to increase.
Seedings which . are dominated by crested wheatgrass would greatly decrease
habitat diversity. Although mixtures of grasses, shrubs and trees are
planted, crested wheatgrass is often the only plant species that survives.
Reynolds and Trost (1978) found that crested wheatgrass plantings, regardless
of livestock use, supported fewer nesting bird species and a lower density of
birds, mammals and reptiles than did areas dominated by sagebrush. Nesting
birds were reduced to a single species, the horned lark. Similar impacts can
be expected in the EIS area. Seedings which establish forbs, shrubs and
trees in addition to crested wheatgrass would have greater habitat diversity
(Appendix B, Table B— 3) than a seeding composed primarily of crested
wheatgrass .
Wells , springs and pipelines would increase seasonal distribution of animals,
primarily birds, which are able to drink from livestock troughs. Occasional
drownings of small birds and mammals would occur in troughs despite escape
ramps. Guzzlers would increase distribution for birds, primarily sage grouse
and chukar partridge.
Increased sources of water provided by new reservoirs would increase distri¬
bution. and numbers of species such as the mountain cottontail, Brewer's
blackbird and spotted frog. Full potential of new reservoirs would not be
realized because there would be no protection of vegetation at the water's
edge during grazing seasons.
Cone lus ions
Impacts to populations are compared in Table 3-12. Overall impacts on
populations within the entire EIS area would be low to moderate. Some
species would increase or decrease slightly depending on the alternative and
degree of habitat modification. Localized impacts could be more pronounced.
Vegetation manipulation would greatly reduce bird, mammal and reptile popula¬
tions on 7 percent (Alternative 4), 11 percent (proposed action, Alternative
5) or 55 percent (Alternative 3) of the big and low sagebrush vegetation
3-31
type. (Approximately 73 percent of the EIS area is in these two vegetative
types.) Bird and mammal populations can be expected to increase greatly
along streams and wetlands excluded from livestock grazing (proposed action,
Alternatives 2 and 3) and amphibian populations would increase slightly due
to this protection.
Table
3-12 Summary of
Impact s
to Small
Animal Pop
ulat ion
No
Elim.
Opt .
Opt. Wild
Opt .
Propos ed
Act ion
Lvs tk .
Lvs tk.
Horse
Other
Animal Group
Act ion
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Mammals
-L
NC
+M
-H
-L
-L
Upland Game Birds
+L
NC
+L
-M
+L
+L
Other Birds
-L
NC
+M
-H
-L
-L
Amphibians
+L
NC
+M
+L
+L
+M
Rept iles
-L
NC
+M
-H
-L
-L
Note: Increase is shown by +, Decrease by NC = No change from existing
situation. Insufficient data prevent quantification. Anticipated
changes are expressed using Low (L), Medium (M) and High (H).
Fish
Fish would be affected primarily through changes in streambed sedimentation,
bank stability and riparian vegetation. Impact predictions were made by
comparing existing grazing and fish habitat condition with proposed grazing
management at each stream segment (Table 3-13, 2-8).
Results from these site specific analyses indicate long term condition and
trend of stream habitat (Table 3-14). Reservoirs would continue in poor
condition as a result of fluctuating water levels for irrigation. Grazing
along reservoir shorelines does not limit fish production.
Grazing Systems
Livestock exclusion and restrictive use would improve fish habitat at least
one condition class where livestock grazing has been limiting fish production
(Table 3-13). Excluding 1 ivestock from damaged stream areas is a proven
management technique to increase fish production. Successful streambank
fencing projects have been documented in Oregon (Winegar 1977), Utah (Duff
1978) and elsewhere. Within the EIS area, livestock exclusion has improved
willow growth along Willow Creek (Allotment 404). Beneficial effects of
improved riparian vegetation include reduced water temperatures, reduced silt
and increased summer flows. Dense riparian vegetation stabilizes the stream
banks and provides cover and food for fish. Subsequent livestock use in
restrictive use areas would maintain improved fish habitat. Increased
vegetative cover on watersheds with Alternative 2 would decrease sediments, a
beneficial impact to fish.
3-32
Table 3-13 Public Stream Miles of Fish Habitat which would
be Affected by the Proposed Action or Alternatives
Type of Grazing
or Management
Proposed
Act ion
Alt. 1
No
Action
Alt. 2
Eliminate
Livestock
Alt. 3
Opt imize
Livestock
Alt . 4
Opt imize
Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Optimize
Other
Exclude Livestock
22.0
13.0
56.0
13.0
22.0
53.0
Restrictive Use
8.5
0
0
0
8.5
0
Spring /Summer
.5
5.0
0
.5
.5
.5
Rest Rotation
15.5
25.5
0
27.5
15.5
3.0
Deferred
5.5
7.5
0
7.0
5.5
.5
Spring/Fal 1
0
2.5
0
2.5
0
0
Rotation
3.0
0
0
3.0
3.0
0
Spring
Fenced Range
0
1.5
0
1.5
0
0
Federal
Inaccessible to
1.0
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Livestock
6 . 0
6.0
6 . 0
6.0
6 . 0
6.0
Unallottted
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
Tot al
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
Condition
Table 3-14 Public Stream Miles of Fish Habitat —
Estimated Condition and Trend
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
Existing Proposed No Eliminate Optimize Optimize
Situation Action Action Livestock Livestock Wild Horses
Alt. 5
Opt imize
Other
Excel lent
3.0
5.5
3.0
6.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
Good
12.5
20.0
16.0
31.0
13.5
20.0
29.5
Fair
16.5
16.0
15.0
12.5
15.5
16.0
11.5
Poor
18.5
10.5
13.0
5.5
12.5
10.5
8.0
Unknown JV
14.5
13.0
18.0
10.0
18.0
13.0
10.5
Total
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
Trend
Up
9.0
29.0
16.0
47.0
16.0
29.0
43.5
Static
17.5
29.0
30.0
18.0
31.0
29.0
18.5
Down
1.0
2.0
6.0
0
2.0
2.0
1.5
Unknown U
37.5
5.0
13.0
0
16.0
5.0
1.5
Total 65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
J_/ Acres in the unknown category are different with each alternative because acres
excluded from livestock varies with each alternative. The assumption was made
that livestock exclusion would result in at least good condition and upward
t rend .
3-33
Rest rotation, spring and rotation grazing would at least maintain existing
fish habitat. Deferred, and spring/summer would concentrate livestock in
riparian areas during all or most of the summer; therefore, a downward trend
can be expected. Systems which significantly increase vegetative cover on
watersheds would benefit fish by decreasing sediments.
Conclusions
Alternatives 2 and 5 would increase fish production in perennial streams
because of improved vegetative cover in riparian areas and surrounding
watersheds. The proposed action and Alternative 4 would moderately increase
fish production on 23 stream miles protected from livestock. Alternatives 1
and 3 would increase fish production on 13 stream miles recently excluded
from livestock.
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species
The proposed action and alternatives are not expected to affect nesting bald
eagles or suspected nesting activity by peregrine falcons. Changes in small
mammal populations and vegetation would not be great enough to affect kit fox
habitat. Impacts to nesting snowy plovers are not expected. On public
lands, the lake playas and dunes used by snowy plovers receive light or no
livestock use.
About 14 public stream miles of Warner sucker habitat has recently been
excluded from grazing. Alternative 2 would exclude grazing from an addi¬
tional 2 miles of sucker habitat. Beneficial effects of resulting improved
riparian vegetation are described in the fish section. The proposed action
and alternatives would maintain or possibly increase existing populations.
Adverse impacts from irrigation would not be changed by the proposed action
or alternatives.
Although Foskett Springs is on private land, BLM licensed cattle on
surrounding public land have access to the spring. It is not known whether
existing grazing is beneficial or harmful to dace at Foskett Springs. The
small population of dace found on public land would not be impacted since the
area would remain excluded from livestock under all alternatives.
No impacts are expected to the Hutton Springs Tui chub. Its habitat is on
private land entirely fenced from surrounding public land.
IMPACTS ON RECREATION
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems
Alteration of the recreational experience for certain activities can occur as
a result of grazing management activities. Beneficial and adverse impacts
are quantifiable in terms of expected visitor use changes. Research by
Meganck and Gibbs (1979) and Downing and Clark (1979) suggests that few
recreationists are disturbed by livestock grazing, as long as deer habitat,
vehicle access and site integrity are not impaired.
3-34
Hunting and wildlife sightseeing visitor use would be expected to change in
relation to impacts on the species sought. Impacts to wildlife (q.v.)
identifies those impacts to big game, upland game and waterfowl under the
proposed action and alternatives which would subsequently create impacts to
visitor use. Further, livestock exclusions and riparian habitat protection
inherent in the proposed action and Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would enhance
fishing, waterfowl and upland game hunting in some areas. Elsewhere, fences
would impede access for some recreationists. The resultant long-term impact
would be more one of annoyance to recreationists, causing slight localized
reductions or relocation of visitor use in some activities such as fishing,
hunting and sightseeing.
Impacts to general sightseeing are related to the effects on scenic quality
(see Impacts on Visual Resources). Under Alternative 1, visitor use
projections would not be impacted. The elimination of grazing (Alternative
2) would result in enhanced sightseeing opportunities. Under the proposed
action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, visual contrasts between grazed and
rested pastures would cause short-term visitor use reductions in most
activities due to the degradation of scenic quality and recreational
experience. In the long term, sightseeing opportunities and recreational
experience would be enhanced as forage abundance and quality improve.
Range Improveme n t s
Site-specific adverse impacts within certain recreation activity areas would
occur as a result of range improvement projects which impair access, site
integrity and/or the recreational experience. Vegetation manipulation
projects . and fencing have the potential to create the most significant
adverse impacts. Elsewhere, fencing would stabilize streambanks and improve
fishing. Water developments would attract wildlife and enhance hunting and
sightseeing opportunities. Table 3-13 summarizes, for the proposed action
and al ternat ivcs , the significant beneficial and adverse impacts to localized
visitor use in high quality recreation opportunity areas.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in no impacts as no new range improvements
are proposed. Under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, the
cross country use of motor vehicles during the construction and maintenance
of some range improvement projects would create unimproved trails and tracks.
Improved access for dispersed recreation use would result. These trails and
tracks may also create adverse impacts to those recreationists who perceive
them as degradatory to natural and pristine rangeland conditions.
Within the Lakeview EIS area, numerous other areas were rated as having
moderate quality recreation opportunities. In some cases, the implementation
of range improvements may cause degradation of the present recreation
experience in these areas. For example, under the proposed action and
ternat ive s 3, 4 and 5, impacts may occur in moderate— quality recreation
activites and areas such as deer hunting in the Silver Lake-Fort Rock area,
rock collecting in the Sunstone area, zoologic sightseeing at Flagstaff Lake,
botanic sightseeing in the Drakes/Colvin area and historic sightseeing as
shown in Table 3-16.
Table 3-15 Impacts to High Quality Recreation Opportunity Areas
Impact
Quality Degree of Impact to J_/ Occurrence
Recreation Activity _ Quality Rating Area _ Rat ing Potential Impactor _ Allotment / s Localized Visitor Use (by Alternative)
Hunting (big game)
Hbg-276,
Coyot e/Colvin/Fish
13/A
Numerous
502,
503,
517,
Creeks
518,
519,
520
-L
PA,
3,
4,
5
Hunting (upland game)
Hug-279,
Drakes / Colvin
13/A
Numerous
501,
519,
520,
521,
5 24
-L
PA,
3,
4,
5
Hunting (waterfowl)
Hwf-278,
Warner Lakes
12/A
Spray and seed (2,400
acres); fencing (5 miles)
523
-L
PA,
3,
4,
5
8 reservoirs
523
+L
3
Fencing (12 miles)
523
-L
5
Hang Gliding
Ohg-211,
Doughtery Slide
30/A
Burn and seed (1,800
acres); spray (1,800 acres)
600
0
PA,
3,
4,
5
Hiking and Horseback
Ohb-178,
Fish Creek Rim
20/A
Burn (1,200 acres) adjacent
202,
5 20
-L
PA,
3,
4,
5
Riding
Extensive spraying adjacent
201,
202,
208,
520
-L
3
Ohb-273,
Abert Rim
23/A
Spring development
518
+L
PA,
3,
4,
5
Sightseeing
Szo-203,
Sagehen
20/A
Numerous
600
-M
PA,
3,
4,
5
(zoologic)
Szo-365,
Aspen Lake
23/A
Water development
822
+L
PA,
3,
4,
5
Szo-364,
Miller Cr. Canyon
21/A
2 water developments;
Burn (100 acres)
884,
885
+L
PA,
3,
4,
5
Sightseeing
(historic) 2 J
1/ Key: L = Low M = Moderate + = beneficial - = adverse
2/ See Table 3-19, summarizing potential impacts on historic sites, for a listing of potential impacts to both high and moderate quality
historic sightseeing areas. A slight reduction in visitor use would occur in those areas.
Conclusion
Estimated 1990 recreational visitation with the proposed action and all
alternatives is shown in Table 3-16.
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no effect on long-term projected
visitor use. Alternative 2 would result in visitor use increases in most
activities. Under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4 and 5,
recreational use reductions or increases associated with certain activities
would occur in specific localities.
Table 3-16 Estimated Recreational Visitation - 1990
Visitor Days/Year
Recreat ional
Activity
Proposed
Act ion
BLM
Alt. 1
Total 2/
1/
BLM
Alt. 2
BLM
Alt. 3
BLM
Alt . 4
BLM
Alt. 5
BLM
Hunt i ng
24,640
95,272
24,396
24,640
23,830
24,520
24,740
Fishing
11,710
No Data
9,764
12,300
9,760
11,710
12,010
General
Sightseeing
6,990
123,698
7,354
7,720
6,250
6,990
6,990
Other 3/
36,790
476,365
38,723
40,660
32,910
36,790
36,790
Total
80,130
695,335
80,237
85,320
72,750
80,010
80,530
_1/ Estimated 1990 visitor use under a continuation of the existing situation
is based upon projections shown in Table 2-9.
_2 / Represents 1990 total area-wide use for the Lakeview EIS area and
includes use on public as well as other lands.
_3/ Includes additional activities shown in Table 2-9.
Source: Derived from Bureau planning documents, visitor use projections and
professional estimates.
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts on cultural resources as caused by livestock trampling have been
documented by Roney (1977), Logsdon (1976) and 'Hag gar ty and Flenniken (1977).
Trampling adversely affects cultural resources by disturbing horizontal and
vertical relationships in deposits, breaking or chipping artifacts, and
contaminating data sources. As a result, the subsequent morphological and
functional interpretation of the disturbed cultural assemblage may be biased.
The impacts of trampling are usually most significant within one-quarter mile
of stock trails, fencelines, watering areas and salt sources.
3-37
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems
Under the proposed action and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 3, initial vegetation
allocations to livestock are less than the existing situation and would
result in an area-wide reduction of cultural site trampling and erosion.
However, analysis of short-term impacts under the proposed action indicates
that in the 21 allotments with proposed upward vegetation allocations the
potential for cultural site trampling would increase.
Grazing systems with spring pasture use would result in artifact displace¬
ment, as soil would be wetter and subject to more compaction, churning and
mixing. Fall use may result in reduced vegetal cover and greater suscepti¬
bility to trampling and erosion if grazed the following spring. In the long
term, increased residual vegetative cover would help to control erosion at
cultural sites.
Range Improvements
Range improvement project construction may serve to uncover sites not
identified during the intensive cultural resource surveys which precede each
ground-disturbing action (see Chapter 1). At the same time, however,
construction may inadvertently disturb or totally destroy an unidentified
site. Management of cultural values is a priority once cultural sites are
identified. In some cases, site vandalism would result as site locations
become common knowledge as a result of increasing range visitation.
Analysis indicates that some of the activities involved in implementation of
the Lakeview rangeland management program have the potential to adversely
impact cultural resources. For this reason, site-specific intensive field
inventories would be conducted prior to ground disturbance. If cultural
resources are identified, every effort would be made to design the livestock
grazing and range improvement programs in order to avoid impacts to known
cultural sites. This level of analysis is found in the site-specific
environmental assessments completed prior to the implementation of range
improvements and allotment management plans (AMPs). Where it is not prudent
or feasible to avoid adverse effects, BLM will consult with the Oregon State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and will develop mutually acceptable
mitigating measures. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be
notified of the agreed upon mitigating measures. If the BLM and SHPO cannot
agree on mitigating measures, BLM will request the Advisory Council's
comments, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.6. This procedure is in accordance
with the programmatic Memorandum of Agreement by and between the BLM,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of
State Historic Preservation Officers, dated January 14, 1980.
Based on existing cultural resource data, Table 3-17 identifies potential
impacts to National Register sites, potential National Register sites and
districts, and paleontologic sites. Tables 3-18 and 3-19 delineate potential
impacts to currently identified archeologic and historic sites, respectively.
Design restraints and review and protection procedures would be fully
complied with to minimize adverse impacts to cultural resources. Where
3-38
3-39
Table 3 17 Potential Impacts to National Register Sites, Potential National Register Sites or Districts
and Paleontologic Sites
Site
. , 1/
Potential Impactor
Allotment / s
Impact
Occurrence
(by Alternative)
National Register Site
Picture Rock Pass
Spray
400,
709
3
Oregon Central Military Road
Spray and seed; pipeline
600
3
(100 yard segment)
Potential National Register
Site
Tucker Hill
Spray and seed (150 acres) adjacent
409
PA, 3, 4, 5
Connelly Caves
Spray
715
3
Fort Rock Sand Dunes
Spray and seed
904
3
Potential National Register
District
West Lake Abert
Fencing (1 mile)
400
PA, 3, 4, 5
Lost River
Burn and seed (200 acres)
890
PA, 3, 4, 5
Lucky Reservoir
Spray (200 acres)
207
3
Gerber Reservoir
Burn (200 acres)
882
PA, 3, 4, 5
Burn and seed (400 acres)
885
3
Long Lake
Burn and seed (4,880 acres); burn (4,480 acres);
Spray (300 acres); 9 waterholes; 4 reservoirs;
fencing (4 miles)
216,
217,
600
PA, 3, 4, 5
Fencing (15 miles)
216,
217,
600
5
7 reservoirs; burn and seed (3,600 acres); burn
(3,500 acres); spray (1,200 acres)
216,
217,
600
3
Twenty Mile Slough
Spray and seed (600 acres)
205
PA, 3, 4, 5
Fencing (2 miles)
205
5
May Lake
Burn (1,080 acres); burn and seed (1,440 acres);
1 reservoir; spray and seed (1,200 acres); spray
(280 acres)
212
PA, 3, 4, 5
Fencing (3 miles)
212
5
Burn and seed (4,200 acres); spray (3,600
acres); 4 reservoirs
212
3
Paleontologic Sites
Fossil Lake
Fencing (3 miles)
103
PA, 3, 4, 5
Unnamed
Burn and seed (600 acres)
518
PA, 3, 4, 5
Fencing (1 mile)
518
5
Spray
518
3
Unnamed
Spray
600
PA, 3, 5
Unnamed
Burn and seed (300 acres)
509
PA, 3, 4, 5
Unnamed
Spray and seed; pipeline
600
3
U Potential impacts to the site setting integrity of cultural resources include ground disturbance,
trampling, erosion and vandalism.
feasible, direct impacts to significant sites would be avoided. Often,
however, the potential impacts would disturb the integrity of the site's
setting. Interpretive, educational, recreational and esthetic potential of
these sites would decrease.
Table 3-18 Potential Impacts to Archeologic Sites
Number of Sites Potentially Impacted
Site type
Proposed
Action No
Alt. 2 Alt.
Alt .1 Elim. Opt .
Action Lvstk. Lvstk
3 Alt. 4
Opt .
. Horses
Alt . 5
Opt .
Other
Open
47
0
0 132
41
46
Rock Shelter
1
0
0 4
1
3
Rock Art
5
0
0 7
5
6
Burial
1
0
0 1
1
1
Total
54
0
0 144
48
56
Percentage of
Total Known
Sites (772)
7 %
19 :
X 6 %
7 %
Conclusion
Appropriate measures would
prior to ground-disturbing
they would be susceptible
be taken to identify
activities. Should
to artifact breakage,
and protect cultural sites
sites remain undiscovered,
chipping, displacement and
cont aminat ion.
Analysis indicates that a number of proposed range improvements have the
potential to adversely impact known cultural resources. Project redesign or
the adoption of appropriate mitigating measures would serve to minimize
adverse impacts to significant cultural resources. Site specific
environmental assessments will apply this level of analysis to assure
cultural resource protection. Final BLM compliance with 36 CFR Part 800
would occur at this time.
No direct impacts would occur to sites on or eligible for the National
Register. Adverse impacts to other known sites would primarily be a result
of the degradation of site setting integrity due to grazing and range
improvements in proximity to the sites.
3-40
Table 3-19 Potential Impact s to Historic Sites
Impact
Site
Number
Site Name
Ownership
Quality
Site Type Rating
Potential Impactor
A1 lotment /s
Occurrence
(by
Shi-108
Reading Route
BLM; other
Emigrant trail 11/B
Reservoirs (2)
1000
PA, 3, 4, 5
Spray (along 6 miles)
1000
3
Shi-109
Wagontire Mtn. -
BLM; other
Wagon road
7/C
Pipeline across; spray and
Abert Lake Road
seed (along 2.5 miles)
1001
PA, 3, 4, 5
Spray and seed (along 5 miles)
1000
3
Burn and seed (along 10 miles)
515
3
Shi-149
Fremont's Route
BLM; other
Scient if ic ;
13/B
Spray and seed (along 5 miles);
205, 209, 213
PA, 3, 4, 5
mi litary
Burn (along 1 mile)
Fencing (along 2 miles);
205
5
Fence crossing
222
5
Burn and seed (along 3 miles)
205
3
Shi-193
Oregon Central
BLM
Wagon road
17 /A
2 pipelines across; adjacent
Military Road
spray and seed (640 acres)
600
PA, 3, 5
Burn and seed adjacent
600
3
2 fence crossings
600
5
Spray (along 2 miles); spray
and seed (along 3 miles)
600
3
Shi-237
Oregon Central
BLM; other
Wagon road
17/A
3 miles fence along
519
PA, 3, 5
Military Road
Burn and seed (along 1 mile)
519
3
Shi-239
Fremont's Route
BLM; other
Scient if ic;
13/B
Burn and seed (along 1.5
mi lit ary
miles); fencing; pipeline
515, 516, 517
PA, 3, 4, 5
Spray and seed (along 8 miles)
515, 516
3
Shi-241
Coyote Hills
BLM
Mining
11/B
Reservoirs (2); spring; fencing
517
PA, 3, 4, 5
Mining District
(1 mile); spray and seed (800
acres )
Fencing (7 miles)
517
5
Shi-245
Sid Luce Ditch
other
Agriculture;
—
Adjacent burn and seed
518
PA, 3, 4, 5
area
res idence
Fencing
518
5
Shi-247
—
BLM; other
Wagon road
12/B
Burn and seed (along 5 miles);
Spray and seed (1.5 miles);
fencing (along 4 miles);
511, 512, 517,
PA, 3, 4, 5
waterhole and pipeline
523
Burn (along 8 miles)
511
3
Burn and seed (along 3 miles)
512
3
Spray and seed (along 4 miles)
517
3
Shi-283
Fremont's Route
BLM; other
Scient ific;
14/B
Spray and seed (along 1 mile)
404, 409
PA, 3, 4, 5
military
Shi-032
Prineville -
BLM; other
Wagon road
17/A
Pipeline (3 miles)
908
PA, 3, 4, 5
Silverlake
Spray and seed (along 2 miles)
908
3
—
Road to Elgi
BLM; other
Wagon road
—
Fencing across (2 locations)
1000
PA, 3, 4, 5
—
Dry Valley
BLM; other
Wagon road
Fencing across (2 locations);
pipeline (1 mile)
1000
PA, 3, 4, 5
—
Road to Sheep
BLM; other
Wagon road
- .
Burn (1,800 acres); fencing
510
PA, 3, 4, 5
Camp
—
Surprise Valley
BLM; other
Wagon road
Spray and seed (1,200 acres)
523
PA, 3, 4, 5
to Harney
—
Sheldon Range
BLM; other
Wagon road
Burn and seed (400 acres)
600
PA, 3, 4, 5
Vicinity
Shi-031
Yreka Trail
BLM; other
Trail
17/A
Fencing (5 miles); waterhole
102, 103
PA, 3, 4, 5
Spray (along 10 miles)
103
3
Shi-030
Jacksonville-
BLM; other
Wagon road
13/B
2 fence crossings
103
PA, 3, 4, 5
Boise City
Spray (along 12 miles)
103
3
Shi-152
Line Cabins
BLM; other
Cabins
13/8
Spray
207
3
Shi-195
Spalding Ranch
other
Settlement
—
Burn
600
3
3-41
IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES
Vegetation Allocation and Grazing Systems
Under the proposed action and Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5, no significant
impacts to visual resources would result due to vegetation allocation. The
elimination of grazing (Alternative 2) would improve visual resources
primarily due to increased plant diversity and reestablished vegetation in
trampled areas.
Grazing systems (especially rest rotation and deferred rotation) create
contrast between grazed and rested pastures. Under the proposed action and
Alternatives 3, and 5, this contrast would be significant in some localized
areas. Under Alternative 1, visual contrast would not increase over that
under the existing situation. Contrasts due to grazing systems would not
occur under Alternative 2. Under the proposed action and Alternatives 3, 4
and 5, VRM Class I objectives may not be met in the Lost Forest area of
Allotment 103 as a result of a proposed rest rotation grazing system there.
In areas managed under VRM Class II and III objectives, impacts of grazing
systems would be minimal as the implementation of VRM program procedures and
constraints would allow for compatibility with the class objectives. In the
long term, as forage abundance and quality improve, contrasts between
pastures would not be as significant.
Range Improvements
Each type of range improvement was examined to determine the degree of
contrast it would create to the typical landscape of the Lakeview EIS area
(BLM Manual 8431). No impacts would occur in VRM Class IV areas. Table 3-20
identifies the range improvements under the proposed action and alternatives
which have the potential to exceed the maximum visual impact consistent with
foreground-middle ground zones of VRM Class II and III lands. Impacts would
be minimal in background or seldom seen zones (greater than 5 miles from the
viewer). Alternatives 1 and 2 would create no impacts as a result of range
improvements. Additional range improvements occurring under Alternative 3
would increase those impacts identified as a result of the proposed action.
Under this alternative, additional impacts would be significant in some areas
of Allotments 103, 206, 208, 400, 519, 520 and 709 where extensive vegetation
manipulation would take place in VRM Class I or II areas. Under Alternative
4, fewer range improvements (see Table 1-3) in Allotments 103, 400 and 600
would slightly reduce those impacts associated with the proposed action.
Under Alternative 5, an additional 7 miles of fencing in Allotments 201 and
208 would exceed the maximum visual impact consistent with the foreground-
middleground of that VRM Class II area. Under the proposed action and
Alternatives 3, 4 and 5, decreased vegetative cover in localized livestock
concentration areas around all new water developments would also create
significant visual contrast.
3-42
Table 3 20 Potential Impacts to Visual Resources
Visual
VRM Area of Potential Impact Sensitivity
Class _ (sensitivity area) _ Level
Impactor
2/
Impact
Occurrence
Allotment/s (by Alternative)
I Lost Forest
High Spray (3,600 acres)
103
3
II Fremont Highway 31 near Lower
Chewaucan Marsh
Fremont Highway 31, vicinity
of Silver Lake
Medium Burn and seed (150 acres);
(3 miles); waterhole
Medium Burn and seed (840 acres);
(10 miles)
Burn (600 acres)
Spray (5,400 acres)
Burn and seed (300 acres)
Spray and Seed (300 acres)
chain and seed (640 acres)
fencing
400
PA,
3,
4
fencing
400,
709, 710
PA,
3,
4
705,
901
3
400,
709
3
713
3
710
3
709
3
Gerber Reservoir
Med ium,
Burn (1,900 acres); fencing (1 mile);
882, 883,
885
High
reservoir
Burn and seed (640 acres)
885
3
West of Monument Flat,
High
Burn and seed (1,090 acres); spray
206, 500,
501,
PA, 3,
A, 5
vicinity of Fish and Drakes
and seed (320 acres); fencing (11
519, 520
Creeks, Highway 140, Road to
miles); spring development; water-
P lush
hole; 2 reservoirs
Burn and seed (18,000 acres)
206, 519,
520
3
Spray and seed (4,800 acres)
520
3
Spray (1,850 acres)
206, 208
3
Fencing (7 miles)
201, 208
5
1 reservoir
208
3
Highway 70 and Poe Valley Road
High
Burn and seed (120 acres); chain and
seed (100 acres)
829, 838
PA, 3,
4, 5
Malin-Bonanza Road
High
Burn and seed (30 acres); juniper
control (75 acres)
801
PA, 3,
4, 5
East Langell Road
High
Burn (80 acres)
883
PA, 3,
4, 5
Willow Valley Road
High
Burn and Seed (450 acres);
3 waterholes
890
PA, 3,
4, 5
Highway 31
Medium
Fence (12 miles)
400
PA, 3,
4, 5
Spray (6,000 acres)
400
3
Fossil Lake
Med ium
Fence (4 miles)
103
PA, 3,
4, 5
Doughtery Rim Road
Low
Spray (300 acres); burn and seed
(300 acres)
600
PA, 3,
4, 5
Twenty Mile Creek
Low
Reservoir
211
Highway 140
Medium
Burn (940 acres); spray and seed
205, 210,
211,
(1,000 acres)
213, 215
Burn (6,500 acres)
205, 215,
222
217,
3
Spray (3,600 acres)
210, 215
3
3 reservoirs
217, 222,
600
3
Burn and seed (4,000 acres)
600
3
Spray and seed (800 acres)
211, 218
3
Adel to Plush Road
Low
Spray and seed (200 acres); burn and
seed (640 acres)
204, 222
PA, 3,
4, 5
Highway 140 to Plush Road
Medium
Burn and seed (400 acres)
502, 503
PA, 3,
4, 5
Burn (640 acres); spray (640 acres)
503
3
Hogback Road
Low
Spray and seed (1,800 acres)
523
PA, 3,
4, 5
Bonanza Highway near Dairy
Medium
Burn (800 acres)
807
3
Warner Valley
Medium
8 reservoirs
523
3
Fencing (12 miles)
523
5
Xj Impacts would be most significant in areas of medium or high visual sensitivity, as based on an
evaluation of user volume, user concern, zone of influence and special interest group concern.
2J AH impactors listed would occur in the foreground— middleground visual distance zone (within 5
miles of the sensitivity area identified).
3-43
Cone lus ion
Certain portions of the Lakeview EIS area may experience degradation of
visual quality. Design features, as well as VRM program procedures and
constraints, would minimize landform and vegetative contrast changes.
Visual contrasts due to vegetation manipulation would be temporary until
vegetation is reestablished. In the long term, visual quality would improve
as range condition improves. Potential impactors identified in Table 3-20
would be most significant in VRM Class I, II and III foreground-middleground
areas with high or medium visual sensitivity.
IMPACTS TO AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
No impacts would occur to the two areas proposed for ACEC designation under
the proposed action and Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5. Under Alternative 3, the
Lost Forest would be adversely impacted as about 2,400 acres of the area
would be sprayed for sagebrush control (Allotment 103). The change in
species composition would impact the natural values of this Research Natural
Area.
IMPACTS TO SPECIAL AREAS
Impacts to the Lost Forest Research Natural Area are discussed in the
preceding section dealing with Impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern.
Warner Valley would be adversely impacted under the proposed action and
Alternatives 4 and 5. Numerous range improvements are proposed within
Allotments 311, 512 and 523 of the Warner Valley potential National Natural
Landmark identified by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
(HCRS) . Proposed improvements include 9.5 miles of fence (Allotments 511,
512, 523), three waterholes (512), 1,280 acres of burning and seeding (512)
and 2,800 acres of spraying and seeding (523). Weide (1973) stated that
North Warner Valley's relatively undisturbed nature makes it ideal for
studying geomorphic processes and historic and prehistoric water features.
Proposed improvements would have slight adverse impacts on this relatively
undisturbed condition. However, it is not expected that the proposed
improvement projects would adversely impact the waterfowl habitat and
geologic features which make the area significant.
Under Alternative 3, an additional 1,800 acres of burning followed by seeding
(Allotment 512), 1.5 miles of pipeline (512), two wells (512) and eight
reservoirs (523) would create additional adverse impacts in Warner Valley.
No impacts to special areas would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2.
IMPACTS ON ENERGY USE
Table 3-21 indicates the energy investment in British Thermal Units (Btu's)
required for range improvement project construction and annual maintenance
3-44
for the proposed action and alternatives. Alternative 1 would only require
energy consumption to maintain existing range improvements. Alternative 2
would not consume any energy. It is assumed that all energy consumed would
be in the form of fossil fuels or derivatives.
Under the proposed action, the annual average energy investment of 113
billion Btu's for new project construction during the implementation period
is about .02 percent of the projected 1980 Oregon total of 381 trillion Btu's
(Oregon Department of Energy 1980).
Table
3-21 Estimated Energy
Consumption for New Range
Improvement Project Construction and Maintenance
Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption
(1,000,000 Btu's)
(1,000,000 Btu's) For Annual
For Construction
Maintenance of New Projects
Proposed Action
1,130,300
10,900
Alternative 1
0
0
(No Action)
Alternative 2
0
0
(Elim. Lvstk.)
Alternative 3
3,847,500
48,100
(Opt. Lvstk.)
Alternative 4
881,200
8,000
(Opt. Horses)
Alternative 5
1,341,800
11,100
(Opt. Other)
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Introduction
The economic impacts of the proposed action and alternatives are expressed in
terms of the effects on: annual forage needs of users (operators); ranch
sale and collateral values; ranch income and operations; and local income and
employment from grazing, construction of range improvements, hunting and
fishing and other recreational activity. Social impacts not primarily
economic in nature are discussed as appropriate.
Effect on Users' Forage Needs
The effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the forage needs of
individual operators were calculated on the assumption that future livestock
forage allocations would be assigned to users in each allotment in direct
proportion to their 1979 active preference in that allotment. Permitted or
leased use in 1979 was subtracted from future allocations determined in this
3-45
way and the result (representing the change in AUMs for that operator) was
converted to a proportion of the operator's annual forage needs (by dividing
by 12 times the herd size). Since these effects are measured as changes from
1979 permitted/leased use as a base, they do not correspond with changes
measured from 1979 active preference.
Table 3-22 and 3-23 show how individual operators would be affected in terms
of their annual forage requirements by the alternative actions at initial
implementation (Table 3-22) and in the long term (Table 3-23). These tables
show the number of operators in each herd size class classified by whether
they would have a loss, no change or a gain in public forage (forage from
BLM-administered lands). Those losing forage are classified by the size of
their loss in terms of their annual forage requirements.
Also shown in these tables is the average change in forage as a percent of
annual requirements. This figure equals the total change in public forage
expressed as a percentage of the annual forage needs of all operators' herds
combined .
The seasonal distribution of public forage use is expected to correspond with
that shown in Table 2-20 except for Alternative 2 (Eliminate Livestock
Grazing) .
Under the proposed action, one operator (with less than 100 animals) would
lose public forage amounting to more than 20 percent of annual forage needs.
This loss would exceed 20 percent of annual needs both initially and in the
long term. No other operator would lose more than 10 percent of annual
needs. At initial implementation, public forage would be increased by an
average of 0.3 percent of operator annual needs, and in the long term, it
would be increased by 6.9 percent of present needs.
The effects of other alternatives with the exception of Alternatives 1 and 2
may be seen in the tables. Alternative 1 would continue existing public
forage use. The effect of Alternative 2 may be determined from Table 2-19
which shows operator dependence on the public forage which would be withdrawn
by the implementation of this alternative.
Effect on Ranch Collateral and Sale Values
As noted in Chapter 2, BLM does not recognize grazing permits and leases as
vested property rights; however, de facto effects on private asset valuation
may occur. The effect on ranch values as collateral for loans or in the sale
of the enterprise has been calculated by valuing public forage use at $45
per AUM. Tables 3-24 and 3-25 (Alternative 2) show the number of operators
experiencing a loss in ranch value by size of loss.
A temporary reduction in value at initial implementation might not be
consequential unless a loan were sought or the property sold during the
period of reduction.
3-46
Table 3-22 Number of Operators Affected by Change in Public Forage
“ Initial Implementation 1/
(Change in public forage expressed as percent of annual forage requirements.)
Change in forage
as percent of Lake and Harney Counties
annual requirements P ■ A. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Klamath County
P. A. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Loss over 20.0 %
-15.0 to
-10.0 to
-19.9 %
-14.9 %
- 5.0 to - 9.9
- 0.1 to - 4.9
No change
Gain
Average change
HERO SIZE - UNDER 100 ANIMAL UNITS
11 -
+10.2 +10.5 + 9.8 + 7.5
2
23
2
2
23
3
2
22
3
1
3
6
14
3
+ 1.3 + 2.9 + 2.8 - 0.1
4
27
8
EIS Area
P. A. Alt . 3 Alt .4 Alt .5
4
26
9
5
25
9
1
5
8
16
9
+ 5.0 + 6.0 + 5.7 + 3.1
HERD SIZE - 100 to 399 ANIMAL UNITS
Loss over 20.0 %
-15.0 to -19.9 %
-10.0 to -14.9 %
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
- 0. 1 to - 4.9 %
No change
Gain
Average change
+ 4.9 +4.9 +3.9 + 2.5
1
25
5
1
25
5
1
25
5
3
8
15
5
+ 1.7 + 1.7 + 1.7 + 0.3
1
3
33
13
1
3
33
13
1
2
33
13
5
12
20
12
+ 2.9 + 3.0 + 2.6 + 1.2
HERD SIZE - 400 to 999 ANIMAL UNITS
Loss over 20.0 %
-
-
-
-
-15.0 to -19.9 %
-
-
-
1
-10.0 to -14.9 %
-
•
—
1
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
1
1
2
5
- 0.1 to - 4.9 %
11
11
10
9
No change
2
3
3
1
Gain
10
9
9
7
Average change
+ 0.2 +
0.3
- 0.5
HERD
- 2.8
SIZE
Loss over 20.0 %
_
1
_
-15.0 to -19.9 %
»-
-
'»
-10.0 to -14.9 %
-
«, .
-
_
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
-
*
_
3
- 0.1 to - 4.9 %
8
8
9
12
No change
3
3
3
2
Gain
9
9
7
3
Average change
- 0.0 +
0.2
- 4.4 -
- 2.1
Loss over 20.0 %
1
l
2
1
-15.0 to -19.9 %
S
-
1
2
-10.0 to -14.9 %
-
-
-
1
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
2
2
3
12
- 0.1 to - 4.9 %
23
23
23
27
No change
17
18
17
10
Gain
33
32
30
23
Average change
+ 0.4 +
0.6
- 0.3 -
- 1.9
1/ Alternatives 1
and 2 have
been
omitted
from
+ 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2
1
4
4
1
1.0
+ 0.5 + 1.3 + 1.3 - 0.8
ALL OPERATORS
4
56
9
4
55
10
4
55
10
12
12
11
10
11
11
11
10
10
0.2
+ 0.3
- 0.3
8
3
10
8
3
10
- 0.0 + 0.2
1
1
6
13
5
- 2.3
3
13
2
3
4.3 - 2.1
7
2
2
3
19
19
27
27
27
46
33
73
73
72
43
9
42
42
40
32
0.3
+ 0.5
+ 0.7
- 2.3
- 1.6
Alternative 1.
+ 0.9 + 1.1 + 1.1
table. It is assumed that no changes would occur under
Table 2-19 shows the public forage use which would be lost under Alternative 2.
3-47
Table 3-23 Number of Operators Affected by Change in Public Forage
- Long-Term Allocation 1/
(Change in public forage expressed as percent of annual forage requirements.)
Change in forage
as percent of Lake and Harney Counties _ Klamath County _ EIS Area
annual requirements P ■ A. Alt ■ 3 Alt .4 Alt ■ 5 P, A. Alt . 3 Alt . 4 Alt . 5 P. A. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
HERD SIZE - UNDER 100 ANIMAL UNITS
Loss over 20.0 %
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-15.0 to -19.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-10.0 to -14.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
-
—
3
- 0.1 to - 4.9 %
1
1
1
2
-
-
-
8
1
1
i
10
No change
3
2
3
2
14
14
14
9
17
16
17
11
Gain
8
10
8
7
13
13
13
8
21
23
21
15
Average change
+ 12.4
+28.5
+ 12.6
+ 9.8
+ 4.0
+ 5.3
+ 4.0
+ 1.1
+ 7.5
+ 15.0
+ 7.6
+ 4.7
HERD SIZE - 100 to 399 ANIMAL UNITS
Loss over 20.0 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-15.0 to -19.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-10.0 to -14.9 /
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
- 0.1 to - 4.9 %
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
7
3
2
3
11
No Change
6
4
6
5
11
11
12
12
17
15
18
17
Gain
12
14
11
9
18
19
17
11
30
33
28
20
Average change
+ 7.2
+20.6
+ 5.8
+ 4.7
+ 2.4
+ 3.4
+ 2.5
+ 1.2
+ 4.3
+ 10.2
+ 3.8
+ 2.6
Loss over 20.0 /
HERD
SIZE
- 400 to 999 ANIMAL
UNITS
-15.0 to -19.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
—
_
-10.0 to -14.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
- 0.1 to - 4.9 %
1
1
5
10
-
-
5
1
1
5
15
No change
-
-
-
-
8 7
8
4
8
7
8
4
Gain
23
23
19
13
2 3
2
1
25
26
21
14
Average change
+ 7.1
+16.8
+ 5.7 +
3.3
+ 0.8 + 1.5
+ 0.8
- 0.4
+ 5.2
+ 12.3
+ 4.2
+ 2.2
Loss over 20.0 %
HERD
SIZE -
1,000 OR MORE ANIMAL UNITS
-15.0 to -19.9 %
-
- '
1
-
-
-
-
I
-
-10.0 to -14.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-■
m
- 0.1 to - 4.9 /
-
-
3
5
- - - 1
-
-
3
6
No change
I
1
1
2
-
1
1
1
2
Gain
19
19
15
13
111-
20
20
16
13
Average Change
+ 8.2
+24.6
+ 1.6 +
6.2
+ 2.0 + 2.1 + 2.0 - 0.1
+ 8.1
+24.1
+ 1.6
+ 6.1
ALL OPERATORS
Loss over 20.0 %
1
-
1
1
- -
-
-
-
1
-
i
1
-15.0 to -19.9 %
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-10.0 to -14.9 1
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
1
- 5.0 to - 9.9 %
-
-
~
2
* .
-
-
3
-
-
~
5
- 0.1 to - 4.9 %
3
3
10
21
3
1
2
21
5
4
12
42
No change
10
7
10
9
33
32
34
25
43
3
44
34
Gain
62
66
53
42
34
36
33
20
96
102
86
62
Average change
+ 8.0
+22.9
+ 2.8
+ 5.6
+ 1.9
+ 2.7
+ 1.9
+ 0.4
+ 6.9
+ 19.5
+ 2.6
+ 4.
_1_/ Alternatives 1 and 2 have been omitted from the table. It is assumed
Alternative 1. Table 2-19 shows the public forage use which would be
that no changes would occur under
lost under Alternative 2.
3-48
Table 3-24 Number of Operators with Loss in Ranch Value 1/
(Losses calculated on assumed value of $45 per AUM active preference)
Loss in
Ranch Value
Proposed Action #3 Opt. Livestock #4 Opt. Horses
Init ial Long Term Initial Long Term Initial Long Term
Lake and Harney Counties:
Under $100
$100 - 999
$1,000 - 4,999
$5,000 - 9,999
Tot al
Klamath County:
Under $100
$100 - 999
$1,000 - 4,999
$5,000 - 9,999
Total
Lake and Harney Counties:
Under $100
$100 - 999
$1,000 - 4,999
$5,000 - 9,999
$10,000 - 19,999
$20,000 - 29,000
Total
Klamath County:
Under $100
$100 - 999
$1,000 - 4,999
$5,000 - 9,999
$10,000 - 19,999
Tot al
HERD SIZE - UNDER 100 ANIMAL UNITS
1 1
3 1
2
2 0
1
1
2
4
2
2 2
2 0 2 0 2
HERD SIZE - 100-399 ANIMAL UNITS
11 - -
11 11 1
2
2
1
1
1_
2
1 ~ 1
0
0
0
1
HERD SIZE - 400-999 ANIMAL UNITS
Lake and Harney Counties:
Under $100
$100 - 999
$1,000 - 4,999 5
$5,000 - 9,999 5
$10,000 - 19,999 2
$20,000 - 29,999
$30,000 - 39,999
$40,000 - 49,999
$50,000 - 59,999
Total 12
Klamath County:
Under $100
$100 - 999
$1,000 - 4,999 1
$5,000 - 9,999
$10,000 - 19,999
$20,000 - 29,999
Total 1
0
HERD SIZE - OVER 1,000 ANIMAL UNITS
Lake and Harney Counties:
Under $100
$100 - 999 1
$1,000 - 4,999
$5,000 - 9,999 2
$10,000 - 19,999 2
$20,000 - 29,999 1
$30,000 - 39,999
$40,000 - 49,999 1
$50,000 - 99,999 1
$100,000 - 199,999 1
$200,000 - 299,999
$300,000 - 399,999
$400,000 - 499,999
$500,000 - 999,999
$1.0 - 1.1 million
Total 9
Klamath County:
Under $100
$100 - 999
$1,000 - 4,999
$5,000 - 9,999
Total 0
2
1
3
0
1
1
3
2
1
1
9
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
1
_1
10
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
I
1
4
3
1
8
0
2
1
1
1
1
IT
o
#5 Opt. Other
Init i al Long Term
4
3
]_
8
2
6
3
12
1
3
2
4
1
IT
2
3
4
2
_2
13
1
2
2
7
3
1
_1_
17
3
1
1
1
6
1
4
2
8
8
4
T2
1
2
3
1
1
I
4
4
1
"9
5
3
2
1
11
3
2
1
6
1
5
1
2
3
2
2
1
17
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
1
1
I
Lf Ganges in active preference rather than permitted use are used for the calculation of changes in ranch
values. Losses under Alternative 2 - Eliminate Livestock are tabulated in Table 3-25.
Table 3-25 Number of Operators with Loss in Ranch Value under
Alternative 2 - Eliminate Livestock 1/
(Losses calculated on assumed value of $45 per AUM active preference)
Implied loss in
Ranch Value
Under 100 100-399
Animals Animals
400-999
Animals
1,000
or more
Animals
Total
LAKE
AND HARNEY COUNTIES
Under $100
_
_
$100 - 999
1
6
-
—
7
$1,000 - 4,999
7
2
—
1
10
$5,000 - 9,999
1
2
2
—
5
$10,000 - 19,999
3
2
2
1
8
$20,000 - 29,999
—
2
2
3
7
$30,000 - 39,999
-
1
3
1
5
$40,000 - 49,999
1
2
4
—
7
$50,000 - 99,999
-
2
10
1
13
$100,000 - 199,999
-
—
1
6
7
$200,000 - 299,999
-
—
—
4
4
$300,000 - 399,999
-
-
—
1
1
$400,000 - 499,999
—
—
—
—
__
$500,000 - 999,999
-
-
—
—
—
$1.0 - 1.5 Million
—
—
—
2
2
—
Tot al
13
19
KLAMATH COUNTY
24
20
76
Under $100
—
_
$100 - 999
6
3
1
—
10
$1,000 - 4,999
16
12
6
—
34
$5,000 - 9,999
5
6
1
—
12
$10,000 - 19,999
-
9
1
—
10
$20,000 - 29,999
-
-
—
-
—
$30,000 - 39,999
—
—
—
—
—
$40,000 - 49,999
-
1
—
—
1
$50,000 - 99,999
-
—
—
1
1
$100,000 - 199,999
—
—
1
—
1
— ——
Tot al
27
31
10
1
69
]_/ Changes in active preference rather than permitted use are used for the
calculation of changes in ranch values.
3-50
An operator experiencing a substantial reduction in the value of property
used as collateral might be forced to sell out. The social impact for the
operator and family would probably be more severe than that associated with
the loss of another kind of business because of the close connection of the
ranching occupation and lifestyle. The intense involvement of the ranch
family in the business means a substantial social adjustment in changing
livelihoods. A second factor increasing the difficulty of change is the
relative isolation from other occupations and lifestyles.
The effect on ranch values in total for the proposed action and each
alternative is as follows:
Action
Initial Implement at ion
Long Term
Proposed Action
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
$- 334,000
No change
-7,495,000
- 236,000
-1,608,000
-1,291,000
$+2,595,000
No change
-7,495,000
+8,279,000
+ 636,000
+1,581,000
Effect on Average Operating Income
To determine the effect of changes in the availability of public forage on
ranch operations, representative budgets for four herd size classes were
developed from information obtained from a survey of operators. The effects
of average changes in public forage were analyzed by the Economics and
Statistics Service of the Department of Agriculture (Gee 1981) by means of
linear program models which determined the optimum business adjustment. The
budgets and results of the analysis are presented in Appendix 0.
The changes in the average operator's return above cash costs are shown in
Table 3-26. Alternative 1 has been omitted from the table since no change
would occur.
Effect of Changes in Public Forage Use on Income and Employment
The effect of the various potential management actions on sales of the
livestock industry and on the personal income of ranchers and the rest of the
community is shown in Table 3-27.
3-51
-52
u>
Table 3-26 Effect on Average Return Above Cash Costs
(Average return per ranch, 1977-78 average prices)
1979
Alt. 2
Alt
. 3
Alt. 4
Alt
. 5
Permitted
Proposed
. Action
Elim.
Opt .
Lvstk
Opt
. Horses
Opt .
Other
Herd Size
Use Base
Init ial
Long Term
Lvstk.
Initial
Long Term
Init ial
Long Term
Initial
Long Term
LAKE AND
HARNEY COUNTIES
Under 100
$ 10,228
$1,320
$ 1,378
$- 1,616
$1,320
$ 3,405
$ 1,083
$1,378
$ 834
$ 1,083
100-399
26,234
1,569
2,334
- 3,146
1,569
6,359
1,255
1,862
787
1,529
400-999
86,287
195
6,302
-13,853
273
14,849
-422
5,006
-2,588
2,912
1,000 or more
354,540
-205
34,398
-63,299
907
103,339
-18,626
6,810
-8,836
26,025
All Operators
128,857
626
11,861
-22,095
943
34,056
-4,536
4,074
-2,803
8,336
KLAMATH COUNTY
Under 100
$ 6,834
$ 108
$ 298
$ -796
$ 234
$ 419
$ 108
$ 298
$ -4
$ 81
100-399
24,469
508
739
-1,485
522
966
508
739
86
355
400-999
87,606
157
746
-4,402
154
1,389
157
746
-884
-344
1,000 or more
168,275
1,042
4,023
-12,501
2,613
4,133
1,042
4,023
-1,598
-191
All Operators
28,803
308
615
-1,798
386
859
308
615
-114
739
Table 3-27 Effect of Changes in Public Forage
on Livestock Sales and Personal Income
(Thousands of 1978 dollars)
y
Alternative Action
3/
Livestock Sales
4/
Personal Income —
Other
Livestock Industry Local Industries
and Area Affected
Initial
Long Term
Initial
Long Term
Initial Long Term
Proposed Action:
Lake County _2/
71.6
1480.9
19.3
400.2
7.4
152.3
Klamath County
41.1
80.9
6.6
13.0
7.8
15.3
EIS Area
112.7
1561.8
25.9
413.2
15.2
167.6
Alternative 2:
Lake County 2/
-3183.6
3183.6
-860.3
-860.3
-322.5
-322 5
Klamath County
-34.8
-34.8
-5.6
-5.6
-6 . 6
-6.6
EIS Area
-3218.4
3218.4
-865.9
-865.9
-329.1
-329.1
Alternative 3:
Lake County 2J
111.8
4225.9
30.2
1142.0
11.5
434.7
Klamath County
49.3
115.6
7.9
18.6
9.3
21.8
Els Area
161.1
4341.5
38.1
1160.6
20.8
456.5
Alternative 4:
Lake County 2/
-584.3
491.5
-157.9
132.8
-60.1
50.6
Klamath County
49.3
82.0
7.9
13.2
9.3
15.5
EIS Area
-535.0
573.5
-150.0
146.0
-50.8
66. 1
Alternative 5:
Lake County 2/
-352.6
1047.0
-95.3
282.9
-36.3
107.7
Klamath County
-14.7
18.7
-2.4
3.0
-2.8
3.5
EIS Area
-367.3
1065.7
-97.7
285.9
-39.1
104.2
\J Alternative 1 is omitted because it represents
existing situation discussed in Chapter 2.
2/ Includes grazing use in Harney County.
3/ Derived from linear program analysis. See Appendix
no change
0.
from the
zJ Calculated as amount of income generated
in local
private industry per
dollar of livestock sales,
Klamath Counties (Appendix N)
from interindustry
•
models for
Lake and
3-53
Changes in local employment resulting from changes in public forage use would
be as follows:
Number of
Workers
Proposed Action:
Initial Implementation + 6
Long Term + 95
Alternative 2 - Eliminate Livestock
Initial Implementation -199
Long Term -199
Alternative 3 - Optimize Livestock
Initial Implementation + 9
Long Term +267
Alternative 4 - Optimize Horses
Initial Implementation - 34
Long Term + 34
Alternative 5 - Optimize Wildlife
Initial Implementation - 22
Long Term + 66
Other Effects
Table 3-28 shows the impacts of construction activity resulting from the
alternative actions. These impacts would occur over a several year period
assumed to be 10 years.
The impacts of changes in recreational activity are shown in Table 3-29.
These impacts are calculated as the difference between the amount of income
expected in 1990 under each alternative and the amount which would have
occurred in the absence of any change in BLM management. Changes in
employment related to these income changes are considered minor.
3-54
Table 3 28 Impact of Construction on Personal
Income and Employment
(Thousands of 1978 dollars)
Alternative Action 1/
Construction
Value 2/
Personal
Income 3/
Employment 3/
(work-yearsT
Proposed Action
$10,099
$11,049
677
Alt. 3-0ptimize
Livestock
31,866
34,864
2,136
Alt. 4-0ptimize
Horses
8,115
8,879
544
Alt. 5-0ptimize
Other
11,467
12,545
768
U Alternatives 1 and 2 would not involve construction activity.
2] Total estimated cost of all range improvements for each alternative.
3/ Estimated from inter-industry models (Appendix N). Represents total
amount generated over the whole construction period assumed to be 10 years
long.
Table 3 29 Impacts of Changes in Recreational Activity
on Personal Income
(1990 conditions, thousands of 1978 dollars)
Other
Alternative Action
Hunt ing
Fishing
Recreation
Total
Proposed Action
$ + 6.0
$+18.7
$-17.6
$+7.1
Alternative 1 - No Action
—
—
—
—
Alternative 2 - Eliminate
Livestock
+ 6.0
+24.4
+ 17.7
+48.1
Alternative 3 - Optimize
Livestock
-13.8
0.0
-53.1
o
•
r-^
vO
1
Alternative 4 - Optimize
Horses
3.0
+ 18.7
-17.6
+ 4.1
Alternative 5 - Optimize
Other
8.4
+21.6
-17.6
+ 12.4
3-5 3
Summary
One operator would experience forage losses of more than 10 percent of forage
requirements under the proposed action, and a maximum of five operators would
lose more than 10 percent of their requirements under any alternative except
Alternative 2.
In the long term, increases in public forage use would be achieved under the
proposed action and all alternatives except Alternatives 1 and 2.
Changes in local personal income and employment attributable to the proposed
action and alternatives are shown in Tables 3-30 and 3-31.
Table 3-30 Summary of Changes in Annual Local Personal Income
(Thousands of 1978 dollars)
Alternative Action 1/
Grazing
Recreat ion
Construct ion
2/
Total
Proposed Action:
Initial Implementation
+
41
—
+1,105
+1,146
Long Term
+
581
+ 7.1
—
+ 588
Alt. 2 Eliminate Livestock
Initial Implementation
-1
,195
—
—
-1,195
Long Term
-1
,195
+48.1
—
-1,147
Alt. 3 Optimize Livestock
Initial Implementation
+
59
—
+3,486
+3,545
Long Term
+ 1
,617
-67.0
—
+1,550
Alt. 4 Optimize Horses
Initial Implementation
—
201
—
+ 888
+ 687
Long Term
+
212
+ 4.1
—
+ 216
Alt. 5 Optimize Wildlife
Initial Implementation
-
137
—
+1,255
+1,118
Long Term
+
390
+ 12.4
—
+ 402
1/ No changes for Alternative 1.
2/ Construction income is treated as
if it was
evenly spread
over
the first
10-year period.
3-56
Table 3-31 Summary of Changes in Local Employment
Alternative Action 1 / Grazing Recreat ion Construct ion 2/ Total
Proposed Action:
Initial Implementation
+ 6
—
+ 68
+ 74
Long Term
+ 95
+ 2
—
+ 97
Alt. 2 Eliminate Livestock
Initial Implementation
-199
—
—
-199
Long Term
-199
+ 9
—
-190
Alt. 3 Optimize Livestock
Initial Implementation
+ 9
—
+214
+223
Long Term
+267
-10
—
+257
Alt. 4 Optimize Horses
Initial Implementation
- 34
—
+ 54
+ 20
Long Term
- 34
+ 2
—
- 32
Alt. 5 Optimize Wildlife
Initial Implementation
- 22
—
+ 77
+ 55
Long Term
+ 66
+ 3
—
+ 63
JV No changes for Alternative
2/ Construction employment is
1.
treated as
if it
were spread over
the firs
10-year period.
3-5 7
ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
This section presents an analysis of the unavoidable adverse impacts which
would result from the proposed action. Project design features discussed in
Chapter 1 constitute best management practices; therefore, no additional
mitigating measures are proposed.
Range trend on 136,650 acres would decline. An additional 91 acres of
riparian vegetation would also deteriorate. Residual ground cover would
decrease on 133,402 acres. A short-term reduction of vegetative ground cover
would occur on 1,603 acres and a long-term loss of vegetative ground cover
would occur on 151 acres from construction of range improvements. Threatened
and endangered plants not identified in site-specific surveys could be
impacted .
The construction of range improvements would temporarily expose 223,695.6
acres to erosion. Wind erosion would occur on 5,760 acres of Sandy and Ashey
soils proposed for burning. Livestock concentration around the proposed
water developments would expose 1,500 acres to erosion. The construction of
range improvements would result in a short-term increase in sediment yield of
1.24 percent over the present situation.
Downward trend along 2 miles of stream would result in decreased fish
production. Downward trend on 12 riparian acres would result in decreased
animal diversity and numbers. Forage competition between big game and
livestock would occur on approximately 17,000 acres of crucial deer winter
range and 5,000 acres of crucial antelope range because of early turnout
dates (3/1 - 4/15). Vegetation manipulation on about 263,000 acres of
sagebrush would decrease associated small animal numbers and populations.
Slight decreases in sightseeing are expected due to increased visual
contrasts. In some specific localities, range improvements would result in
slight visitor use reduction. High quality activities impacted include
hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, historic and zoologic sight¬
seeing. Adverse effects on total long-term area-wide recreational use would
be minimal.
Unidentified cultural sites would be susceptible to artifact breakage,
chipping, displacement and contamination as a result of ground disturbance.
The integrity of known cultural sites would be degraded as their settings are
impacted.
Scenic quality and visual resources would be degraded due to the construction
of certain range improvements and vegetative manipulations in VRM Class II
and III foreground-midd leground areas.
The construction of range improvements would temporarily disturb wild horses.
Construction of 108 miles of fence may cause injuries to horses.
The initial vegetation allocation would result in a net loss of 7,162 AUMs .
One operator would have a loss in permitted use greater than 10 percent of
annual livestock forage needs.
3-58
Initial project construction during the 10-year implementation period would
consume 1.13 trillion Btu's of energy. Annual project maintenance would
consume 10.9 billion Btu's.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
This section analyzes the trade-offs between short-term use and long-term
productivity for the proposed action. Initially, there would be a net
decrease of 7,162 AUMs in forage available for livestock use. This decrease
in use of the vegetation would, in the long term, act to increase plant vigor
and percent composition of key plant species. This would result in an
increase in residual ground cover, which would lead to a decrease in erosion
and sediment yield in streams. The increased residual cover would provide
improved habitat for wildlife and improve range condition and productivity.
Forage available for livestock would be increased by 56,494 AUMs, increasing
the income to operators and the local economy by $588,000 annually.
The construction of range improvements would increase erosion and sediment
yield, contrast visually with landscape elements and displace some animals
over the short term. As vegetation became reestablished on disturbed areas,
erosion and sediment yield would decrease. About 150 acres would be lost to
vegetation production.
Construction of 147 reservoirs would reduce the amount of water reaching
downstream users in the short and long term, but not significantly.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
This section identifies the extent to which the proposed action would
irreversibly limit the potential uses of the land and resources.
The 151 acres which would be occupied by the range improvements would lose
their capacity to produce vegetation for the life of the improvement, which
would be an irretrievable commitment of the vegetation resource. Disturbance
of the soil surface during the construction of range improvements would cause
an irretrievable loss of soil resulting in a 1.24 percent increase in
sediment yield in streams.
Proposed livestock grazing and range developments could disturb certain
cultural resources. Once disturbed, the functional and morphological data
available from these archeologic and historic sites could be biased.
Scientific value of these sites would diminish. The resulting data gap for
the area's history would be an irretrievable commitment.
Energy would be irretrievably committed to install, operate and maintain
range improvements. The initial investment of 1.13 trillion Btu's for
improvement construction during the implementation period and the annual
investment of 10.9 billion Btu's for project maintenance represent an
irretrievable reduction of supplies of petroleum— der ived energy.
3-59
■
■
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM
COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT
Comments on the DEIS will be requested from the following agencies and
interest groups:
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Defense
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Energy
Region X
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service
Bureau of Mines
Water and Power Resources Service
Environmental Protection Agency
State and Local Government
Harney County Planning Commission
Klamath County Planning Commission
Lake County Planning Commission
IDA-ORE Regional Planning and
Development Association
Klamath— Lake County Planning and
Coordinating Council
Oregon State Clearinghouse
Oregon State Historic Preservation
Officer
Interest Groups
All Grazing Permittees in
the Lakeview EIS Area
American Fisheries Society
American Horse Protection
Association
Desert Trails Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Oregon Cattlemen's Association
Oregon Environmental Council
Oregon High Desert Study Group
Oregon Natural Heritage Program
Oregon Student Public Interest
Research Group
Oregon Sheepgrowers
Public Lands Council
Sagecounty Alliance for a Good
Environment (SAGE)
Sierra Club
Society for Range Management
Management
Southern Oregon Resource Alliance
(SORA)
The Wilderness Society
Wildlife Management Institute
Wildlife Society, Oregon Chapter
Copies of this draft environmental impact statement will be available for
public inspection at the following BLM offices:
Washington Office of Public Affairs
18th and C Streets
Washington, DC 20240
Phone (202) 343-5717
Lakeview District Office
1000 Ninth St. S.
P.0. Box 151
Lakeview, Oregon 97630
Phone (503) 947-2177
Oregon State Public Affairs Office
729 N.E. Oregon Street
P.0. Box 2965
Portland, Oregon 97208
Phone (503) 231-6277
Reading copies will be placed in the following libraries: Oregon Institut
of Technology, Klamath Falls; Portland State University, Portland; Oregon
State University, Corvallis; University of Oregon, Eugene; Central Oregon
Community College, Bend; and the Harney, Klamath and Lake County Libraries
Public hearings will be held in Lakeview, Oregon, on the adequacy,
completeness, and accuracy of this environmental impact statement. The
hearings will not address the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed
action, but opinions are and will be solicited on the quality of the
analysis .
Details of the hearing will be published in the Federal Register and local
news sources.
LIST OF PREPARERS
While individuals have primary responsibility for preparing sections of an EIS, the document is an
interdisciplinary team effort. In addition, internal review of the document occurs throughout prep¬
aration Specialists at the District, State Office and Washington Office levels of the Bureau both
review the analysis and supply information. Contributions by individual preparers may be subiect to
revision by other BLM specialists and by management during the internal review process.
Name
Lisa Blackburn
John T. Booth Socioeconomics
Gerry Fullerton Team Leader
William Gilmore Vegetation
Discipline
Water Range Management/
Wild Horses Soil Science
Economics
Range Conservation
Range Management
Related Professional
Experience
1 year, (Range Conservationist) USFS
1- 1/2 years (Soil Scientist) BLM,
Burns, Oreg.
3 years (Environmental Protection
Specialist) BLM, Portland, Oreg.
23 years (Economist)
2- 1/2 years (Regional Economist) BLM
7-1/2 years (Regional Economist) Corps
of Engineers
2-1/2 years (Economist) Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco
6-1/2 years (Economic Analyst) Wash.
Dept, of Commerce
3 years (Tax Analyst) Wash. Tax
Commission
4 years (Research Assistant)
19 years, BLM (Range Conservationist,
Natural Resource Specialist,
Environmental Specialist)
4 years, BLM (Range Conservationist)
Primary Responsibility
Soils
and
Climate,
Resources,
L.D. Hamilton
Jeanne Johnson
Richard Nawa
Joseph V. H. Ross
Technical Coordinator/Editor Geography
Editorial Assistant Administrative
Wildlife Zoology
Recreation, Cultural Recreation
Resources, Wilderness,
Ecologically Significant Areas,
Visual Resources and Energy
10 years, (Outdoor Recreation Planner,
Environmental Protection
Specialist)
Secretary 4 years, BLM (Secretary, Editorial
Assistant )
6 years (Wildlife Biologist)
2 years BLM, Elko, Nev.
2 years BLM, Portland, Oreg.
2 years Cooperative Wildlife Research
Lab., Southern Illinois Univ.
6 years (Forestry Technician, Biological
Information Specialist, Outdoor
Recreation Planner)
23 years BLM (Forester, Outdoor Recreation
Planner, Supervisory Environmental
Protection Specialist)
Ron Smith
Team Manager
Forest Management
'
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
A Lakeview Public Scoping Meeting
B Allotment Specific Tables
C Determination of Forage Production and Vegetation Allocation
D Scientific Names of Plants Mentioned in the EIS
E Determination of Existing and Predicted Range Condition and Trend
F Existing Range Condition and Trend by Allotment
G Average Monthly Temperatures and Precipitation for Selected Weather
St at ions
H Properities and Qualities of the Soils in the Lakeview EIS Area
I Soil Units Shown on Figure 2-3, General Soils
J Erosion Condition
K Range of Selected Water Quality Parameters
L Riparian Inventory
M Criteria for Evaluating Stream Condition
N Inter-Industry Model
0 Ranch Budgets
P Sediment Yield from Construction of Range Improvements
Appendix A
Lakeview Public Scoping Meeting
A public meeting was held in Lakeview on September 3, 1980, for scoping the
Lakeview Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Comments
received at that meeting established a rather solid consensus that the EIS
should address an alternative that called for a higher level of grazing than
the proposed action. That alternative, to be called Optimize Livestock
razing, would differ from the proposed grazing management program in the
following ways:
rotecting riparian areas on live streams only to the extent needed to
meet Federal and State water quality standards and maintain existing
quality where streams are above standards.
- Managing the Paisley and Beatys Butte wild horse herds for maintenance
of a herd size of 30 animals each.
- Developing all practical and economically feasible range improvements
for the benefit of wildlife and livestock.
There was no consistent support at the Lakeview meeting for discussion of any
alternative involving a lower level of grazing than that in the District
Manager s proposal. The specific comments received, however, suggested a
lower level alternative that differed from the proposed action in the
following ways:
Limiting utilization of key species to 40 percent on sites with a soil
surface factor of 41 or more; and to 50 percent utilization on sites
with a soil surface factor of less than 41.
Managing the Paisley and Beatys Butte wild horse herds for maintenance
of a herd size of only 30 animals each.
A number of suggestions for other alternatives were made by one or another
work group at the Lakeview meeting. The relevance of each is discussed
below:
Optimize vegetation, water and soil. This would basically be the same
as the optimize wildlife and nonconsumptive uses alternative.
Implement the stewardship program at an accelerated pace. Opportun¬
ities to implement the stewardship program already exist in both the
proposed action and the Optimize Livestock Grazing alternative. The
level of the stewardship program, however, is a matter of Bureau range
management policy, which is not appropriate for discussion in a
geographically specific EIS.
A-l
- Exclude game from livestock ranges. This alternative is not appropri¬
ate, as the State manages game.
- No reduction in grazing allocations until implementation and completion
of management and treatment. The short-term impacts of this option
would be the same as those of the mandatory No Action alternative. The
long-term impacts would be the same as those of the proposed action.
The impacts of such an alternative will therefore be analyzed in the
EIS and it would be a selectable option if consistent with law and
Bureau policy at the time of the decision.
- Emphasis on blocking land ownership. The District's proposed manage¬
ment framework plan places considerable emphasis on such blocking.
Varying degrees of emphasis on blocking in the plan would not eliminate
the need to manage the lands until an appropriate exchange program,
which will take some time, can be completed. Thus, a different
emphasis on blocking ownership would not significantly modify the
proposed action that will be discussed in the EIS. That is, it would
not define a different grazing management program.
- Dispose of Federal land to private ownership as contemplated before
passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This proposal,
which would require a major change in the law, is beyond the scope of a
geographically specific EIS on grazing management.
In discussion at the public meeting, it was pointed out that the law requires
the EIS to address a range of alternatives, and that the range should extend
on both sides of the proposed level of livestock grazing. Alternatives were
discussed which would identify a lower level of livestock grazing by
optimizing other values, such as wild horses, wildlife and nonconsumptive
uses. There was little support at the meeting, however, for analysis of any
such alternative.
One letter received in response to the scoping notice suggested consideration
of a specific option — a 10 percent across-the-board cut in livestock
grazing. This was considered, but BLM felt it is more appropriate to relate
alternatives to resource management objectives than to base them on arbitrary
changes in levels of grazing use.
Separate comment from a member of the Oregon Environmental Council favored
analyzing an alternative to optimize wild horses and another alternative to
optimize wildlife and nonconsumptive uses. It suggested that the latter
contain the following elements, different from the proposed action:
1. Excluding livestock from all identified riparian areas, except at water
gaps.
2. Excluding livestock from 26,000 acres of bighorn sheep seasonal and
migratory ranges, and 19,500 acres of crucial deer winter range.
3.
Limiting utilization of key species to 40 percent
surface factor of 41 or more; and to 50 percent
with a soil surface factor of 40 or less.
on sites with a soil
utilization on sites
4.
Managing the Paisley and Beatys Butte wild horse herds
of a herd size of 30 animals each.
for maintenance
5. Protecting wet meadows.
6. Limiting size of seedings.
7. Using only burning as the method to remove existing vegetation before
seeding.
he first six of these are considered to be practical elements of such an
alternative. The. sixth, however, cannot be given precise definition that
would display a difference from the proposed action, as the proposed action
already calls for seedings to be limited in size and design to meet
o jectives for the management of other resources including wildlife. The
seventh, burn, only", cannot adequately be quantified for impact analysis
because. only site specific planning will show which of the areas proposed for
vegetative manipulation can feasibly be burned. However, the alternative can
e defined as vegetation removal by burning on all sites which will carry a
fire except on erodible soils.
ternatives to be analyzed in the EIS were discussed at the September 16
meeting of the District's Multiple Use Advisory Council. The council
recommended that, in addition to the mandatory No Action and No Grazing
alternatives and the higher level of grazing alternative defined at the
public meeting, the EIS should analyze the following two alternatives.
An alternative that would optimize wildlife and nonconsupt ive uses.
An . alternat ive that would optimize wild horse numbers on existing herd
units. It would differ from the proposed action by removing livestock
from the Paisley and Beatys Butte wild horse herd management areas to
allow maximum wild horse numbers (600 in Paisley, 1,500 in Beatys
Butte) consistent with maintenance of wildlife and other amenity values
as defined in the proposed action.
Based on this advice, the EIS will analyze the following alternatives:
- Proposed Action
~ No Action
- No Grazing
Optimize Livestock Grazing (as defined on Page A-l)
Optimize Wild Horses
Optimize Wildlife and Nonconsumptive Uses (essentially in the first
four elements on the previous page, the fifth and sixth elements being
included by implicit definition of details of the alternative). The
seventh element would be vegetation removal by burning on all sites
which will carry a fire except on erodible soils.
A- 4
Appendix B
Allotment-Specific Tables
B-l Proposed Management, Period of Use and Initial Vegetation
Allocation
B-2 Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems
B-3 Proposed Action Range Improvements
B 4 Anticipated Long-Term Vegetation Allocation by Alternative
B-5 Additional Range Improvements for Alternative 3 above the Proposed
Action
♦
Table B-l Proposed Management
Public
Allotment Number Lands
and Name _ (acres)
100 PETER CREEK 13,800
101 EAST GREEN MOUNTAIN 17,241
102 CRACK IN THE GROUND 15,419
103 VIEWPOINT 524,180
104 BOTTOMLESS LAKE ’565
200 BLUE CREEK 600
201 VINYARD INDIV 8,600
202 HICKEY INDIV 10,906
203 O'KEEFFE 565
204 CRUMP INDIV 2,930
205 GREASER DRIFT 9*210
206 LANE PLAN II 9*910
207 LANE PLAN I 24*725
208 SAGEHEN 3*820
209 SCHADLER ’790
210 GRIENER INDIV 2,990
211 ROUND MOUNTAIN 16*330
212 RAHILLY-GRAVELLY 33,285
213 BURRO SPRING 7*500
215 HILL CAMP 30,790
216 O'KEEFFE INDIV 50*330
217 COX INDIV 4*670
218 SANDY SEEDING 4*850
219 CAHILL ’470
222 FISHER LAKE 4,230
223 HICKEY ’412
400 PAISLEY COMMON 551,620
401 FENCED FED. LAND 160
403 PINE CREEK 400
404 WILLOW CREEK 3,123
405 EAST CLOVER FLAT 8^682
406 WEST CLOVER FLAT 748
407 CLOVER FLAT 2,521
408 SCHOOL HOUSE * 55
409 TUCKER HILL 3,534
410 TIM LONG CREEK *285
411 JONES CANYON 636
412 FIR TIMBER BUTTE 1,773
413 MILL CREEK 1*689
415 BRIGGS GARDEN *785
416 WHITE ROCK 565
417 C & J USE AREA 849
501 FLYNN 2,780
502 FITZGERALD 5*150
503 TAYLOR 3*110
504 KIELY ’390
505 LYNCH 180
506 MCKEE 100
Other
Lands
( acres )
Existing
Period
of Use 1/
Proposed
Period
of Use 1/
640
04/15-11/15
04/15-11/15
1,440
04/21-10/31
04/21-10/31
400
05/01-09/15
05/01-09/15
54,640
03/01-10/31
03/01-10/31
0
06/01-09/30
06/01-09/30
0
05/15-11/30
05/15-11/30
160
04/07-09/15
04/07-09/15
90
0
04/15-09/15
04/15-09/15
395
04/15-06/15
04/15-06/15
0
09/01-11/15
09/01-11/15
3,330
04/07-07/15
04/15-07/15
1,370
04/07-09/15
04/07-09/15
2,050
0
06/15-10/07
07/07-10/15
680
04/07-08/15
04/07-08/15
1,640
04/07-06/30
04/07-06/30
2,031
03/15-09/15
03/15-09/15
0
12/01-03/15
12/01-03/15
2,710
04/01-10/15
04/01-10/15
3,010 ~
03/15-09/15
03/15-09/15
60
04/15-04/14
04/15-04/14
O C
03/21-04/30
03/21-04/30
656
0
11/15-03/15
11/15-03/15
13,004
03/01-02/28
03/15-01/31
520
03/01-04/30
03/01-04/30
1,160
04/15-06/15
04/15-06/15
4,220
04/15-06/15
04/15-06/15
5,246
04/15-06/15
04/15-06/15
2,776
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
4,851
04/15-05/21
04/15-05/21
1,980
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
323
04/15-05/15
04/15-05/15
1,155
04/15-05/15
04/15-05/15
0
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
3,045
05/01-06/15
05/01-06/15
127
05/01-05/31
05/01-06/15
899
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
438
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
1,135
04/15-06/15
04/15-12/31
0
-
-
0
-
_
0
-
_
0
-
_
0
-
_
0
-
_
of Use and Initial Vegetation Allocation
Present
Forage
Production
(AUMs)
Proposed Initial Allocation
Wild Noncon- Live-
Wildlife Horses sumptive stock
(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs)
1979
Ac t ive
Preference
(AUMs)
Proposed
Livestock
Ad justment
(AUMs)
1,017
30
0
0
987
987
0
1,295
315
0
0
980
980
0
441
143
0
0
298
298
0
30,323
529
408
217
29,169
32,657
-3,488
51
0
0
1
50
0
50
181
50
0
0
131
0
131
650
112
0
28
510
510
0
687
102
0
66
519
519
0
48
2
0
0
46
48
-2
142
50
0
0
92
92
0
306
100
0
0
206
256
-50
596
146
0
0
450
408
42
2,240
200
0
98
1,942
1,942
0
326
60
0
0
266
266
0
77
20
0
0
57
57
0
121
30
0
0
91
91
0
1,407
183
0
122
1,102
1,102
0
1,995
111
0
103
1,781
1,781
0
360
60
0
21
279
0
279
4,182
300
0
0
3,882
3,932
-50
5,058
266
0
0
4,792
4,808
-16
444
70
0
74
300
217
83
430
30
0
45
355
0
355
300
20
0
0
280
280
0
644
50
0
65
529
429
100
125
61
0
0
64
64
0
16,861
251
612
0
15,998
19,119
-3,121
1 6
0
0
0
16
16
0
20
2
0
0
18
18
0
66
2
0
0
64
63
1
290
8
0
0
282
526
-244
17
2
0
0
15
15
0
220
20
0
0
200
90
110
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
136
0
0
0
136
46
90
13
0
0
0
13
13
0
13
0
0
0
13
113
-100
143
14
0
0
129
132
-3
78
8
0
0
70
67
3
49
7
0
0
42
42
0
11
1
0
0
10
10
0
9
0
0
0
9
5
4
175
55
0
0
120
120
0
406
60
0
0
346
346
0
307
60
0
0
247
295
-48
23
0
0
0
23
23
0
20
0
0
0
20
20
0
10
0
6
0
10
10
0
Table B-l Proposed Management, Period of Use and Initial Vegetation Allocation (Cont.)
Allotment Number
and Name
Public
Lands
(acres)
Other
Lands
(acres)
Existing
Period
of Use 1/
Proposed
Period
of Use 1/
Present
Forage
Production
(AUMs)
Proposed Initial Allocat
Wild Noncon-
Wildlife Horses sumptive
(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs)
ion
Live¬
stock
(AUMs)
1979
Ac t ive
Preference
(AUMs)
Proposed
Livestock
Adjustment
(AUMs)
507 LAIRD
2,030
400
_
_
214
50
0
0
164
164
0
508 ROCK CREEK RANCH
280
0
-
-
9
0
0
0
9
9
0
509 COX BUTTE
38,340
1,920
03/15-10/20
03/15-10/20
1,259
63
0
0
1,196
1,196
0
510 ORIJANA RIM
57,280
3,520
04/01-11/01
04/01-10/31
1,565
100
0
42
1,423
1,423
0
511 NORTHEAST WARNER
138,320
8,580
03/01-08/15
02/01-09/30
5,968
12
0
0
5,956
5,956
0
512 NORTH BLUE JOINT
22,440
3,640
05/01-07/31
10/01-12/31
740
100
0
351
289
289
0
514 CORN LAKE
78,410
3,960
03/21-09/10
03/21-09/30
2,763
40
0
60
2,663
2,663
0
515 JUNIPER MOUNTAIN
91,720
760
04/01-09/29
04/01-09/29
4,006
116
0
269
3,621
3,621
0
516 RABBIT BASIN
60,540
940
02/01-03/26
12/01-06/15
810
26
0
214
570
570
0
517 COYOTE-COLVIN
127,596
17,002
03/16-11/15
12/01-10/31
5,127
87
0
0
5,040
5,209
-169
518 CLOVER CREEK
10,050
1,834
06/01-11/01
06/01-11/01
443
8
0
0
435
435
0
519 FISH CREEK
14,805
11,926
04/16-10/31
05/01-10/31
667
44
0
0
623
498
125
520 LYNCH- FLYNN
17,320
4,540
04/19-08/09
05/01-07/15
964
55
0
0
909
867
42
521 PRIDAY RESERVOIR
780
720
04/01-08/01
08/01-09/30
204
139
0
0
65
30
35
522 ABERT SEEDING
9,200
320
03/16-06/20
03/16-06/20
2,561
60
0
0
2,501
2,501
0
523 WARNER LAKES
39,268
6,090
04/01-10/15
04/16-10/15
2,021
50
0
315
1,656
1,489
167
524 LANE INDIV
2,700
0
-
-
115
50
0
0
65
65
0
600 BEATYS BUTTE
506,985
46,455
04/01-11/30
04/01-12/15
28,965
444
2,400
0
26,121
27,892
-1,771
700 SILVER CR-BRIDGE CR
6,645
265
04/21-01/15
04/21-06/21
331
69
0
0
262
262
0
701 UPPER BRIDGE CR
1,460
3,270
04/01-10/09
03/01-10/07
137
29
0
0
108
108
0
702 BUCK CR-BRIDGE CR
6,280
375
05/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
463
142
0
12
309
309
0
703 BEAR CREEK
1,155
990
04/28-06/28
04/28-06/28
143
36
0
0
107
107
0
704 WARD LAKE
12,424
1,819
04/28-06/27
04/28-06/27
837
187
0
0
650
650
0
705 OATMAN FLAT
21,983
4,275
03/01-06/30
03/01-06/30
1,739
463
0
0
1,276
1,332
-56
706 RYE RANCH
4,240
0
05/19-10/31
05/21-10/31
669
130
0
0
539
539
0
707 TUFF BUTTE
9,330
2,310
05/01-06/30
05/01-12/15
876
340
0
0
536
376
160
708 ARROW GAP
2,720
160
04/15-06/15
04/15-06/15
135
0
0
0
135
135
0
709 DEAD INDIAN-DUNCAN
18,790
2,420
04/01-09/30
04/01-09/30
1,233
647
0
0
586
586
0
710 MURDOCK
4,468
1,668
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
617
72
0
0
545
705
-160
711 SOUTH HAYES BUTTE
1,170
0
05/01-05/31
05/01-06/15
88
16
0
0
72
72
0
712 BRIDGE WELL
1,400
1,050
04/15-05/15
04/15-05/15
149
99
0
0
50
50
0
713 SILVER CREEK
2,785
640
04/15-05/31
04/15-05/31
262
62
0
0
200
200
0
714 TABLE ROCK
4,100
120
-
-
173
173
0
0
0
250
-250
715 CONNELLY HILLS
6,5 20
1,800
03/01-05/15
03/01-05/15
1,101
295
0
0
806
750
56
716 SILVER LAKE LAKEBED
640
0
11/01-12/31
11/01-12/31
250
0
0
0
250
0
250
800 ADAMS
40
0
05/15-10/31
05/15-10/31
6
0
0
0
6
6
0
801 HAUGHT
400
0
05/01-07/31
05/01-07/31
31
4
0
0
27
27
0
804 BAR CL
480
0
05/01-10/31
05/01-10/31
48
6
0
0
42
42
0
806 TWO MILE
817
0
05/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
92
12
0
0
80
80
0
807 BARNWELL
1,708
0
04/15-06/30
04/15-06/30
115
15
0
0
100
100
0
808 LEE
40
0
06/01-08/15
06/01-08/15
11
1
0
0
10
10
0
809 BROWN
80
0
06/01-08/30
06/01-08/31
34
4
0
0
30
30
0
810 BRENDA
1,300
0
05/16-06/30
05/16-06/30
142
18
0
0
124
124
0
811 CHEYNE
840
0
05/01-06/15
05/01-06/15
55
4
0
0
51
51
0
812 STUKEL-COFFIN
760
0
05/15-06/30
05/15-06/30
62
7
0
0
55
55
0
813 PLUM HILLS
160
0
04/16-06/30
04/16-06/30
23
3
0
0
20
20
0
814 CUNNINGHAM
840
0
04/26-07/15
04/26-07/15
124
16
0
0
108
108
0
815 STUKEL-DEHLINGER C.
1,680
0
04/16-09/15
04/16-09/15
269
29
0
0
240
240
0
Table B-l Proposed Management, Period of Use and Initial Vegetation Allocation (Cont.)
Public
Other
Existing
Proposed
Allotment Number
Lands
Lands
Period
Period
and Name
(acres)
(acres)
of Use 1/
of Use 1/
816 STUKEL-DEHLINGER H.
440
0
05/10-08/10
05/10-08/10
817 DREW
1,080
0
06/01-10/15
06/01-10/15
818 BRYANT-DUNCAN
200
0
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
819 DUPONT
79
0
04/15-06/01
04/15-06/01
820 FLESHER
160
0
05/01-07/31
05/01-07/31
821 NORTH HORSEFLY
988
0
05/01-06/15
05/01-06/15
822 STUKEL-O' NEILL
3,122
0
04/16-09/30
04/16-09/30
823 NO. HORSEFLY
920
0
06/16-08/01
06/16-08/01
825 NAYLOX
760
0
06/01-09/30
06/01-09/30
826 HASKINS
560
0
04/16-05/15
04/16-05/15
827 STUKEL-HIGH
349
0
04/16-09/30
04/16-09/30
828 STUKEL-HILL
960
0
04/16-07/15
04/16-07/15
829 HORTON
760
0
04/15-06/30
04/15-06/30
830 HUNGRY HOLLOW
280
0
06/01-08/31
06/01-08/31
831 WARLOW
460
0
05/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
832 JESPERSON
1,578
0
05/01-07/01
05/01-07/01
833 BRYANT- JOHNSON
40
0
06/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
834 KELL I SON
335
0
04/16-06/15
04/16-06/15
835 KETCHAM
320
0
05/01-07/31
05/01-07/31
836 HARPOLD CHAINING
900
0
04/10-05/15
04/21-05/31
837 BRYANT-HORTON
1,249
0
04/16-08/31
05/16-09/30
838 WINDY RIDGE
600
0
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
839 BRYANT-LOVELESS
3,440
0
05/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
840 BRYANT-LYON
565
0
05/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
841 MARSHALL
348
0
04/16-05/30
04/16-05/30
842 MASTEN
485
0
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
845 KLMTH H ILL S-0 'CONNOR
500
0
04/01-05/31
04/01-05/31
846 OK
1,260
0
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
847 OWENS
1,921
0
05/01-12/31
05/01-12/31
848 POPE
1,044
0
05/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
849 RAJNUS BROS.
480
0
04/15-08/31
04/15-08/31
851 HARPOLD RIDGE
1,083
0
04/10-05/20
04/21-06/30
852 RODGERS
2,549
0
07/01-09/30
07/01-09/30
853 7C
688
0
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
855 BRYANT-SMITH
1,140
0
05/15-08/31
05/16-08/31
856 BRYANT-STASTNY
440
0
05/10-09/30
04/21-09/30
857 BRYANT-TAYLOR
760
0
04/15-09/30
04/21-09/30
858 VENABLE & BIAGGI
6,448
0
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
859 CUNARD
370
0
05/01-07/31
05/01-07/31
860 MCCARTIE
545
0
05/01-05/10
05/01-05/10
861 WILLIAMS
2,520
0
05/01-09/30
05/01-09/30
862 KLAMATH FOREST EST.
2,520
0
06/01-06/15
06/01-06/15
863 WIRTH
1,360
0
05/01-10/31
05/01-10/31
864 RAJNUS & SON
1,440
0
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
876 BEAR VALLEY
4,800
4,729
07/01-09/30
07/16-10/15
877 BUMP HEADS
12,880
580
04/21-06/30
04/21-06/30
878 CAMPBELL
1,465
3,140
05/01-10/26
05/01-10/26
879 DEVAUL
240
320
05/01-08/31
05/01-08/31
Present
Forage
Production
(AUMs)
Proposed Initial Allocation
Wild Noncon- Live-
Wildlife Horses sumptive stock
(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs)
1979
Ac t ive
Preference
(AUMs)
Proposed
Livestock
Ad justment
(AUMs)
34
4
0
0
30
30
0
124
16
0
0
108
108
0
17
2
0
0
15
15
0
8
1
0
0
7
7
0
18
2
0
0
16
16
0
95
27
0
0
68
68
0
234
25
0
0
209
209
0
83
23
0
0
60
60
0
88
12
0
0
76
76
0
86
6
0
0
80
80
0
28
3
0
0
25
25
0
67
7
0
0
60
60
0
30
4
0
0
26
26
0
43
3
0
0
40
40
0
57
7
0
0
50
50
0
181
23
0
0
158
158
0
7
1
0
0
6
6
0
20
1
0
0
19
19
0
23
3
0
0
20
20
0
110
14
0
0
96
96
0
148
18
0
0
130
130
0
61
9
0
0
52
52
0
561
71
0
0
490
490
0
43
5
0
0
38
38
0
16
2
0
0
14
14
0
43
3
0
0
40
40
0
58
3
0
0
55
55
0
149
9
0
0
140
140
0
151
43
0
0
108
108
0
78
8
0
0
70
70
0
36
4
0
0
32
32
0
126
16
0
0
110
110
0
280
31
0
0
249
249
0
145
41
0
0
104
104
0
124
15
0
0
109
109
0
80
10
0
0
70
70
0
48
6
0
0
42
42
0
344
44
0
0
300
300
0
67
7
0
0
60
60
0
89
6
0
0
83
83
0
129
9
0
0
120
120
0
91
6
0
0
85
85
0
131
18
0
0
113
113
0
126
16
0
0
110
110
0
593
118
0
0
475
475
0
895
131
0
0
764
764
0
47
0
0
0
47
47
0
14
2
0
0
12
12
0
Table B-l Proposed Management, Period of Use and Initial Vegetation Allocation (Cont . )
Allotment Number
and Name
Public
Lands
(acres )
Other
Lands
( acres )
Existing
Period
of Use 1/
Proposed
Period
of Use 1/
Present
Forage
Product ion
(AUMs)
Proposed Initial Allocation
Wild Noncon- Live-
Wildlife Horses sumptive stock
(AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs) (AUMs)
1979
Active
Preference
(AUMs)
Proposed
Livestock
Ad jus tment
(AUMs)
881 GOODLOW
285
640
05/01-08/31
05/01-08/31
33
1
0
0
32
32
0
882 HORSEFLY
26,356
4,729
04/21-10/15
04/21-10/15
3,004
546
0
0
2,458
2,458
0
883 HORTON
880
342
04/16-05/15
04/16-05/15
58
0
0
0
58
58
o
884 LANE
282
388
05/15-08/31
05/15-08/31
44
1
0
0
43
43
0
885 DRY PRAIRIE
7,231
3,624
05/01-09/01
05/01-09/01
736
130
0
0
606
606
0
886 HORSE CAMP RIM
5,120
0
05/01-07/31
05/01-07/31
351
51
0
0
300
300
0
887 PITCHLOG
9,280
1,040
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
524
90
0
0
434
434
0
888 ROCK CREEK
2,750
1,200
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
262
46
0
0
216
216
0
889 TIMBER HILL
3,390
1,364
07/01-09/30
04/21-05/31
325
55
0
0
270
270
0
890 WILLOW VALLEY
14,945
1,520
04/15-06/15
04/21-10/15
1,490
220
0
0
1,270
1,270
0
891 WILLOW VALLEY CHAIN-
3,909
497
04/21-05/15
04/21-05/31
170
65
0
0
105
105
0
892 WILLIAMS
1,790
0
05/01-05/20
05/01-05/20
75
0
0
0
75
75
0
893 FIELDS
180
0
04/21-05/20
04/21-05/20
7
1
0
0
6
6
0
895 HARPOLD CANYON
1,080
0
04/15-09/30
04/21-09/30
123
15
0
0
108
108
0
896 MCFALL
880
0
05/01-10/31
05/01-10/31
100
12
0
0
88
88
0
900 FREMONT
26,362
511
04/15-09/30
04/15-09/30
3,199
1,229
0
0
1,970
1,970
0
901 WASTINA
6,366
0
05/01-10/31
05/01-10/31
730
311
0
0
419
419
0
902 CINDER BUTTE
11,216
320
03/15-11/07
03/15-11/07
1,557
634
0
0
923
923
0
903 BEASLEY LAKE
2,640
534
-
10/15-12/15
298
66
0
0
232
232
0
904 HIGHWAY
3,675
989
02/01-10/31
02/01-10/31
335
91
0
0
244
244
0
905 HOMESTEAD
13,837
9,728
05/01-10/31
05/01-10/31
1,313
508
0
0
805
805
0
906 NORTH WEBSTER
1,071
3,416
05/01-11/31
05/01-11/15
163
51
0
0
112
112
0
907 DEVILS GARDEN
4,406
0
05/21-09/30
05/21-09/30
403
116
0
0
287
0
287
908 COUGAR MOUNTAIN
8,282
3,405
05/15-01/31
05/01-02/15
1,150
534
0
0
616
616
0
909 BUTTON SPRINGS
8,779
1,240
05/15-10/15
06/15-10/15
1,320
252
0
0
1,068
1,068
0
910 HOGBACK BUTTE
4,384
4,234
04/21-11/21
04/21-11/21
862
182
0
0
680
680
0
911 VALLEY
6,600
769
05/01-01/31
05/01-01/31
806
137
0
0
669
669
0
912 EAST HAYES BUTTE
320
710
05/01-10/31
05/01-10/31
17
1
0
0
16
16
0
913 INDIVIDUAL
240
0
10/15-01/15
10/15-01/15
24
0
0
0
24
12
12
914 WEST GREEN MOUNTAIN
21,656
4,406
05/01-11/31
05/01-11/31
1,424
191
0
0
1,233
1,233
0
915 SQUAW BUTTE
8,230
460
05/01-08/31
05/01-08/31
1,535
535
0
0
1,000
1,000
0
916 WAHL
160
0
12/15-01/15
12/15-01/15
10
0
0
0
10
16
-6
1000 LITTLE JUNIPER SPR
116,836
780
04/01-10/15
04/01-11/15
, 8,856
480
0
2,958
5,418
5,418
0
1001 ALKALI WINTER
87,570
6,817
12/01-02/28
12/01-02/28
4,503
0
0
85
4,418
4,418
0
1002 BAR 75 RANCH
2,588
0
-
-
1 j9
0
0
0
159
’ 159
0
1300 BECRAFT
120
0
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
15
5
0
0
10
10
0
1301 CROOKED CREEK
240
0
05/01-06/30
05/01-06/30
15
5
0
0
10
10
0
1302 THOMAS CREEK
40
0
06/01-09/30
06/01-09/30
44
14
0
0
30
30
0
1303 O'KEEFFE
280
0
05/16-07/31
05/16-07/31
30
10
0
0
20
20
0
1305 SCHULTZ
200
0
05/16-09/15
05/16-09/15
43
14
0
0
29
29
0
1306 SIMMS
363
0
07/01-09/30
07/01-09/30
82
27
0
0
55
55
0
1307 VERNON
240
0
06/01-09/30
-
15
5
0
10
0
10
-10
1308 BARRY
120
0
05/01-05/31
05/01-05/31
4
0
0
0
4
4
0
UNALLOTTED
137,844
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EIS TOTAL
3,342,026
291,072
183,187
15,319
3,420
5,156 159,292
166,454
-7,162
J_/ No dates shown indicate Federal range fenced, non— use or elimination of grazing.
Table B-2
Spring Spring/Summer Spring/Fall Deferred
Allot .
No.
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop .
100
0
0
13,800
0
0
0
0
0
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
0
0
0
8,815
0
0
0
0
103
48,208
119,763
180,859
0
0
0
15,966
22,682
104
0
0
565
565
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
0
201
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,490
3,370
202
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
204
0
0
2,930
0
0
0
0
0
205
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,370
7,370
206
0
0
0
0
0
0
760
760
207
1,238
1,238
0
0
0
0
0
0
208
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,819
3,819
209
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
211
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
216
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,065
10,065
Ln
217
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
219
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
223
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
6,989
11,316
76,927
64,382
0
0
0
o
401
160
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
403
0
0
400
400
0
0
0
0
404
0
0
3,108
0
0
0
0
0
405
3,880
0
4,802
0
0
0
0
0
406
0
0
748
748
0
0
0
o
407
2,521
2,511
0
0
0
0
0
o
408
0
0
55
55
0
0
0
o
409
3,534
3,534
0
0
0
0
0
o
410
285
285
0
0
0
0
0
0
411
0
0
636
636
0
0
0
0
412
0
0
1,773
0
0
0
0
o
413
0
0
1,689
0
0
0
0
0
415
0
0
785
785
0
0
0
0
416
0
0
565
565
0
0
0
o
417
0
0
849
0
0
0
0
0
501
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
502
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
503
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
504
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
505
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems U
Rotation Deferred Rotation Rest Rotation
Winter
Exclusion
FRF I/
Ext ■ Prop.
0
0
0
120,939
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67,812
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,773
1,689
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ext .
0
1,060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prop .
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop .
0
0
13,800
0
0
0
0
0
o
1,060
16,181
16,181
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
15,419
6,6 04
0
0
0
0
0
o
90,019
151,648
285,156
0
0
0
6,560
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
3,721
3,721
0
0
1
121
1,388
1,388
0
10,906
10,883
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
561
561
0
0
2,930
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,840
1,840
0
0
0
9,150
8,880
0
0
0
270
0
0
0
23,465
23,395
0
0
22
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
790
790
0
2,990
2,990
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,102
15,102
0
0
1,2 28
1,228
0
0
0
33,262
33,182
0
0
23
103
0
0
0
0
0
7,499
7,499
1
1
0
0
0
30,772
30,772
0
0
18
18
0
0
0
39,935
39,775
0
0
330
490
0
0
3,335
0
0
1,335
1,335
0
0
0
0
0
4,850
4,850
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
470
470
0
0
0
4,230
4,230
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
412
412
59,749
282,078
228,076
157,665
100,906
160
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,058
0
0
15
65
0
0
0
0
8,682
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
849
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,780
2,780
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,150
5,150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,110
3,110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
390
390
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Table
Allot .
No.
B-2 Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems
Spring Spring/Summer
Ext. Prop. Ext. Prop.
(Cont . )
Spring/Fall
Ext. Prop.
De ferred
Ext. Prop.
507
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
508
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
509
0
0
38,340
0
0
0
0
0
510
0
0
57,280
0
0
0
0
0
511
0
0
138,319
0
0
0
0
0
512
0
0
22,440
0
0
0
0
0
514
21,362
0
57,047
0
0
0
0
0
515
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
516
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
517
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
518
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
519
0
0
14,675
0
0
0
0
0
520
0
0
17,313
0
0
0
0
0
521
0
0
780
0
0
0
0
780
522
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
523
0
0
39,268
0
0
0
0
0
524
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
493,438
0
0
8,750
13,495
16,250
700
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
701
0
0
0
0
1,460
0
0
0
w
1
702
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
on
703
0
0
1,155
1,155
0
0
0
0
704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
705
0
0
8,090
8,090
0
0
0
0
706
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
707
0
0
9,330
0
0
0
0
790
708
0
0
2,720
2,720
0
0
0
0
709
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,520
5,074
710
0
0
4,468
0
0
0
0
0
711
0
0
1,170
0
0
0
0
0
712
1,400 1
,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
713
0
0
2,785
2,785
0
0
0
0
714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
715
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
716
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
0
0
40
40
0
0
0
0
801
0
0
400
400
0
0
0
0
804
0
0
480
480
0
0
0
0
806
0
0
817
817
0
0
0
0
807
0
0
1,708
1,708
0
0
0
0
808
0
0
40
40
0
0
0
0
809
0
0
80
80
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
1,300
1,300
0
0
0
0
811
0
0
840
0
0
0
0
0
812
0
0
760
760
0
0
0
0
813
0
0
160
160
0
0
0
0
814
0
0
840
840
0
0
0
0
815
0
0
1,680
1,680
0
0
0
0
Rotation
Ext . ]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deferred Rotation
Rest Rotation
Winter
Exclusion
FRF U
> .
Ext .
Prop .
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop .
Ext .
Prop .
Ext .
Prop .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,030
2,030
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
280
280
0
0
0
0
38,340
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57,280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125,903
0
12,416
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,440
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78,409
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
91,627
91,627
0
0
93
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,181
60,540
49,359
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127,132
113,741
0
13,388
464
467
0
0
0
0
0
10,049
10,049
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,665
0
0
130
140
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,313
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,200
9,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39,268
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,700
2,700
0
0
0
0
481,893
0
0
52
92
0
0
0
0
0
6,645
6,645
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,440
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
2,490
5,080
3,760
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,424
12,424
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,893
' 13,893
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,240
1,500
0
2,740
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,540
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,270
13,716
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,468
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,170
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,100
0
0
0
0
0
6,520
6,520
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
640
640
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
840
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table B-2 Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems (Cont.)
td
I
Allot.
Spring
Spring/Summer
No.
Ext .
Prop.
Ext .
Prop.
816
0
0
440
440
817
0
0
1,080
1,080
818
0
0
200
200
819
0
0
79
79
820
0
0
160
160
821
0
0
988
988
822
0
0
3,122
3,122
823
0
0
920
920
825
0
0
760
760
826
560
560
0
0
827
0
0
349
349
828
0
0
960
960
829
0
0
760
760
830
0
0
280
280
831
0
0
460
0
832
0
0
1,578
1,578
833
0
0
40
0
834
0
0
335
335
835
0
0
320
320
836
900
0
0
0
837
0
0
1,249
0
838
0
0
600
0
839
0
0
3,440
3,440
840
0
0
565
565
841
0
0
348
348
842
0
0
485
485
845
0
0
500
500
846
0
0
1,260
1,260
847
0
0
1,921
1,921
848
0
0
1,044
1,044
849
0
0
480
480
851
1,083
0
0
0
852
0
0
0
0
853
0
0
688
688
855
0
0
1,140
0
856
0
0
440
0
857
0
0
760
0
858
0
0
0
0
859
0
0
370
370
860
545
545
0
0
861
0
0
1,280
1,280
862
0
0
2,520
2,520
863
0
0
1,360
1,360
864
0
0
1,440
1 ,440
876
0
0
0
0
877
0
0
1,375
1,375
878
0
0
1,465
1,465
879
0
0
240
240
881
0
0
285
285
Spring/Fall
Ext . Prop .
De ferred
Ext . Prop.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,549
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,797
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,549
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rotation
Ext .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prop.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deferred Rotation Rest Rotation
Winter
Exclusion
FRF U
Ext . Prop. Ext ■ Prop.
Ext- prop. Ext ■ Prop. Ext. Prop.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,447
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
11,503
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
460
0
40
0
0
900
1,249
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,083
0
0
1,140
440
760
6,447
0
0
40
0
0
0
4,797
11,433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 3 3
o 2 72
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
I
00
Table B-2 Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems
Spring Spring/Summer
Allot.
No. Ext. Prop. Ext. Prop.
(Cont . )
Spring/Fall
Ext. Prop.
De ferred
Ext. Prop.
Rotat ion
Ext .
Prop .
De ferred
Ext .
Rotation
Prop .
882
0
0
0
0
2,211
2,211
0
0
0
0
0
0
883
880
880
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
884
0
0
282
282
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
885
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,135
2,135
0
0
0
0
886
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,675
2,675
887
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
888
0
0
2,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
889
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,390
0
0
0
0
0
890
0
0
0
0
14,936
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
891
3,909
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
892
1,790 1
,790
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
893
180
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
895
0
0
1,080
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
896
0
0
880
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
880
900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,940
1,940
901
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
902
440
440
0
0
0
0
1,760
1,760
960
960
0
0
903
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
904
0
0
1,645
1,645
2,030
2,030
0
0
0
0
0
0
905
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,052
0
0
0
0
0
906
0
0
1,071
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
907
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
908
0
0
3,945
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
909
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
911
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
912
0
0
320
320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
913
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
914
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,788
11,788
0
0
3,508
3,508
915
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
916
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
114,199
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1300
0
0
120
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1301
0
0
240
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1302
0
0
40
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1303
0
0
280
280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1305
0
0
200
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1306
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1307
0
0
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1308
0
0
120
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
99,864 144
,602
1,373,752
136,650 21,237
12,991
96,956
89,669
121,899 72,234
17,958
169,205
y
There are also 49,086
acres in
6 allotments
(Allotment 103
- 6,560
acres ;
400 - 27,801
acres ;
702 - 1.
200 acres
2/
livestock use has occurred for
Federal Range Fenced.
at least 5 years.
Non-use
is proposed for
19,219 acres
in Allotment 400.
Rest Rotation
Ext . Prop.
Winter
Ext. Prop.
Exclusion
Ext. Prop.
FRF
Ext .
2/
Prop .
24,135
24,135
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,094
5,094
0
0
2
2
0
0
2,445
2,445
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,280
9,280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,390
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,936
0
0
9
9
0
0
0
3,909
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,080
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,422
24,422
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,366
6,366
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,056
8,056
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,640
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,837
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,071
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,406
4,406
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,945
4,177
3,700
160
160
0
0
8,779
8,779
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,384
4,384
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,953
1,953
4,647
4,647
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
240
0
0
0
0
6,360
6,360
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,230
8,230
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
160
160
0
0
0
0
2,630
116,829
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
87,410
87,410
160
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,588
2,588
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
363
363
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,067,212 2,208,471
328,543 311,010
4,746
16,602 22,
929 23,529
; 714 - 4,100 acres;
903 - 2,640 acres;
905 -
6,785 acres)
where no
Table B-3
Allotment Number
and Name
100 PETER CREEK
101 EAST GREEN MOUNTAIN
102 CRACK IN THE GROUND
*103 VIEWPOINT
202 HICKEY INDIV
204 CRUMP INDIV
*205 GREASER DRIFT
*206 LANE PLAN II
207 LANE PLAN I
210 GRIENER INDIV
*211 ROUND MOUNTAIN
212 RAHILLY-GRAVELLY
213 BURRO SPRING
215 HILL CAMP
*216 O'KEEFFE INDIV
218 SANDY SEEDING
222 FISHER LAKE
*400 PAISLEY COMMON
w 404 WILLOW CREEK
| 405 EAST CLOVER FLAT
407 CLOVER FLAT
409 TUCKER HILL
412 FIR TIMBER BUTTE
501 FLYNN
502 FITZGERALD
509 COX BUTTE
510 ORIJANA RIM
511 NORTHEAST WARNER
512 NORTH BLUE JOINT
514 CORN LAKE
515 JUNIPER MOUNTAIN
516 RABBIT BASIN
517 COYOTE-COLVIN
518 CLOVER CREEK
519 FISH CREEK
520 LYNCH-FLYNN
523 WARNER LAKES
*600 BEATYS BUTTE
*700 SILVER CR-BRIDGE CR
*701 UPPER BRIDGE CR
*702 BUCK CR-BRIDGE CR
*704 WARD LAKE
*705 OATMAN FLAT
706 RYE RANCH
707 TUFF BUTTE
708 ARROW GAP
Fence
(miles)
Springs
Pipe¬
line
(miles )
Wells
12.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
2.0
1
7.0
0
2.0
0
63.0
2
27.0
3
0.0
0
0.0
0
1.0
1
1.0
0
3.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
2.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
85.3
0
23.5
5
2.0
0
0.0
0
2.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
20.0
0
0.0
0
24.0
0
0.0
0
13.0
0
3.0
3
3.8
0
0.0
0
13.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
2.2
2
9.0
0
0.5
3
12.0
2
5.8
1
0.0
1
0.0
0
11.0
0
0.0
0
4.0
0
0.0
0
12.0
0
0.0
0
72.3
2
20.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
2.0
0
0.0
0
1.5
0
0.0
0
1.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
1.0
0
0.0
0
1.0
0
5.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
Proposed Action Range Improvements
Guzzlers Reser-
voirs
0
0
0
18
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
4
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
9
0
7
2
1
9
0
0
3
0
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water-
holes
1
0
0
12
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
34
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
5
3
5
3
3
5
2
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
Seeding
Brush Control
Juniper
(.acre s
* )
(acres)
Control
Spray
Burn
Chain
Spray
Burn
Chain
(acres )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,903
20,870
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
280
0
0
300
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
0
0
0
480
0
0
0
200
0
0
280
0
0
0
360
0
0
1,640
0
0
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
760
0
0
0
1,240
0
0
1,600
1,440
0
280
1,080
0
0
0
520
0
0
480
0
0
800
0
0
0
1,280
0
0
0
640
0
0
3,120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
360
0
0
0
0
0
27,795
14,014
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,240
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
0
3,440
0
0
4,240
4,800
0
2,240
0
0
0
0
1,280
0
0
0
0
0
1,760
680
1,240
4,800
0
0
0
0
2,200
0
0
0
0
0
8,000
760
0
0
0
0
0
6,990
1,600
1,960
0
0
0
0
0
520
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,120
0
0
0
0
0
280
320
0
0
800
0
0
2,880
0
0
0
0
0
o
16,960 22,480
1,760
26,000
11,520
0
0
0
645
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
282
0
0
0
414
0
0
0
0
0
0
340
450
0
0
0
0
0
757
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
OT-
Table B-3 Proposed Action Range Improvements (Cont.)
Allotment Number
and Name
Fence
(miles )
Springs
Pipe¬
line
(mi les )
Wells
709
DEAD INDIAN-DUNCAN
4.0
1
0.0
0
*710
MURDOCK
6.0
0
1.0
0
711
SOUTH HAYES BUTTE
1.0
0
0.0
0
713
SILVER CREEK
0.0
0
0.0
0
801
HAUGHT
0.0
0
0.0
0
806
TWO MILE
0.0
0
0.0
0
810
BRENDA
0.0
0
0.0
0
*811
CHEYNE
0.0
0
0.0
0
815
STUKEL-DEHLINGER C.
1.0
0
0.0
0
819
DUPONT
0.2
0
0.0
0
*822
STUKEL-O' NEILL
0.0
0
0.0
0
826
HASKINS
0.0
0
0.0
0
829
HORTON
0.0
1
0.0
0
834
KELLISON
0.0
0
0.0
0
*838
WINDY RIDGE
0.0
0
0.0
0
841
MARSHALL
0.0
0
0.0
0
*848
POPE
0.0
0
0.0
0
852
RODGERS
0.8
0
0.0
0
855
BRYANT- SMITH
2.0
0
0.0
0
*858
VENABLE & BIAGGI
5.0
1
0.0
0
861
WILLIAMS
0.0
0
0.0
0
863
WIRTH
0.0
0
0.0
0
*877
BUMPHEADS
0.0
0
0.0
0
882
HORSEFLY
0.0
0
0.0
0
*883
HORTON
1.3
0
0.0
0
*884
LANE
0.0
2
0.0
0
885
DRY PRAIRIE
0.0
1
0.0
0
886
HORSE CAMP RIM
0.0
0
0.0
0
889
TIMBER HILL
0.0
0
0.0
0
*890
WILLOW VALLEY
0.0
0
0.0
0
*891
WILLOW VALLEY CHAIN.
0.0
0
0.0
0
*892
WILLIAMS
0.0
0
0.0
0
900
FREMONT
0.0
0
0.0
0
901
WASTINA
0.0
0
1.0
1
903
BEASLEY LAKE
0.0
0
0.0
1
905
HOMESTEAD
0.0
0
1.0
0
907
DEVILS GARDEN
2.0
0
0.0
0
908
COUGAR MOUNTAIN
0.0
0
1.0
0
909
BUTTON SPRINGS
2.0
0
0.0
0
914
WEST GREEN MOUNTAIN
7.0
0
0.0
0
1000
LITTLE JUNIPER SPR
10.5
0
4.2
4
1001
ALKALI WINTER
6.0
1
4.6
2
TOTALS
427.7
18
103.8
28
*Allotments which will have
some shrubs and/or trees included i
Guzzlers
Reser¬
voirs
Water-
holes
Spray
Seeding
(acres)
Burn
Chain
Brush Control
( acres )
Spray Burn Chain
Juniper
Control
( acres )
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
330
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1,125
0
0
0
0
550
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
0
0
0
0
0
p
200
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
340
0
0
0
0
625
0
0
0
360
0
0
0
1,755
0
260
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
158
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
268
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
410
0
0
0
300
0
1
0
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 ,
14
5
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4,470
920
800
0
0
0
0
71
147
135
110,618
84,730 7
,520
33,320
28,323
105
1,870
the seed mixture and/or spot seeded
IT-
Table B-4 Anticipated Long-term Vegetation Allocation for th
td
Proposed Action
Alternative 1
No Action 2J
Alternative 3
Optimize Livestock
Allot.
No.
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
suraptive
(AUMs)
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs) |
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs) |
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon¬
sumptive
(AUMs)
Live¬
stock
(AUMs)
100
42
0
0
1,075
1
1
30
1
987 |
189
0
0
2,172
101
320
0
0
1,015
1
315
980 |
566
0
0
2,851
102
167
0
0
478
I
143
298 |
270
0
0
1,248
103
1,628
408
217
37,688
1
529
32,657 I
3,788
144
217
54,097
104
1
0
0
50
!
0
o 1
12
0
0
129
200
50
0
0
138
1
50
0 |
50
0
0
138
201
118
0
0
587
1
100
510 i
124
0
0
668
202
116
0
0
703
1
100
519 |
153
0
0
1,196
203
2
0
0
46
!
0
48 |
2
0
0
46
204
51
0
0
105
1
50
92 |
51
0
0
105
205
123
0
0
509
1
0
256 |
131
0
0
621
206
155
0
0
567
1
100
408 |
210
0
0
1,301
207
231
0
0
2,355
1
200
1,942 |
297
0
0
3,227
208
62
0
0
291
1
60
266 |
71
0
0
414
209
20
0
0
57
1
20
57 |
20
0
0
57
210
34
0
0
144
1
30
91 1
42
0
0
255
211
224
0
0
1,645
!
100
1,102 |
262
0
0
2,149
212
201
0
0
2,973
1
100
1,781 |
242
0
0
3,523
213
76
0
0
490
1
60
0 1
95
0
0
747
215
334
0
0
4,329
1
300
- 3,932 |
445
0
0
5,798
216
340
0
0
5,778
1
250
4,808 |
396
0
0
6,527
217
78
0
0
403
1
70
217 |
93
0
0
608
218
35
0
0
415
1
30
o 1
49
0
0
598
219
20
0
0
280
1
20
280 |
20
0
0
280
222
61
0
0
680
1
50
429 |
72
0
0
831
223
61
0
0
64
1
61
64 |
61
0
0
64
400
876
612
339
20,734
1
251
19,119 |
3,141
216
0
38,407
401
0
0
0
16
1
0
16 |
0
0
0
16
403
2
0
0
18
1
2
18 |
2
0
0
18
404
7
0
0
110
1
2
63 |
22
0
0
223
405
14
0
0
317
i
8
526 |
97
0
0
936
406
8
0
0
14
1
2
15 |
11
0
0
37
407
22
0
0
203
1
20
90 !
22
0
0
203
408
0
0
0
2
1
0
2 1
0
0
0
2
409
6
0
0
180
1
0
46 |
8
0
0
198
410
0
0
0
13
1
0
13 |
0
0
0
13
411
0
0
0
13
1
0
113 !
0
0
0
13
412
3
0
0
150
t
14
132 |
3
0
0
150
413
21
0
0
67
1
8
67 |
23
0
0
80
415
7
0
0
42
1
7
42 |
14
0
0
98
416
1
0
0
10
1
1
10 j
1
0
0
10
417
0
0
0
9
1
0
5 |
0
0
0
9
501
55
0
0
120
1
55
120 |
55
0
0
120
502
63
0
0
386
1
60
346 |
63
0
0
386
503
60
0
0
247
1
60
295 |
60
0
0
247
504
0
0
0
23
1
0
23 |
0
0
0
23
505
0
0
0
20
1
0
20 |
0
0
0
20
506
0
0
0
10
1
0
10 |
0
0
0
10
Proposed Action and Alternatives U
Alternative 4
Opt imize
Wild- Wild
life Horses
(AUMs) (AUMs)
Horses
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Live¬
stock
(AUMs)
42
0
0
1,075
320
0
0
1,015
167
0
0
478
1,462
3,602
677
32,792
1
0
0
50
50
0
0
138
118
0
0
587
116
0
0
703
2
0
0
46
51
0
0
105
123
0
0
509
155
0
0
567
231
0
0
2,355
62
0
0
291
20
0
0
57
34
0
0
144
224
0
0
1,645
201
0
0
2,973
76
0
0
490
334
0
0
4,329
340
0
0
5,7 78
78
0
0
403
35
0
0
415
20
0
0
280
61
0
0
680
61
0
0
64
556
3,598
799
14,896
0
0
0
16
2
0
0
18
7
0
0
110
14
0
0
317
8
0
0
14
22
0
0
203
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
180
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
13
3
0
0
150
21
0
0
67
7
0
0
42
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
9
55
0
0
120
63
0
0
386
60
0
0
247
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
10
Alternative 5
Optimize Other
Wild-
Wild
Noncon-
Live-
life
Horses
sumptive stock
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
42
0
203
872
320
0
0
1,015
167
0
0
478
1,628
144
982
37,187
1
0
0
50
50
0
26
112
412
0
102
191
163
0
104
552
2
0
9
37
51
0
18
87
289
0
0
343
212
0
41
469
231
0
279
2,076
108
0
53
192
20
0
11
46
34
0
18
126
349
0
150
1,370
234
0
263
2,677
76
0
0
490
462
0
426
3,775
605
0
742
4,771
378
0
60
43
35
0
0
415
300
0
0
0
121
0
0
620
61
0
0
64
4,715
216
1,759
15,871
0
0
3
13
20
0
0
0
7
0
16
94
14
0
54
263
8
0
0
14
22
0
0
203
0
0
0
2
6
0
39
141
0
0
0
13
0
0
3
10
4
0
24
125
24
0
11
53
7
0
10
32
1
0
2
8
0
0
2
7
55
0
24
96
63
0
69
317
60
0
0
247
0
0
0
23
0
0
4
16
0
0
2
8
Table B-4 Anticipated Long-term Vegetation Allocation for the Proposed Action and Alternatives (Cont.)
1
1
1
1
Allot. I
No. I
Proposed
Action
1
1
1
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs) |
Alternative 1
No Action 2/ |
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Alternative 3
Optimize Livestock
1
1
1
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs ) I
Alternative 4
Optimize Horses
1
1
1
Live- I
stock |
(AUMs) |
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Alternative 5
Optimize Other
Live
stoc
(AUM
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
1
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs) |
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Wild¬
life
(AUMs )
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon¬
sumptive
(AUMs)
1
507 |
50
0
0
1
164 |
50
1
164 |
50
0
0
1
164 |
50
0
0
1
164 |
150
0
0
64
508 |
0
0
0
9 1
0
9 1
0
0
0
9 1
0
0
0
9 |
0
0
2
7
509 I
106
0
0
1,770 |
0
1,196 |
106
0
0
1,770 |
106
0
0
1,770 |
106
0
157
1,613
510 |
194
0
0
2,673 |
0
1,423 |
433
0
0
5,847 |
194
0
0
2,673 |
527
0
197
2,143
511 1
285
0
0
9,587 |
0
5,956 |
884
0
0
17,551 I
285
0
0
9,587 |
315
0
864
8,693
512 |
156
0
0
1,038 |
0
289 |
192
0
0
1,515 |
156
0
0
1,038 |
186
0
58
950
514 |
194
0
0
4,714 I
0
2,663 |
518
0
0
9,024 |
194
0
0
4,714 |
194
0
0
4,714
515 |
221
0
0
5,009 |
0
3,621 |
642
0
0
10,602 |
221
0
0
5,009 |
221
0
0
5,009
516 |
240
0
0
3,408 |
0
570 |
877
0
0
11,876 |
240
0
0
3,408 |
240
0
0
3,408
517 I
369
0
0
8,783 |
0
5,209 !
954
0
0
16,558 |
369
0
0
8,783 |
679
0
0
8,473
518 |
42
0
0
889 |
0
435 |
57
0
0
1,087 |
42
0
0
889 I
86
0
57
788
519 |
77
0
0
1,060 |
0
498 |
121
0
0
1,648 |
77
0
0
1,060 j
102
0
74
961
520 |
71
0
0
1,124 |
55
867 |
151
0
0
2,182 |
71
0
0
1,124 |
71
0
182
942
521 |
139
0
0
75 |
0
30 |
139
0
0
75 |
139
0
0
75 |
139
0
13
62
522 |
69
0
0
2,617 |
60
2,501 |
69
0
0
2,617 |
69
0
0
2,617 |
69
0
0
2,617
523 |
148
0
0
2,965 |
0
1,489 |
148
0
0
2,965 |
148
0
0
2,965 |
1,748
0
331
1,034
524 1
50
0
0
65 I
50
65 |
50
0
0
65 |
50
0
0
65 |
50
0
13
52
600 |
1,762
2,400
0
43,627 I
0
27,892 |
3,789
360
0
72,590 |
892
18,000
6,235
10,227 |
2,389
360
4,534
40,506
fcd 700 |
85
0
0
385 |
69
262 |
167
0
0
995 |
85
0
0
385 |
89
0
33
348
jL 701 i
35
0
0
151 I
29
108 |
40
0
0
189 |
35
0
0
151 I
35
0
21
130
to 702 |
146
0
12
350 |
142
309 |
174
0
0
570 |
146
0
. 12
350 |
150
0
12
346
703 |
36
0
0
107 j
36
107 |
36
0
0
107 I
36
0
0
107 |
36
0
25
82
704 |
220
0
0
900 |
187
650 |
261
0
0
1,203 |
220
0
0
900 !
220
0
199
701
705 |
646
0
0
1,778 |
463
1,332 |
692
0
0
2,118 |
646
0
0
1,778 I
646
0
111
1,667
706 |
136
0
0
587 |
130
539 |
188
0
0
979 |
136
0
0
587 |
136
0
134
453
707 |
341
0
0
546 |
340
376 |
374
0
0
794 I
341
0
0
546 |
341
0
111
435
708 |
6
0
0
178 |
0
135 |
38
0
0
420 |
6
0
0
178 |
6
0
27
151
709 |
647
0
0
586 |
435
586 |
707
0
0
1,034 |
647
0
0
586 |
807
0
250
176
710 |
84
0
0
643 |
72
705 |
99
0
0
756 |
84
0
0
643 |
84
0
56
587
711 1
17
0
0
86 |
16
72 |
23
0
0
134 |
17
0
0
86 |
17
0
19
67
712 |
50
0
0
99 |
99
50 |
50
0
0
99 |
50
0
0
99 |
50
0
0
99
713 |
62
0
0
220 |
62
200 |
87
0
0
403 |
62
0
0
220 |
62
0
0
220
714 |
173
0
0
o 1
173
250 |
173
0
0
0 j
173
0
0
0 i
173
0
0
0
715 |
193
0
0
908 |
295
750 |
198
0
0
949 |
193
0
0
908 |
193
0
110
798
716 |
0
0
0
250 |
0
0 j
0
0
0
250 |
0
0
0
o 1
0
0
50
200
800 |
4
0
0
6 1
0
6 j
4
0
0
6 1
4
0
0
6 1
9
0
1
0
801 |
5
0
0
35 I
0
27 |
7
0
0
46 |
5
0
0
35 I
5
0
0
35
804 |
6
0
0
42 |
0
42 |
6
0
0
42 |
6
0
0
42 |
9
0
0
39
806 |
12
0
0
83 |
0
80 |
13
0
0
91 !
12
0
0
83 |
12
0
0
83
807 |
15
0
0
100 |
0
100 |
28
0
0
169 |
15
0
0
100 |
115
0
0
0
808 |
1
6
0
10 |
0
10 j
1
0
0
10 |
1
0
0
10 |
11
0
0
0
809 |
4
0
0
30 |
0
30 |
4
0
0
30 |
4
0
0
30 |
34
0
0
0
810 |
18
0
0
124 |
0
124 |
18
0
0
124 |
18
0
0
124 |
18
0
0
124
811 |
6
0
0
60 |
0
51 1
10
0
0
81 |
6
0
0
60 |
6
0
0
60
812 |
7
0
0
55 |
0
55 |
7
0
0
55 |
7
0
0
55 |
7
0
0
55
813 |
3
0
0
20 |
0
20 |
3
0
0
20 |
3
0
0
20 j
3
0
0
20
814 |
16
0
0
108 |
0
108 |
16
0
0
108 |
16
0
0
108 |
16
0
0
108
815 |
29
0
0
240 |
0
240 |
29
0
0
240 j
29
0
0
240 |
29
0
0
240
-13
to
Table B-4
Anticipated Long-term Vegetation Allocation for
the Proposed Action
and Alternative
Proposed Action
Alternative 1 |
No Action 2/ |
Alternative 3
Optimize Livestock
1
Wild-
Wild
Noncon-
Live- |
Wild-
Live- |
Wild-
Wild
Noncon-
Live-
Allot. |
life
Horses
sumpt ive
stock |
life
stock |
life
Horses
sumpt ive
stock
No . |
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
(AUMs) |
(AUMs)
(AUMs) |
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
(AUMs)
1
816 |
4
0
0
1
30 |
0
' 1
30 |
4
0
0
30
817 |
16
0
0
108 |
0
108 |
16
0
0
108
818 |
2
0
0
15 I
0
15 |
2
0
0
15
819 |
1
0
0
7 |
0
7 I
1
0
0
7
820 j
2
0
0
16 |
0
16 |
2
0
0
16
821 |
27
0
0
68 |
0
68 |
27
0
0
68
822 |
26
0
0
212 |
0
209 |
27
0
0
215
823 |
23
0
0
60 |
0
60 |
23
0
0
60
825 |
12
0
0
76 |
0
76 |
12
0
0
76
826 |
6
0
0
80 |
0
80 |
6
0
0
80
827 |
3
0
0
25 |
0
25 |
3
0
0
25
828 |
7
0
0
60 |
0
60 |
7
0
0
60
829 |
7
0
0
41 I
0
26 |
11
0
0
60
830 |
3
0
0
40 |
0
40 |
3
0
0
40
831 |
8
0
0
54 |
0
50 |
8
0
0
54
832 |
23
0
0
158 |
0
158 |
24
0
0
163
833 |
1
0
0
7 1
0
6 |
i
0
0
7
834 |
2
0
0
24 |
0
19 |
3
0
0
31
835 |
3
0
0
20 |
0
20 |
3
0
0
20
836 |
16
0
0
104 |
0
96 |
16
0
0
104
837 |
20
0
0
140 |
0
130 j
20
0
0
140
838 |
12
0
0
68 |
0
52 |
19
0
0
102
839 |
77
0
0
519 |
0
490 |
77
0
0
519
840 |
5
0
0
38 |
0
38 |
5
0
0
38
841 |
2
0
0
14 |
0
14 |
2
0
0
14 |
842 |
3
0
0
40 |
0
40 |
3
0
0
40 |
845 |
3
0
0
55 |
0
55 |
3
0
0
55 1
846 |
9
0
0
140 |
0
140 |
9
0
0
140 |
847 |
43
0
0
108 |
0
108 |
43
0
0
108 i
848 |
9
0
0
78 |
0
70 |
11
0
0
86 i
849 |
4
0
0
32 |
0
32 |
4
0
0
32 |
851 |
18
0
0
118 |
0
110 j
18
0
0
118 j
852 |
31
0
0
251 |
0
249 |
31
0
0
251 |
853 |
41
0
0
104 |
0
104 |
41
0
0
104 j
855 |
18
0
0
122 |
0
109 |
19
0
0
127 j
856 |
11
0
0
73 |
0
70 |
11
0
0
73 j
857 |
7
0
0
49 |
0
42 |
7
0
0
49 |
858 |
88
0
0
530 |
0
300 |
142
0
0
813 j
859 |
7
0
0
62 |
0
60 |
7
0
0
62 j
860 |
6
0
0
86 |
0
83 |
9
0
0
103 |
861 |
12
0
0
134 |
0
120 |
13
0
0
137 |
862 |
8
0
0
96 |
0
85 |
8
0
0
96 i
863 |
22
0
0
132 |
0
113 |
29
0
0
167 j
864 ]
1 6
0
0
110 |
0
110 j
16
0
0
110 |
8/6 |
126
0
0
515 |
0
475 |
126
0
0
515
877 |
151
0
0
869 |
0
764 |
190
0
0
1,076 |
878 |
0
0
0
47 |
0
47 |
0
0
0
47 I
879 |
2
0
0
12 |
0
12 j
2
0
0
12 1
(Cont . )
Alternative 4
Optimize Horses
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs )
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Live¬
stock
(AUMs)
4
0
0
30
16
0
0
108
2
0
0
15
1
0
0
7
2
0
0
16
27
0
0
68
26
0
0
212
23
0
0
60
12
0
0
76
6
0
0
80
3
0
0
25
7
0
0
60
7
0
0
41
3
0
0
40
8
0
0
54
23
0
0
158
1
0
0
7
2
0
0
24
3
0
0
20
16
0
0
104
20
0
0
140
12
0
0
68
77
0
0
519
5
0
0
38 |
2
0
0
14 |
3
0
0
40 |
3
0
0
55 |
9
0
0
140 |
43
0
0
108 |
9
0
0
78 |
4
0
0
32 |
18
0
0
118 |
31
0
0
251 |
41
0
0
104 |
18
0
0
122 |
11
0
0
73 |
7
0
0
49 |
88
0
0
530 j
7
0
0
62 |
6
0
0
86 |
12
0
0
134 |
8
0
0
96 |
22
0
0
132 |
16
0
0
110 |
126
0
0
515 |
151
0
0
869 |
0
0
0
47 |
2
0
0
12 |
Alternative 5
Optimize Other
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Live¬
stock
(AUMs)
4
0
0
30
16
0
0
108
2
0
0
15
1
0
0
7
2
0
0
16
27
0
0
68
26
0
0
212
23
0
0
60
12
0
0
76
14
0
0
72
3
0
0
25
7
0
0
60
48
0
0
0
3
0
0
40
9
0
0
53
23
0
0
158
1
0
0
I
2
0
0
24
21
0
0
2
120
0
0
0
22
0
0
138
64
0
0
16
77
0
0
519
5
0
0
38
16
0
0
0
9
0
0
34
3
0
0
55
9
0
0
140
43
0
0
108
9
0
0
78
4
0
0
32
32
0
0
104
31
0
0
251
41
0
0
104
21
0
0
118
12
0
0
72
8
0
0
48
322
0
0
296
7
0
0
62
6
0
0
86
15
0
0
121
8
0
0
96
22
0
0
132
16
0
0
110
150
0
22
469
303
0
160
557
0
0
9
38
2
0
3
9
Table B-4 Anticipated Long-term Vegetation Allocation for the Proposed Action and Alternatives (Cont.)
Allot.
No.
Proposed
Action
1
1
1
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs) I
Alternative 1
No Action 2/|
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Alternative 3
Optimize Livestock
1
1
1
Live- |
stock ]
(AUMs) I
Alternative 4
Optimize Horses
1
1
1
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs) |
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Alternative 5
Optimize Other
Live¬
stock
(AUMs)
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon¬
sumptive
(AUMs)
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
1
Live- |
stock |
(AUMs) |
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Wild¬
life
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
Wild
Horses
(AUMs)
Noncon-
sumpt ive
(AUMs)
881
1
0
0
1
32 |
0
1
32 |
1
0
0
1
32 |
1
0
0
1
32 |
1
0
6
26
882
585
0
0
2,664 |
0
2,458 |
588
0
0
2,681 |
585
0
0
2,664 |
758
0
426
2,065
883
2
0
0
69 |
0
58 |
5
0
0
83 |
2
0
0
69 |
66
0
1
4
884
2
0
0
50 |
0
43 |
2
0
0
50 |
2
0
0
50 |
16
0
6
30
885
142
0
0
667 |
0
606 |
160
0
0
719 |
142
0
0
667 |
167
0
130
512
886
55
0
0
322 |
0
300 j
55
0
0
322 |
55
0
0
322 |
57
0
71
249
887
97
0
0
473 |
0
434 |
97
0
0
473 |
97
0
0
473 |
200
0
31
339
888
50
0
0
240 |
0
216 j
50
0
0
240 |
50
0
0
240 |
78
0
6
206
889
61
0
0
302 |
0
270 |
61
0
0
302 |
61
0
0
302 j
65
0
18
280
890
261
0
0
1,486 |
0
1,270 |
308
0
0
1,732 |
261
0
0
1,486 |
327
0
280
1,140
891
85
0
0
207 |
0
105 |
104
0
0
308 |
85
0
0
207 |
255
0
0
37
892
10
0
0
129 |
0
75 |
18
0
0
174 |
10
0
0
129 |
14
0
14
111
893
1
0
0
6 1
0
6 1
1
0
0
6 1
1
0
0
6 1
1
0
1
5
895
17
0
0
117 |
0
108 |
17
0
0
117 |
17
0
0
117 j
17
0
0
117
896
13
0
0
96 |
0
88 !
13
0
0
96 |
13
0
0
96 |
17
0
0
92
900
1,246
0
0
2,107 |
806
1,970 |
1,398
0
0
3,239 |
1,246
0
0
2,107 |
1,246
0
5
2,102
901
311
0
0
419 |
311
419 |
325
0
0
524 |
311
0
0
419 |
311
0
39
380
902
634
0
0
923 |
634
923 j
738
0
0
1,704 |
634
0
0
923 j
634
0
0
923
903
66
0
0
232 |
66
232 |
93
0
0
437 |
66
0
0
232 |
66
0
0
232
W 904
91
0
0
244 |
91
244 |
166
0
0
803 |
91
0
0
244 |
91
0
0
244
I 905
520
0
0
892 |
508
805 |
590
0
0
1,413 |
520
0
0
892 |
520
0
0
892
^ 906
51
0
0
112 |
51
112 |
51
0
0
112 |
51
0
• 0
112 |
51
0
0
112
907
116
0
0
287 |
116
o 1
121
0
0
282 |
116
0
0
287 |
116
0
0
287
908
534
0
0
616 |
534
616 |
619
0
0
1,253 |
534
0
0
616 |
534
0
76
540
909
252
0
0
1,068 |
252
1,068 j
252
0
0
1,068 |
252
0
0
1,068 i
252
0
212
856
910
182
0
0
680 |
182
680 |
182
0
0
680 |
182
0
0
680 |
182
0
0
680
911
155
0
0
782 j
137
669 j
169
0
0
884 |
155
0
0
782 |
155
0
161
621
912
2
0
0
15 I
1
16 1
2
0
0
15 |
2
0
0
15 |
2
0
2
13
913
0
0
0
24 |
0
12 |
6
0
0
66 |
0
0
0
24 |
0
0
0
24
914
201
0
0
1,309 I
191
1,233 j
214
0
0
1,405 |
201
0
0
1,309 |
201
0
21
1,288
915
535
0
0
1,000 |
535
1,000 |
535
0
0
1,000 j
535
0
0
1,000 |
535
0
128
872
916
0
0
0
10 |
0
16 |
0
0
0
10 |
0
0
0
10 |
0
0
2
8
1000
764
0
0
9,185 |
480
5,418 |
1,066
0
0
13,201 I
764
0
0
9,185 |
764
0
0
9,185
1001
140
0
0
6,284 |
0
4,418 |
215
0
0
7,283 |
140
0
0
6,284 I
140
0
0
6,284
1002
0
0
0
159 j
0
159 |
0
0
0
159 j
0
0
0
159 |
0
0
0
159
1300
5
0
0
10 |
0
10 |
5
0
0
10 |
5
0
0
10 |
5
0
0
10
1301
5
0
0
10 |
0
10 |
5
0
0
10 |
5
0
0
10 |
5
0
0
10
1302
14
0
0
30 |
0
30 |
14
0
0
30 !
14
0
0
30 |
14
0
0
30
1303
10
0
0
20 j
0
20 |
10
0
0
20 |
10
0
0
20 |
10
0
0
20
1305
14
0
0
29 |
0
29 |
14
0
0
29 |
14
0
0
29 |
14
0
0
29
1306
27
0
0
57 |
0
55 |
27
0
0
57 |
27
0
0
57 |
27
0
0
57
1307
5
0
10
0 1
0
10 |
5
0
10
o 1
5
0
10
o 1
5
0
10
0
1308
0
0
0
4 I
|
0
4 I
1
0
_ 0
0
4 I
|
0
0
0
4 I
1
0
0
0
4
EIS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
21,076
3,420
578 222,948 |
10,916
166,454 |
33,232
720
227 350,442 |
19,720
25,200
7,733
178,564 I
31,488
720
14,990 200,813
— The vegetation allocation for Alternative 2, Eliminate Livestock Grazing, would be zero for livestock and the same as the short term proposed action for
wildlife and wild horses. All remaining forage would be available for nonconsumptive uses.
— ■ Long-term vegetation allocation for Alternatives 1 and 2 has not been projected; therefore, the short-term allocation is shown.
-15
Table B-5 Additional Range Improvements for Alternative 3 Above the Proposed Action U
bd
Allotment Number
and Name
100 PETER CREEK
101 EAST GREEN MOUNTAIN
102 CRACK IN THE GROUND
103 VIEWPOINT
104 BOTTOMLESS LAKE
200 BLUE CREEK
201 VINYARD INDIV
202 HICKEY INDIV
205 GREASER DRIFT
206 LANE PLAN II
207 LANE PLAN I
208 SAGEHEN
210 GRIENER INDIV
211 ROUND MOUNTAIN
212 RAHILLY-GRAVELLY
213 BURRO SPRING
215 HILL CAMP
216 O'KEEFFE INDIV
217 COX INDIV
218 SANDY SEEDING
222 FISHER LAKE
400 PAISLEY COMMON
404 WILLOW CREEK
405 EAST CLOVER FLAT
406 WEST CLOVER FLAT
409 TUCKER HILL
412 FIR TIMBER BUTTE
415 BRIGGS GARDEN
509 COX BUTTE
510 ORIJANA RIM
511 NORTHEAST WARNER
512 NORTH BLUE JOINT
514 CORN LAKE
515 JUNIPER MOUNTAIN
516 RABBIT BASIN
517 COYOTE-COLVIN
518 CLOVER CREEK
519 FISH CREEK
520 LYNCH-FLYNN
523 WARNER LAKES
600 BEATYS BUTTE
700 SILVER CR-BRIDGE CR
701 UPPER BRIDGE CR
702 BUCK CR-BRIDGE CR
704 WARD LAKE
705 OATMAN FLAT
706 RYE RANCH
707 TUFF BUTTE
708 ARROW GAP
Fence
(miles )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Springs
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pipe-
1 ine
(miles )
Wells
Reser¬
voirs
Water-
holes
Spray
Seeding
(acres)
Burn
Chain
Spray
Brush Control
(acres)
Burn Chain
Juniper
Control
(acres )
0
0
0
0
0
2,700
0
0
11,000
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
5,700
6,000
0
5,541
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
680
0
5,100
0
0
0
1
0
5
29,347
10,000
0
77,700
30,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
565
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,480
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2,500
0
6,400
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1,200
0
0
4,920
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1,220
0
3,400
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
600
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1,680
0
14,000
0
0
0
2
1
8
0
0
600
0
4,000
4,000
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
500
0
940
940
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
52,901
0
0
88,985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
785
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
51,820
0
0
0
3
0
6
0
15,000
0
0
116,000
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5,000
5,000
0
46,000
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
13,500
0
0
74,720
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
36,000
0
0
7,040
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
15,209
5,000
0
76,000
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
750
750
0
3,500
3,500
0
0
0
0
2
0
3,800
0
0
5,5 00
6,000
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
29
0
32,000
32,000
0
80,000
80,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,895
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
640
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,186
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
493
0
1,600
0
1,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,840
0
1,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
2,400
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
1,335
0
0
0
0
0
0
9T-
Table B-5 Additional Range Improvements for Alternative 3 Ab
Allotment Number
and Name
Fence Springs
(miles )
Pipe¬
line Wells
(mi les )
W
709 DEAD INDIAN-DITNCAN 0
710 MURDOCK 0
711 SOUTH HAYES BUTTE 0
713 SILVER CREEK 0
715 CONNELLY HILLS 0
801 HAUGHT 0
806 TWO MILE 0
807 BARNWELL 0
811 CHEYNE 0
822 STUKEL-0' NEILL 0
829 HORTON 0
832 JESPERSON 0
834 KELLISON 0
838 WINDY RIDGE 0
848 POPE 0
855 BRYANT-SMITH 0
858 VENABLE & BIAGGI 0
861 WILLIAMS 0
863 WIRTH 0
877 BUMPHEADS 0
882 HORSEFLY 0
883 HORTON 0
885 DRY PRAIRIE 0
889 TIMBER HILL 0
890 WILLOW VALLEY 0
891 WILLOW VALLEY CHAIN. 0
892 WILLIAMS 0
900 FREMONT 0
901 WASTINA 0
902 CINDER BUTTE 0
903 BEASLEY LAKE 0
904 HIGHWAY 0
905 HOMESTEAD 0
908 COUGAR MOUNTAIN 0
9 1 1 VALLEY 0
913 INDIVIDUAL 0
914 WEST GREEN MOUNTAIN 0
1000 LITTLE JUNIPER SPR 0
1001 ALKALI WINTER 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
TOTALS
14 26 14
J J See Table B-3 for proposed action range improvements
the Proposed Action J J (Cont.)
Reser¬
voirs
Water-
holes
Spray
Seeding
(acres)
Burn
Chain
Spray
Brush Control
(acres)
Burn Chain
Juni pe
Cont ro
(acres
0
0
0
0
600
4,580
0
0
0
0
0
0
650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
0
660
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
0
0
0
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
395
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
0
110
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
1,495
0
0
0
0
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
0
0
0
0
0
360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,060
0
0
0
0
1,375
0
0
0
0
0
0
525
0
170
0
0
0
232
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
490
0
0
310
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
1
6,900
0
0
1,950
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,760
0
0
0
0
5,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,240
0
0
5,760
0
0
0
0
0
4,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
700
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,160
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
18,500
0
27,000
27,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
0
0
17,000
0
0
102
10
234,035
109,943
18,970
745,240
198,596
105
3,070
Appendix C
Determination of Forage Production and Vegetation Allocation
Determination of Present Forage Production
Forage production for most of the allotments within the EIS area was
originally determined using the Weight Estimate Method (BLM Manual 4412. 11B)
between the years 1957-1963. Using these data as a basis, the grazing
capacity has been periodically adjusted to reflect changes in forage
production caused by fire, land treatments, allotment boundary adjustments,
land exchanges, the construction of exclosures, new water developments and
drift fences. A comparison of the range conditions as measured by the 1978
Deming Two-Phase Method range condition survey with known levels of actual
grazing use further refined the forage production determination.
An example of how the production was determined is shown by the Beatys Butte
Allotment (#600). The original survey and subsequent studies of Beatys Butte
measured 27,892 AUMs available forage production. During the period
1969-1978 the combined average annual grazing use by livestock and wild
horses totaled 28,965 AUMs. The 1978 survey indicated that most of the
allotment was in fair condition with an upward trend. Therefore, the 28,965
AUM level was determined to be the best estimate of sustainable forage
production for the allotment.
Forage production of small allotments on scattered land parcels (primarily in
the Lost River Resource Area) was determined by comparing surveyed production
levels of nearby larger allotments with known levels of grazing use and
estimated condition.
Determination of Proposed Initial Vegetation Allocation
The existing forage production is proposed for allocation among livestock,
wildlife, wild horses and nonconsumptive uses. The allocation to the
nonconsumptive category results in AUMs of forage production remaining
unused.
Wild horse forage requirements are based on wild horse population objectives
set forth in the Wild Horse Herd Management Plans (HMPs). For the Beatys
Butte herd, the management plan shows a population objective of 200 wild
horses requiring 2,400 AUMs of forage annually. Wild horses and livestock
have a 100 percent dietary overlap in this area; therefore, all 2,400 AUMs of
forage are competitive.
Wildlife forage needs were determined by prorating the number of big game
animals in each herd area to each allotment and then calculating the total
number of AUMs needed within each allotment to support these animals.
C-l
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) supplied big game numbers and
season of use. Only competitive AUMs were formally allocated to big game. A
competitive AUM is forage composed of palatable shrubs, grasses and forbs
eaten by both livestock and wildlife. The portion of total big game forage
which is competitive is based on the dietary overlap or percent competitive¬
ness for deer.
Big game unit months were converted to AUMs using the following conversion
ratios :
5.3 Deer Unit Months = 1 AUM
7 Antelope Unit Months = 1 AUM
Big game was allocated forage in proportion to the percent of public land in
the allotment. A mathematical equation illustrates the method used to derive
wildlife AUMs.
Deer
Months
1 AUM
% Dietary
Wildlife
x of
X X
% BLM x
=
AUM
Nos .
Use
5.3
Overlap
Allocation
The same formula with the 7:1 AUM conversion factors was used for antelope.
In the Beatys Butte Allotment, approximately 444 competitive AUMs of forage
are required for wildlife to maintain the current population of mule deer and
antelope.
A summary of the proposed vegetation allocation within the Beatys Butte
allotment is shown below:
Present Forage Production
Allocated to horses
Allocated to wildlife
Allocated to livestock
Total Allocation
Determination of Future Forage Production
The analysis of predicted changes in grazing capacity is based on the
expected change in key species composition and vegetative production. These
changes would occur as a result of changes in livestock distribution provided
by water developments, timing and intensity of livestock grazing, and the
conversion of shrub plant communities to perennial bunchgrass plant
communities .
28,965 AUMs
2,400 AUMs
444 AUMs
26,121 AUMs
28,965 AUMs
C-2
In the Beatys Butte Allotment, the implementation of rest rotation grazing on
481,893 acres and the construction of 39 water developments would result in
improved livestock distribution. Key species composition and production
would increase, accounting for an estimated increase of 5,793 AUMs. Vegeta¬
tive manipulation on 78,720 acres would result in an additional 13,031 AUMs
of forage production. Ten years following implementation, the forage
production of the allotment is thus expected to increase by 18,824 AUMs.
Added to the current production of 28,965 AUMs, the future forage production
of the allotment would be approximately 47,789 AUMs.
Determination of Anticipated Long-Term Vegetation Allocation
The determination of the long-term allocation uses the same methodology as
the short-term allocation; however, long range wildlife population and
livestock production objectives are considered in the allocation. In the
Beatys Butte allotment, the allocation of vegetation to wild horses would
remain at 2,400 AUMs since this number fulfills the requirements of the
population objectives described in the Herd Management Plan. In addition to
the existing allocation of 444 AUMs, 1,318 AUMs would be allocated to wild-
to allow mule deer and antelope herd sizes to increase in line with
ODFW s objectives. The remaining 43,627 AUMs would be allocated to livestock.
The long-term allocation is for analysis purposes only. The actual alloca¬
tion will be made only as forage becomes available and in line with multiple
use resource objectives of future resource management plans.
C-3
Appendix D
Scientific Names of Plants Mentioned in the EIS
alder
Alnus ssp.
aster
Aster ssp.
basin wildrye
Elymus cinereus
big sagebrush
Artemisia tridentata
bitterbrush
Purshia tridentata
bluebunch wheatgrass
Agropyron spicatum
buckwheat
Eriogonum spp.
bulrush
Scirpus spp.
ceanothus
Ceanothus spp.
cheatgrass
Bromus tectorum
chokecherry
Prunus virginiana
creek dogwood
Cornus stolonifera
creeping wildrye
Elymus triticoides
crested wheatgrass
Agropyron cristatum
currant
Ribes spp.
dock
Rumex s pp .
greasewood
Sarcobatus vermiculatus
hopsage
Atriplex spinosa
Idaho fescue
Festuca idahoensis
junegrass
Koeleria cristata
j uniper
Juniperus occidentalis
Kentucky bluegrass
Poa pratensis
knotweed
Polygonum spp.
low sagebrush
Artemisia arbuscula
manzanita
Manzanita spp.
ma t muh 1 y
Muhlenbergia richardsonis
mountain mahogany
Cercocarpus ledifolius
needlegrass
Stipa spp.
phlox
Phlox spp.
ponderosa pine
Pinus ponderosa
pondweed
Potamogeton spp.
poverty weed
Iva axillaris
quaking aspen
Populus tremuloides
rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus spp.
rush
Juncus spp.
saltgras s
Distichlis spp.
Sandberg bluegrass
Poa sandbergii
sedge
Carex spp.
shadscale
Atriplex confert ifol ia
silver sagebrush
Artemisia cana
spiney hopsage
Grayia spinosa
squirreltail
Sitanion hystrix
smartweed
Polygonum spp.
Thurber's needlegrass
Stipa thurberiana
t imothy
Phleum pratense
willow
Salix spp.
yarrow
Achillea millefolium
D-l
Appendix E
Determination of Existing and Predicted Range Condition and Trend
Determination of Existing Range Condition and Trend
Range condition was determined by the Deming Two-Phase method. This was the
standard method for determining range condition on public lands in the 1950's
and 60 s. The Lakeview District was originally surveyed using the Two-Phase
method between 1956 and 1964. This method is no longer in the current BLM
manuals. For this reason, a brief description of the method is provided
below. A copy of the former manual is available for review at the Lakeview
District Office.
According to the former manual, the Two— Phase method ". . . is used to iudge
the relative condition of both the Forage Stand and the Site-Soil Mantle
phases of lands used primarily for grazing purposes. It serves to determine
trends in range condition over long periods of time ... by means of
successive periodic resurveys." Since the original transect sheets and other
information were available, the Two-Phase method was used again in 1978 and
1979 on the Lakeview District. The difference between the two surveys was
used to determine range trend. However, since 1978 was above average in
precipitation, the survey results showed more of an upward trend than if the
survey had occurred in a normal year.
The Two-Phase method is based on consideration of the productive capabilities
of the land under proper grazing use rather than on the basis of a purely
ecological or vegetational climax. Observations are made in the field at
random. The plants observed are classified primarily by the relative value
of each plant species for forage production purposes, but consideration is
also given to its relative efficiency as protective cover for the soil mantle
and to its position in the developmental stages of plant succession. For
each observation, the vegetal type is designated and the site described as to
land form, topography, exposure, soil characteristics and moisture character¬
istics. Numerical ratings are assigned for each of the above items. The sum
of the total rating obtained determines the range condition class for each
writeup and location. Five condition classes are described: Excellent,
Good, Fair, Poor and Bad. Very few acres were classified as Excellent or
Bad, so those acres were grouped respectively into Good and Poor.
Determination of Predicted Range Condition
The determinations of predicted range conditions are based on the discussion
of vegetation allocation and grazing systems in Chapter 3. Variables such as
large year-to-year fluctuations in precipitation make a precise quantifi¬
cation of impacts to vegetation impossible. The impact analysis methodology,
therefore, produces a result which is most useful as a relative comparison
between alternatives rather than as an absolute prediction of the impacts of
implementing any one alternative.
E-l
The following analysis of impacts to range condition on the Fish Creek
Allotment (519) illustrates how the components of the proposed action and
alternatives resulted in the long-term range conditions shown in Table 3-1.
The Fish Creek Allotment is currently managed under a spring /summer grazing
system and includes a 130 acre exclosure. The 1978 range condition inventory
indicated that 1,127 acres are in good and 13,678 acres are in fair
condition. No areas are currently in poor condition.
The following actions are proposed for the allotment:
1. Implementation of rest rotation grazing on 14,665 acres.
2. Prescribed burning of 1,120 acres followed by seeding.
3. The construction of a 10-acre exclosure in addition to the existing
exclosure.
4. An increase of 125 AUMs of livestock use over the current level (498
AUMs) of active preference.
5. A delay in the livestock turnout date from April 16 to May 1.
The proposed vegetative treatment would result in good range condition on
1,120 acres by converting a sagebrush-dominated plant community to a
grass-dominated community. The increase in livestock use would occur after
successful completion of the project. The delay in the livestock turnout
date and the implementation of rest rotation grazing would improve the vigor
of the native key species on the remainder of the allotment. Improved vigor
is reflected in increases in seed production. The rest periods provided
under the proposed grazing systems would aid in seedling establishment.
Improvement in riparian vegetation would occur following construction of the
10-acre exclosure along Fish Creek. At the end of 20 years, the entire
14,805 acres in the allotment would be in good condition.
E-2
Appendix F
Existing Range Condition and Trend by Allotment
Condition
Trend
Allot-
Good
Unsur-
Down-
No
Fair
Poor
veyed
Upward
Static
ward
Trend
ment
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres) |
1
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
100
4,836
8,964
0
1
o 1
1,600
12,200
0
0
101
16,241
1,000
0
o 1
13,807
3,434
0
0
102
4,718
10,701
0
o 1
11,823
3,596
0
0
103
128,545
316,442
61,549
17,644 |
228,460
239,771
38,305
17,644
104
0
0
0
565 |
0
0
0
565
200
600
0
0
o 1
0
600
0
0
201
2,560
5,507
320
213 |
2,560
6,040
0
0
202
10,906
0
0
o 1
3,840
7,066
0
0
203
192
373
0
o 1
0
565
0
0
204
0
0
2,764
166 |
0
2,930
0
0
205
0
0
8,538
672 |
0
9,210
0
0
206
9,910
0
0
o 1
9,910
0
0
0
207
5,760
18,130
0
835 |
10,240
14,485
0
0
208
960
2,860
0
o 1
320
3,500
0
0
209
0
790
0
o 1
0
790
0
0
210
640
1,437
0
913 |
2,350
640
0
0
211
192
16,138
0
0 |
3,840
12,490
0
0
212
3,200
6,400
22,216
1,469 |
19,845
13,440
0
0
213
0
0
6,041
1,459 |
7,500
0
0
0
215
15,549
12,040
1,280
1,921 |
2,945
27,845
0
0
216
3,840
42,075
3,200
1,215 |
5,120
42,650
2,560
0
217
1,280
2,793
0
597 |
640
4,030
0
0
218
4,419
0
320
111 |
4,530
320
0
0
219
0
470
0
o 1
0
470
0
0
222
0
2,950
1,280
o 1
0
4,230
0
0
223
0
412
0
0 |
0
412
0
0
400
45,065
310,658
143,600
52,297 |
204,098
275,828
19,397
52,297
401
0
0
160
o 1
0
160
0
0
403
0
400
0
o 1
0
400
0
0
404
0
0
3,123
0 !
0
3,123
0
0
405
0
4,182
4,500
o 1
0
8,682
0
0
406
0
548
200
0 |
0
748
0
0
407
0
2,521
0
o 1
0
2,521
0
0
408
0
0
0
55 |
0
0
0
55
409
0
0
3,534
o 1
0
3,534
0
0
410
0
0
0
285 |
0
0
0
285
411
636
0
0
o 1
636
0
0
0
412
1,773
0
0
0 |
1,773
0
0
0
413
1,689
0
0
o 1
1,089
600
0
0
415
745
0
0
40 |
745
0
0
40
416
0
0
0
565 |
0
0
0
565
417
0
0
799
50 |
0
799
0
50
501
2,780
0
0
o 1
0
2,780
0
0
502
0
5,150
0
0 |
1,920
3,230
0
0
503
0
3,083
0
27 |
0
3,110
0
0
504
0
390
0
o 1
F-l
0
390
0
0
Appendix F (Cont.) Existing Range Condition and Trend by Allotment
Condition Trend
Allot-
Good
Fair
Poor
Unsur¬
veyed
Upward
Static
Down¬
ward
No
Trend
ment
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres) |
I
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
505
0
0
180
1
o 1
0
180
0
0
506
0
0
100
o 1
100
0
0
0
507
0
0
1,568
462 |
2,030
0
0
0
508
0
0
280
o 1
0
280
0
0
509
0
26,180
12,160
0 |
37,060
1,280
0
0
510
0
33,920
23,360
o 1
33,920
23,360
0
0
511
3,200
84,878
50,242
o 1
27,016
100,424
10,880
0
512
0
0
22,440
o 1
22,440
0
0
0
514
0
24,000
53,516
894 |
71,369
7,041
0
0
515
33,175
46,565
11,980
o 1
67,400
14,720
9,600
0
516
0
0
60,540
0 r
49,020
10,240
1,280
0
517
23,688
68,970
34,733
205 |
107,234
19,062
1,300
0
518
10,050
0
0
o 1
10,050
0
0
0
519
1,127
13,678
0
o 1
9,305
5,500
0
0
520
14,120
3,200
0
o 1
7,680
9,640
0
0
521
780
0
0
o 1
780
0
0
0
522
8,836
0
0
364 |
0
9,200
0
0
523
0
1,270
37,998
o 1
9,360
29,908
0
0
524
0
0
2,700
0 i
0
2,700
0
0
600
44,795
381,005
79,360
1,825 I
332,210
154,295
20,480
0
700
640
4,322
1,683
o 1
640
6,005
0
0
701
882
0
578
o 1
0
1,460
0
0
702
720
4,920
640
o 1
3,470
2,810
0
0
703
0
866
289
o 1
866
289
0
0
704
0
12,024
400
o 1
4,407
8,017
0
0
705
5,337
14,944
1,702
o 1
1,797
19,866
320
0
706
4,240
0
0
o 1
4,240
0
0
0
707
1,060
8,270
0
o 1
4,693
4,637
0
0
708
0
2,720
0
o 1
0
2,720
0
0
709
5,139
12,711
940
o 1
3,080
15,310
400
0
710
1,409
2,409
650
o 1
1,259
1,389
1,820
0
711
1,170
0
0
o 1
1,170
0
0
0
712
1,100
300
0
o 1
300
1,100
0
0
713
2,206
300
279
o 1
1,406
479
900
0
714
0
4,100
0
o 1
0
4,100
0
0
715
6,520
0
0
o 1
6,520
0
0
0
716
0
0
0
640 |
0
0
0
640
800
0
40
0
o 1
0
0
0
40
801
0
400
0
o 1
0
0
0
400
804
0
480
0
o 1
0
0
0
480
806
0
817
0
o 1
0
0
0
817
807
0
1,708
0
0 |
0
0
0
1,708
808
0
40
0
o 1
0
0
0
40
809
0
80
0
0 |
0
0
0
80
810
0
1,300
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,300
811
0
840
0
o 1
0
0
0
840
812
0
760
0
o 1
0
0
0
760
813
0
160
0
0 |
0
0
0
160
F-2
Appendix F (Cont.) Existing Range Condition and Trend by Allotment
Condition Trend
Allot¬
ment
Good
(Acres )
Fair
(Acres )
Unsur-
Poor veyed
(Acres) (Acres) |
Upward
(Acres )
St at ic
(Acres )
Down¬
ward
(Acres )
No
Trend
(Acres )
814
0
840
0
1
o 1
0
0
0
840
815
0
1,680
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,680
816
0
440
0
o 1
0
0
0
440
817
0
1,080
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,080
818
0
200
0
o I
0
0
0
200
819
0
79
0
o I
0
0
0
79
820
160
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
160
821
0
988
0
o 1
0
0
0
988
822
3,122
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
3,122
823
0
920
0
o I
0
0
0
920
825
0
760
0
o 1
0
0
0
760
826
0
560
0
o 1
0
0
0
560
827
0
349
0
o 1
0
0
0
349
828
0
960
0
o 1
0
0
0
960
829
0
760
0
o 1
0
0
0
760
830
0
280
0
o 1
0
0
0
280
831
0
0
460
o 1
0
0
0
460
832
1,578
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,578
833
0
40
0
o 1
0
0
0
40
834
0
335
0
o I
0
0
0
335
835
0
320
0
o 1
0
0
0
320
836
900
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
900
837
1,249
0
0
o I
0
0
0
1,249
838
600
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
600
839
0
3,440
0
o 1
0
0
0
3,440
840
0
565
0
o 1
0
0
0
565
841
0
348
0
o I
0
0
0
348
842
0
485
0
o 1
0
0
0
485
845
0
500
0
o 1
0
0
0
500
846
0
1,260
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,260
847
1,921
0
0
o I
0
0
0
1,921
848
0
1,044
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,044
849
0
480
0
o 1
0
0
0
480
851
0
1,083
0
o i
0
0
0
1,083
852
0
2,549
0
o 1
0
0
0
2,549
853
688
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
688
855
0
1,140
0
o I
0
0
0
1,140
856
0
440
0
o 1
0
0
0
440
857
0
760
0
o I
0
0
0
760
858
1,760
4,688
0
o 1
0
0
0
6,448
859
370
0
0
o 1
370
0
0
0
860
0
545
0
o 1
0
0
0
545
861
0
2,520
0
o 1
0
0
0
2,520
862
0
2,520
0
o 1
0
0
0
2,520
863
0
1,360
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,360
864
0
0
1,440
o 1
0
0
0
1,440
876
740
4,060
0
o 1
1,600
3,200
0
0
877
375
9,225
3,280
o 1
9,015
3,865
0
0
F-3
Appendix F (Cont.) Existing Range Condition and Trend by Allotment
Condition Trend
Allot-
Good
Fair
Poor
Unsur¬
veyed
Upward
Stat ic
Down¬
ward
No
Trend
ment
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres) |
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
(Acres )
878
0
1,465
0
1
o 1
0
1,465
0
0
879
0
240
0
o 1
240
0
0
0
881
0
285
0
o I
0
285
0
0
882
1,715
24,641
0
o 1
11,515
11,321
3,520
0
883
880
0
0
o 1
0
880
0
0
884
0
282
0
o 1
282
0
0
0
883
647
6,584
0
o 1
1,050
6,181
0
0
886
300
4,820
0
o 1
0
5,120
0
0
887
800
8,480
0
o 1
3,500
800
4,980
0
888
0
2,750
0
o 1
2,050
700
0
0
889
0
3,390
0
o 1
1,780
1,290
320
0
890
4,107
10,838
0
o I
4,728
10,137
80
0
891
1,800
2,109
0
o 1
3,909
0
0
0
892
0
1,790
0
o 1
0
1,790
0
0
893
0
180
0
o 1
180
0
0
0
895
0
1,080
0
o 1
0
0
0
1,080
896
880
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
880
900
9,774
14,988
0
1,600 |
4,360
20,402
0
1,600
901
6,266
0
0
100 I
3,689
2,577
0
100
902
9,816
960
0
440 |
10,776
0
0
440
903
0
1,056
1,584
o 1
0
2,640
0
0
904
960
2,715
0
o 1
1,390
2,285
0
0
905
3,741
8,632
0
1,464 |
4,061
8,312
0
1,464
906
1,071
0
0
o 1
0
1,071
0
0
907
4,406
0
0
o 1
930
3,476
0
0
908
3,970
3,762
550
o 1
7,732
550
0
0
909
8,779
0
0
o 1
1,313
7,466
0
0
910
3,207
0
0
1,177 |
2,020
1,187
0
1,177
911
3,022
3,328
0
250 |
5,361
989
0
250
912
320
0
0
0 |
320
0
0
0
913
0
240
0
0 |
0
240
0
0
914
1,280
18,496
1,800
80 |
660
20,916
0
80
915
8,230
0
0
o 1
2,810
5,420
0
0
916
0
160
0
o 1
0
160
0
0
1000
38,160
51,150
27,520
6 I
70,756
45,440
640
0
1001
31,040
14,080
39,314
3,136 |
15,360
72,210
0
0
1002
290
1,018
1,280
o 1
1,288
1 ,300
0
0
1300
0
0
0
120 |
0
0
0
120
1301
0
0
0
240 |
0
0
0
240
1302
0
0
0
40 |
0
0
0
40
1303
0
0
0
280 |
0
0
0
280
1305
0
0
0
200 |
0
0
0
200
1306
0
0
0
363 |
0
0
0
363
1307
0
0
0
240 |
0
0
0
240
1308
0
0
0
120 |
0
0
0
120
596,154
1,773,713
738,970
1
95,345 | 1,533,458
1,416,306
116,782
137,636
F-4
Appendix G
Average Monthly Temperatures and Precipitation for Selected Weather Stations
Klamath Falls
(4,098 ft.) 1/
Lakeview
(4,778 ft.)
Paisley
(4,360 ft.)
Precipitation
Temperature
Precipitation
Temperature
Precipitation Temperature
(inches)
(°F)
( inches )
(°F)
( inches )
( °F )
January
2. 24
29.7
2.29
27.8
1.46
30.8
February
1.29
34.8
1.51
32.3
.94
35.7
March
1.06
38.8
1.34
36.2
.85
38.7
April
.73
45.3
1.10
43.5
.59
45.4
May
1.13
52.8
1.73
51.1
1.34
53.1
June
.96
59.5
1.70
57.9
1.42
59.7
July
.25
67.9
.19
66.6
.37
68.1
August
.57
65.9
.37
64.2
.43
66.3
September
.49
59.8
.50
57.8
.37
53.5
October
1.25
49.4
1.32
47.9
.90
49.9
November
1.88
38.7
1.79
37.7
1.06
39.1
December
2.49
31.7
2.17
31.1
1.45
32.9
14.34
47.9
16.01
46.2
11.18
47.7
Hart Mtn. Refuge (5,616 ft.)
Fremont (4
,512 ft.)
Adel (4,
680 ft.)
Precipitation
Temperature
Precipitation
Temperature
Precipitat ion
Temperature
( inches )
(°F)
(inches)
Cf)
( inches )
(°F)
January
.92
27.3
1.91
27.3
1.20
33.4
February
.72
30.9
.93
31.7
.72
34.5
March
.90
33.0
.96
34.2
.74
38.8
April
.86
40.1
.55
38.4
.55
44.8
May
1.84
47.3
.75
44.3
.79
53.4
June
1.72
53.7
.81
54.4
1.44
59.9
July
.36
62.6
.40
61.0
.30
67.9
August
.43
61.3
.51
58.4
.53
66.7
September
.48
54.9
.31
51.6
.49
58.6
October
.92
45.9
.83
43.4
.67
51.0
November
.94
36.1
1.44
34.6
1.01
40.6
December
.99
29.9
1.80
26.1
1.11
33.9
11.08
43.6
10.82
42.3
9.55
48.0
Alkali Lake
(4,332 ft.)
Precipitation
Temperature
( inches )
(°F)
January
1.03
30.9
February
.64
33.2
March
.55
37.2
April
.75
43.3
May
.79
52.2
June
1.32
58.7
July
.62
69.1
August
.67
64.0
September
.32
58.5
October
.85
48.4
November
.69
40.9
December
.83
31.5
9.06
44.8
1/ Station elevation
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration 1978; USDI BLM 1979
G-l
Appendix H
Properties and Qualities of the Soils in the Lakeview EIS Area
Soil
Unit
Classification
Subgroup — Family
Slope
Gradient
( percent )
Bedrock or
Underlyi ng
Material
Perma-
b i 1 it y
Ef feet ive
Root
Depth (in)
Avai lab le
Water Holding
Capacity
1
Xerol 1 ic Camborth id — Coarse-s i 1 ty ,
mixed, mesic
0-3
A1 luvium
Mod .
60+
High
2
Xerollic Torr i f luvent--Coarse-
loamy, mixed, noncalcareous , mesic
0-3
A1 luvium
Rapid
20-40
Low
5
Lithic Xerollic Camborthid —
Loamy, mixed, frigid
0-12
Eoli an
Rapid
10-20
Low
6
Xerol lie Torriorthent — Coarse- loamy,
mixed, noncalcareous, frigid
0-3
A1 luvium
Rapid
60+
Mod .
14
Cumulic Haplaquoll — Clayey, mixed,
mes ic
0-3
Alluvium
Slow
60+
High
25
Xerollic Paleargid — Clayey,
montmorillonit ic , frigid, shallow
0-3
Lacustrine
Slow
15-24
Low
26
Xerollic Camborthid — Loamy, mixed,
frigid, shallow
0-3
Lacustrine
Mod .
15-24
Low
30
Typic Pel 1 oxer ert — Montmorillonit ic ,
frigid
0-3
A1 luvium
V. Slow
20-40
Mod .
31
Xerertic Torriorthent — Fine,
montmori 1 lonit ic , noncalcareous,
frigid
0-3
Alluvium
V . Slow
20-40
Mod .
41
Xerertic Camborthid — Fine,
montmorillonit ic , mesic
0-3
A1 luvium
V. Slow
20-40
Mod .
43
Flu vent ic Haplaquept — Coarse-s ilty ,
mixed, calcareous, mesic
0-3
A1 luvium
M . Slow
60+
Mod .
44
Xerollic Natrargid — Fine-silty,
mixed, mesic
0-3
Lacustrine
M . Slow
60+
Mod .
50
Xerollic Durorthid — Coarse-loamy,
mixed, mesic
0-12
A1 luvium
Slow
10-20
Low
50a
Xerollic Durorthid — Coarse-loamy,
mixed, mesic
0-3
Alluvium
Slow
10-20
Low
51
Xerollic Camborthid — Coarse- loamy,
mixed, mesic
0-12
A1 luvium
M. Rapid
60+
Mod
52
Xerollic Durorthid — Sandy, mixed,
frigid
0-12
A1 luvium
Rapid
20-40
Low
53
Xerollic Durargid — Fine-loamy,
mixed, mesic
0-12
Lacustrine
Slow
10-20
Low
54
Aquic Durorthid — Coarse-loamy,
mixed, mesic
0-7
Lacustrine
Slow
5-10
Low
Soil
Classif icat ion
Slope
Gr adient
Unit
Subgroup — Fami ly
(percent )
55
Xerollic Durargid — Fine-loamy,
mixed, mesic
3-12
56
Xerollic Durargid — Fine,
montmor i 1 lonit ic , mesic
3-7
74
Lithic Xerollic Camborthid —
Loamy, mixed, frigid
3-60
75
Lithic Xerollic Haplargid — Loamy,
mixed, frigid
30-60
75a
Lithic Xerollic Haplargid —
Loamy, mixed, frigid
3-20
S75
Lithic Xerollic Haplargid —
Loamy-skeletal, mixed, frigid
3-35
76
Lithic Xerollic Paleargid —
Clayey, montmoril lonit ic , frigid
3-20
76a
Lithic Xerollic Paleargid —
Clayey, montmor i 1 lonit ic , frigid
3-12
S76
Lithic Xerollic Paleargid — Clayey-
skeletal, montmoril lonit ic , frigid
3-20
77
Lithic Torrirothent — Loamy,
mixed, frigid
3-60
78
Lithic Xeric Torriorthent —
Sandy-skeletal, mixed, frigid
7-12
82
Pachic Cryoborol 1--Fine-
loamy, mixed
3-60
83
Argic Lithic Cryoboroll —
Loamy, mixed
12-60
84
Lithic Cryoboroll — Loamy, mixed
3-60
85
Lithic Cryoboroll — Loamy, mixed
3-60
87
Lithic Xerollic Haplargid — Clayey,
mixed, frigid
0-20
95
(Sand dunes)
0-20
95a
(Sand dunes, alkali)
0-20
96
(Rockland)
3-60
97
(Playas )
0-3
Bj
Typic Argixerol l--Fine~loamy ,
mixed, frigid
3-60
Bk
Typic Torr ipsamment — Mixed, frigid
0-12
Ca
Aridic Pachic Haploxeroll — Fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic
0-15
Bedrock or
Underlying
Material
Perma-
bility
Effect ive
Root
Depth (in)
Available
Water Holding
Capacity
A1 luvium
Slow
10-20
Low
A1 luvium
Slow
10-20
Low
Volcanic
Rapid
10-20
Low
Vo lcanic
Mod .
10-20
Low
Volcanic
Mod .
10-20
Low
Volcanic
Mod .
10-20
Low
Volcanic
M. Slow
10-20
Low
Volcanic
M. Slow
10-20
Low
Vo lcanic
Slow
10-20
Low
Vo lcanic
Mod .
5-10
V. Low
Vo lcanic
Rapid
10-20
V . Low
Volcanic
Mod .
20-40
Mod .
Volcanic
M . Slow
10-20
Low
Volcanic
Mod .
5-10
V. Low
Vo lcanic
Mod .
10-20
Low
Volcanic
Slow
10-20
Low
Sand
V. Rapid
60+
V. Low
Sand
V. Rapid
60+
V. Low
Volcanic
Var i .
Vari .
Vari .
Sed.
Vari .
Vari .
Vari .
Volcanic
M. Slow
40-60
Mod .
A1 luvium
Rapid
60+
Low
Alluvium
Mod .
40-60
High
33
to
Soil Classification
Unit Subgroup — Family
Slope
Gradi ent
( percent )
Cr Histic Haplaquoll — Coarse-silty,
siliceous, noncalcareous , mesic 0-3
Dg Xerollic Camborthid — Coarse-loamy,
mixed, frigid 0-13
D1 Typic Cryoboroll — Fine-loamy , mixed 3-60
Fg Haplic Xerollic Durargid — Fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic 0-3
Fk Durixerollic Camborthid--Coarse-
loamy, mixed, frigid 0-3
Fo Torriorthent ic Haploxeroll — Sandy,
mixed, frigid 0-5
Hg Andie Cryochrept — Coarse-loamy,
mixed 7-60
Hn Xerollic Durorthid — Coarse-loamy,
mixed, mesic 0-2
Ho Fluventic Haplaquoll — Fine-
loamy, mixed, frigid 0-2
Ht Lithic Xerollic Haplargid — Clayey,
mixed, frigid 3-20
La Cumulic Haploxerol 1--Fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic 0-3
Lf Xerollic Durorthid — Coarse-silty,
mixed, mesic 0-3
Lk Calcic Haploxeroll — Coarse-
loamy, mixed, mesic 0-2
Lr Aridic Lithic Argixeroll — Clayey,
montmorillonitic , mesic 3-60
Mh Xerollic Durorthid — Sandy, mixed,
frigid 0-3
Mn Typic Haplaquoll — Fine-loamy,
mixed, calcareous, mesic 0-1
Mr Lithic Argixeroll — Clayey,
montmorillonitic, frigid 1-8
Oz Fluventic Haplaquoll — Fine-
loamy, mixed, noncalcareous, mesic 0-3
PI Xerollic Haplargid — Loamy-
skeletal, mixed, frigid 3-60
Pt Chromic Pelloxerert--Fine,
montmorillonitic, mesic 0-3
Bedrock or
Underlying
Material
Perma-
bi 1 ity
Ef feet ive
Root
Depth (in)
Available
Water Holding
Capacity
A1 luvium
M . Slow
20-40
High
Pumice
V. Rapid
60+
Low
Volcanic
Slow
20-60
High
A1 luvium
Slow
20-40
Mod .
A1 luvium
Mod .
20-40
Mod.
A1 luvium
Rapid
40-60
Low
Volcanic
Rapid
60+
Mod .
A1 luvium
Mod
20-40
Low
A1 luvium
Slow
40-60
High
Volcanic
Slow
10-20
Low
A1 luvium
M. Slow
30-60
High
A1 luvium
Slow
20-40
Mod .
A1 luvium
Mod .
40-60
High
Volcanic
Slow
10-20
Low
A1 luvium
Rapid
10-20
Low
A1 luvium
Slow
40-60
High
Volcanic
Slow
10-20
V. Low
A1 luvium
M. Slow
60+
High
A1 luvium
M. Slow
30-60
Low
A1 luvium
Slow
60+
High
H-4
Soil Classification
Unit Subgroup — Family
Slope
Gradient
( percent )
Sh Typic Cryorthent — Ashy over loamy,
mixed
Sk Aridic Lithic Haploxeroll — Loamy,
mixed, mesic
Tq Pachic Ultic Haploxeroll — Fine-
loamy, mixed, frigid
Tv Xerollic Durargid — Fine,
montmor i llonit ic , frigid
Wd Pachic Ultic Argixeroll — Loam>
skeletal, mixed, frigid
3-60
5-25
3-20
3-12
7-60
Source: Cahoon and Simonson 1969;
Lindsay et al . 1969;
Lovell et al . 1969.
Bedrock or
Under lying
Material
Perma-
hility
Effect ive
Root
Depth (in)
Avail ab le
Water Holding
Capacity
Pumice
Rapid
30-60
Mod .
Lacustrine
Mod .
10-20
V . Low
Volcanic
Mod .
40-60
High
Al luvium
Slow
10-20
Low
Volcanic
Mod .
40-60
Mod .
M = moderately
V = very
Appendix I
Soil Units Shown on Figure 2-3, General Soils
Soil Divisions
on Figure 2-3
Soil Units Described
in Appendix H
Total
Acres U
Basin Land and Terrace
Alkali Affected
Poorly Drained
Sandy
Ashy
Volcanic
Very Shallow and
Very Stony
1,23,26,51,53,55,56,
Ca , Fk , Sk ,Tv
43,44, 50a, 54, 75a, 76a,
95a, Fg,Hn,Lf ,Lk,Mn
14,30,31,41,97, Cr, Ho,
La ,0z ,Pt
2,5,6,50,52,78,95,
Bk, Fo,Mh
Dg, Sh
74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 87, Bj,
D1 , Hg, Ht ,Lr ,P 1 , Tq , Wd
S75,S76, 77,84,85, 96,
99 ,Mr
404,240
95,020
107,960
308,480
30,000
2,034,274
515,280
3,495,254
U Includes public, other Federal, State and private land within allotment
boundaries in the EIS area.
1-1
Appendix J
Erosion Condition
Data to determine soil erosion condition were taken during Phase I Watershed
Conservation and Development Inventory. Each of the Phase I representative
areas were rated for the following soil surface factors: soil movement,
surface litter, surface rock, pedestailing, flow patterns, rills and gullies.
Each factor was allotted points according to erosion conditions. The points
were then totaled and an erosion condition class assigned based on a 0 to 100
scale. The following classes are used:
Erosion Condition Class
Points
Stable
0-20
Slight
21-40
Moderate
41-60
Critical
61-80
Severe
81-100
J-l
Appendix K
Range
of Selected
Water Quality
Parameters
Tempera¬
ture
(°F)
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
Fecal Coli¬
forms
( count s /100ml )
pH
Turbidity
(JTU)I/
Number of Samples
Lost River at Harpold Dam
40-75
6.4-11.1
45-2400
7. 7-8. 5
3-63
16
(1968-1975)
Lost River at Wilson
Bridge
43-78
3.0-12.3
60-450
7. 9-8. 8
5-44
8
(1971-1975)
Lost River at Merrill
Road Bridge
32-73
0-12.1
435
6. 8-8. 4
3-36
11
(1970-1975)
Honey Creek at Plush
45-52
8.1-11.5
620
7.9-9. 1
3
2
(1965,1977)
Chewaucan R. , 0.5 mi.
above Paisley Mill
34-75
8.1-10.5
60-230 2/
7.4-8. 9
1-144
7
(1965-1973)
Chewaucan R. at Hwy. 31
43-68
5.4-10.7
230
7.6-8. 2
3-85
4
(1965,1977)
\] Jackson Turbidity Units
2/ Total coliforms
Source: ODEQ 1980. Unpublished computer printout.
Appendix L
Riparian Inventory
METHODS
This riparian habitat inventory method was adapted from Lee (1974). The
procedure establishes temporary, 30-foot diameter plots (0.016 acres) located
along streams where the components of the riparian community show distin¬
guishable changes. Where the riparian area was clearly homogenous, plots
were inventoried 1/4 to 1/3 mile apart. The components of the riparian
community that were considered in determining plot locations include:
(1) Density and canopy of the vegetation
(2) Species composition, particularly trees and shrubs
(3) Understory vegetation and/or ground cover
(4) Riparian width (differences of 50 percent or more)
(5) Stream stability, water velocity and turbidity
(6) Adjacent soil types and bank rock content
(7) Percent slope
The vertical strata and the basal cover of each plot were diagrammed. Width,
direction of flow and percent shading of the stream in each plot was
recorded. Channel stability was measured and rated as described by Duff and
Cooper (1976:47), using USDI Form 6671—3. The width of the riparian zone was
estimated and recorded for both sides of the creek. Vegetation was
inventoried according to percentage of basal canopy cover for each stratum.
Vertical strata were divided into four height categories (0-3 feet, 3-10
feet, 10-20 feet, 20+ feet) for the tree and shrub elements of the components
of the community. Grasses and forbs were considered to be one stratum.
Thus, 10 vertical strata were estimated — 4 tree, 4 shrub, 1 grass, 1 forb.
Basal coverage for each stratum followed the Modified Reconnaissance Sampling
method described by Pfister (1977).
A general description of each plot was recorded. The percent cover of
bareground occurring as any combination of dirt, sand and/or rock was
estimated .
Notation was made regarding the presence and extent of trampling, both human
and livestock. The vegetation use by cattle was rated as "none", "low",
"moderate", or "high" — and in some cases "very high". Mammals and birds
were recorded if seen or heard, or if tracks, droppings, burrows, nests,
etc., were observed.
RATING SYSTEM
As with any rating system, the divisions are very subjective and somewhat
arbitrary. The 27 possible points for the seven elements are shown in Table
L-l. Condition ratings were assigned as follows:
L-l
27 Possible Points
13-19 = Good
20-27 = Excellent
0-6 = Poor
7-12 = Fair
After each plot was rated as described, individual scores were tabulated.
Each creek, or clearly distinguishable riparian type along each creek was
grouped as a unit and an average riparian rating was obtained by dividing the
total score by the number of plots. An adjusted riparian rating was obtained
by multiplying the rating score by the size of the riparian type. The
resultant scores were combined and divided by the total area of the riparian
zone. By this adjustment, small plots with excellent ratings were weighted
against extensive areas of low ratings. The variation between the two proved
to be slight.
Stream stability ratings followed Form 6671-2 guidelines (Example follows
Table L-l ) .
L-2
Table L-l Riparian Rating System
Total possible points
Percent Stream Shading
0-10%= 0 pts
11-50%= 1 pts.
51-100%= 2 pts. 2
Stream Stability (Form 6671-3)
115+ = 0 pts.
77-114= 1 pts.
39-76 = 2 pts.
38&below3pts 3_
Tree Canopy
1) less than 3' stratum
0-10%= 0 pts.
11-50= 1 pts.
51-100%= 2 pts 2
2) 3-10 1 stratum
as 1) above 2_
Shrub Canopy
1) less than 3" stratum
as 1) above 2_
2) 3-10" stratum
as 1) above 2_
3) 10-20" stratum
as 1) above 2_
4) 20" to 10' stratum
as 1) above 2_
5) 10-20' stratum
as 1) above 2
6) 20' + stratum
as 1) above 2
Grass/Forb Canopy
Combined basal coverage of all
plants minus that of invader species.
0-10%= 0 pts.
11-50%= 1 pts.
51-100%= 2 pts 2
Avian Species Diversity
0-2 species= 0 pts.
3-4 species= 1 pts.
5+ species= 2 pts 2
Snags
0 snags present = 0 pt s
1-2 snags " =1 pts
3+ " " = 2 pts _2
TOTAL 27
L-3
Appendix M
Criteria for Evaluating Stream Conditions
Stream fisheries habitat ratings were obtained by walking along streams and
documenting their physical and biological characteristics every one-quarter
mile.
damage,
Written
sect ion
Some factors measured and rated were channel stability, stream bank
physical habitat condition, water quality and aquatic insects,
observations were supported with color photos. Each one-quarter mile
was given an overall rating, based on measurements and observations.
Habit at
Quality
Definition
Poor
- Natural stream habitat drastically altered; very little or no
present trout production.
Fair
- Stream substantially altered from natural conditions due to past
or present activities, habitat either partially recovered or
still decreasing in trend; some trout production but population
is far below potential for streams.
Good
- Stream only slightly altered from natural conditions, very
limited habitat changes or almost complete recovery; satisfactory
trout population for stream.
Excellent - Stream habitat virtually unchanged from natural conditions or is
highly productive for aquatic life; trout production at potential
for stream.
M-l
Appendix N Interindustry Models
Interindustry models for Lake and Klamath Counties developed by the Forest
Service Region 6 for the year 1977 were used to estimate the contribution of
the livestock industry to the local economy and to estimate the effects of
changes in economic activities. Summary information for these two models is
shown in Tables N-l and N-2.
An interindustry (or input-output) model is a summary of all the transactions
occurring in an area during a one-year period, showing for each industry or
economic sector the amount of its purchases from each industry (inputs) and
the amount of its sales to each industry (outputs). This information
represents the interindustry relationships in the area, and permits the
estimation of how a change in one industry would affect other industries and
the economy as a whole.
When a specific change occurs in the economy, such as an increase in cattle
sales due to increased forage availability, the cattle industry purchases
more from its suppliers, ranch families spend more, and so on. Recipients of
these purchases increase their purchases. The end result of this process is
increased income and employment throughout the economy. Its measure is
called a Type II multiplier. It relates the total change in income or
employment to the original change in final demand (e.g., cattle sales).
Type II multipliers derived from the models for use in the statement are
shown in Table N-3.
N-l
Table N-l Summary Measures, Lake County Interindustry Model, 1977
Sector
Final
Demand
($1000)
Total Gross
Output
($1000)
Personal
Income
($1000)
Labor
(Jobs )
Agriculture
10,989.253
20,074.998
4,123.003
806.011
Agriculture Service, Forest
.051
1,808.000
635.006
23.992
Fish
Construction
277.779
317.000
284.999
58.001
Lumber and Wood Products
30,020.293
44,782.996
6,615.792
386.029
Printing and Publishing
203.108
283.000
171.000
13.001
Transportation, Communica-
3,210.026
5,319.000
916.996
62.020
tion and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
106.739
553.000
497.999
56.998
Auto Dealers and Gas Stations
1,774.453
2,072.000
971.996
67.008
Eating and Drinking
688.341
722.000
636.999
119.996
Establishments
Other Retail Trade
4,477.447
4,592.000
1,545.989
123.934
Finance, Insurance and Real
1,201.142
3,847.000
559.008
51.011
Estate
Lodging
68.227
117.000
105.000
91.999
Other Services
Private Sectors Total
1,251.256
1,826.000
1,580.001
156.999
54,268.112
86,313.984
18, 643. 785
2", 017. 051
Government and Miscellaneous
11,011.000
9,910.000
891.000
Total
54,268.112
97,324.984
28,553.785
2,908.051
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Region 6, RARE II
Studies, 1977 County Input-Output Models, 1980
N-2
Table N-2 Summary Measures, Klamath County Interindustry Model, 1977
Sector
Final
Demand
($1000)
Total Gross
Output
($1000)
Personal
Income
($1000)
Labor
( Jobs )
Agriculture
46,845.703
68,501.992
10,476.010
2,124.932
Agriculture Service, Forest,
. 126
9,767.999
1,219.046
142.027
Fish
Construction
17,650.623
20,354.999
13,867.046
679.043
Nondurable Goods Mfg.
5,969.150
9,453.999
2,134.996
162.987
Lumber and Wood Products
222,535.701
320,327.957
77,362.404
4,497.404
Printing and Publishing
281.506
2,754.000
1,187.001
90.001
Durable Goods Manufacturing
5,306.858
9,457.999
5,755.003
375.010
Transportation, Communica-
47,521.793
76,972.994
26,481.019
1,424.770
tions and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
7,519.609
21,761.998
10,724.095
833.920
Auto Dealers and Gas Stations
11,229.336
14,299.999
7,138.988
611.039
Eating and Drinking Estab-
4,623.023
4,981.000
4,483.000
997.993
lishment s
Other Retail Trade
30,456.598
31,673.999
19,744.937
1,955.869
Finance, Insurance and
16,375.639
41,426.997
8,118.863
664.903
Real Estate
Lodging
3,052.837
3,722.000
2,414.015
465.994
Other Services
24,008.434
54,271.997
31,165.151
2,506.824
Private Sectors Total
443,377.012
689,729.875
222,271.566
17,532.715
Government and Miscellaneous
53,721.000
47,969.000
4,535.000
Tot al
443,377.012
743,450.875
270,240.566
22,067.715
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Region 6, RARE II
Studies, 1977 County Input-Output Models, 1980
N-3
Table N-3 Type 2 Multipliers U , 1977 Interindustry Models
Lake and Klamath Counties
(Ratios of respective amounts to final demand)
Gross Sales
Personal Income
Jobs
(per dollar)
(per dollar)
(per $1,000)
LAKE COUNTY
Graz ing
2.3254
.5577
.0925
Hunting 2/
1.5573
.7538
.1014
Fishing 3/
2.0310
1.0109
.2122
Other Recreation 4/
1.6369
.7542
.1188
Construction 5/
2.1401
1.3253
.2290
KLAMATH COUNTY
Grazing
2.1694
.5231
.0693
Construe t ion
1.9397
1.09407
.0670
J_/ Change in private gross sales, income or jobs per unit change in final
demand (local expenditure from an outside source). Represents the total
effect on the local economy produced by an initial expenditure as well as
the purchases of the initial recipient and the re-spending of others
including households throughout the local economy. Excludes any effect on
the government sector. See text.
2/ Based on expenditure pattern for big game hunting in 1975 National Survey
of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation (prepared for U.S.
FWS ) .
3/ Based on expenditure pattern for cold water fishing in 1975 National
Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Related Recreation.
4/ Based on expenditure pattern for day use in 1975 State Park Visitor
Survey: Survey Report of Oregon Department of Transportation, Parks and
Recreation Branch.
5/ Construction industry multipliers for Lake County were not used because
they appeared unreasonably high. Multipliers for Klamath County were used
to estimate construction impacts on the local economy.
Derived from interindustry models for Lake and Klamath Counties.
Source: U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, Forest Service Region 6, RARE II
Studies, 1980.
N-4
Appendix 0
Ranch Budgets: Linear Programming Process
From data gathered in a random sample of ranchers using public forage in Lake
and Harney Counties, the Economics and Statistics Service of the Department
of Agriculture (Gee 1981) constructed representative budgets for cattle-calf
operations based on typical feed-buying patterns, public forage use, pasture
and hay land use, use of supplemental protein, fuel, hired labor and other
factors of production. The value of sales was based on average price in each
sales category for the 1977-79 period. Items of costs were valued in the
best judgment of the analysts using local data where available. The data
were used to construct a simulated profit maximization operation termed a
linear programming model. For a description of linear programming, see
William J. Baumol, Economic Theory and Operations Analysis, 1972.
The model optimizes the return above cash cost for the rancher taking into
account the physical limitations of the operation and price constraints. The
model incorporates the influence of seasonal variations in public forage and
capacity limitations such as feed or rangeland availability.
Table 0-1 through 0-4 show the ranch budgets developed for each herd size
class. Tables 0-5 through 0-8 show the results of the analysis.
The average return above cash costs per AIJM for Lake and Harney County
ranchers was used to calculate return above cash costs for Klamath County
ranches in each herd size class.
0-1
Table 0-1 Ranch 0-99 Head
Item
Sales :
Unit
Number
Average
_ w.elgh.L
Price
/ Cwt
Total
-Value..
Steer calves Head
Heifer calves Head
Yearling steers Head
Yearling heifers Head
Cull cows Head
11
6
14
11
6
455
432
675
610
974
69.15
56.25
64 . 63
55.17
35.00
3,461
1,458
6 ,108
3,702
2,045
Total
$ 16,774
Total/cow
$ 266.25
Cash costs:
Total
Value
Value/
Cow
BLM grazing fee
$ 225
$ 3.57
Forest grazing fee
—
—
Private range lease/rent
—
_ _
State lease
—
Hay (produce)
1,628
25.84
Hay (purchase)
—
Protein supplement
816
12.95
Irrigated pasture
209
3.32
Salt and mineral
128
2.03
Concentrate feeds
Veterinary and medicine
307
4.87
Hired trucking
248
3.94
Marketing
222
3.52
Fuel and lubricants
563
8.94
Repairs
339
5.38
Taxes
399
6.33
Insurance
Interest on operating
382
6 .06
capital
335
5.32
General farm overhead
648
10-.29
Other cash costs
Hired labor
116
1.84
Total cash costs
$ 6,565
$104.21
Other Costs:
Family labor
$ 2,262
$ 35.90
Depreciation
1,891
30.02
Interest on investment
Other than land
5,304
84.19
Interest on land
14,648
232.51
Total other costs
$24,105
$382.62
Total all costs
$30,670
$486.83
Return above cash costs
Return above cash costs and
$10,209
$162.05
family labor
7,947
126.14
Return to total investment
6,056
96.13
. Return to land
752
11.94
cow loss 3%; calving rate 83%; calf loss birth
calves; 36% of heifers sold as calves.
cows per bull; replacement rate 12%;
to weaning 5%; 43% of steers sold as
0-2
Table 0-2 Ranch Budget, 100-399 Head
Item
Unit
Number
Average
upi ghf
Price
Cwt
Total
Value
Sales:
Steer calves
Head
12
440
$ 69.15
$ 3,651
Heifer calves
Head
35
383
56.25
- 7,540
Yearling steers
Head
71
856
64.63
39,280
Yearling heifers
Head
20
738
55.17
8,143
Cull cows
Head
22
1,025
35.00
7,893
Total
$ 66,507
Total/ cow
$ 318.22
Total
Value/
Cash costs:
Value
Cow
BLM grazing fee
$ 569
$
2.72
Forest grazing fee
1,573
7.53
Private range lease/rent
3,435
16.44
State lease
—
- -
Hay (produce)
7,270
34.78
Hay (purchase)
—
—
Protein supplement
1,484
7.10
Irrigated pasture
550
2.63
Salt and mineral
502
2.40
Concentrate feeds
570
2,73
Veterinary and medicine
1,099
5.26
Hired trucking
1,250
5.98
Marketing
857
4.10
Fuel and lubricants
2,341
11.20
Repairs
2,610
12.49
Taxes
677
3.24
Insurance
1,480
7 .08
Interest on operating
capital
2,033
9.73
General farm overhead
1,450
6.94
Other cash costs
2,082
9.96
Hired labor
8,389
40.14
Total cash costs
$ 40,221
$
192.44
Other Costs:
Family labor
$ 6,074
$
29.06
Depreciation
4,807
23.00
Interest on investment
Other than land
16,680
79.81
Interest on land
42,761
204.60
Total other costs
$ 70,322
$
336.47
Total all costs
$110,543
$
528.91
Return above cash costs
$ 26,286
$
125.77
Return above cash costs and
family labor
20,212
96.71
Return to total investment
15,405
73.71
Return to land
_ r_l.,2Z5_-
-6.10
Production Assumptions: Herd size 209 cows; 22
cows per bull ;
14% replacement rate
cow loss 3%; calving rate 86%; calf loss birth
to weaning 7%;
14% of steers
sold as
calves; 64% of heifers sold as calves.
0-3
Table 0-3 Ranch Budget, 400-999 Head
Item Unit
Number
Average
wei pht
Price
r.T.rf
Total
Sales :
Steer calves Head
39
455
$
69.15
$
12,271
Heifer calves Head
35
425
56.25
8,367
Yearling steers Head
193
780
62.20
93,636
Yearling heifers Head
122
658
55.17
44,288
Cull cows Head
63
992
35.00
21,874
Total
$ 180,436
Total/ cow
$
314.90
Total
Value/
Cash costs:
Value
Cow
BLM grazing fee
$
2,085
$ 3.65
Forest grazing fee
1,726
3.01
Private range lease/rent
6 ,419
11.20
State lease
321
.56
Hay (produce)
16,600
28.97
Hay (purchase)
Protein supplement
8,056
14.06
Irrigated pasture
2,504
4.37
Salt and mineral
1,232
2.15
Concentrate feeds
_ _
Veterinary and medicine
1,885
3.29
Hired trucking
3,152
5.50
Marketing
779
1.36
Fuel and lubricants
7,329
12.79
Repairs
7,713
13.46
Taxes
3,232
5.64
Insurance
5,472
9.55
Interest on operating
capital
4,743
8.28
General farm overhead
3,341
5.83
Other cash costs
1,381
2.41
Hired labor
16,216
28.30
Total cash costs
$
94,186
$164.37
Other Costs:
Family labor
$
18,000
$ 31.41
Depreciation
10,280
17.94
Interest on investment
Other than land
43,139
75.29
Interest on land
165,964
289.64
Total other costs
$
237,383
$ 414.28
Total all costs
$
331,569
$ 578.65
' • ■
Return above cash costs
$
86,250
$ 150.52
Return above cash costs and
family labor
68,250
119.11
Return to total investment
57,970
101.17
. _ Return to land
14.831
2 5.88
Production Assumptions: Herd
size 573
cows; 21 cows
per bull;
13%
replacement rate:
cow loss 2%; calving rate 87%
; calf los
s birth to weaning 7%; 17%
steers
sold as
calves; 22% heifers sold as
calves .
0-4
Table
0-4 Ranch Budget, 1,000 Head
and Over
Item
Unit
Number
Average
Price
Total
B _ . -
wei pht
r.wt
Va 1 lie
Les:
Steer calves
Head
507
448
$ 69.15
$ 157,065
Heifer calves
Head
141
422
56.25
33,470
Yearling steers
Head
468
745
64 . 63
225,339
Yearling heifers
Head
424
666
55.17
155,791
Cull cows
Head
358
946
35.00
118,534
Total
$ 690,199
Total/ cow
$ 269.40
Total
Value/
>h costs:
Value
Cow
BLM grazing fee
$
12,884
$
5.03
Forest grazing fee
1,762
.69
Private range lease/rent
28,282
11.04
State lease
—
- —
Hay (produce)
78,163
30.51
Hay (purchase)
—
—
Protein supplement
38,148
14.89
Irrigated pasture
10,271
4.01
Salt and mineral
5,124
2.00
I Concentrate feeds
5,739
2.24
Veterinary and medicine
8,890
3.47
Hired trucking
8,557
3.34
Marketing
4,868
1.90
Fuel and lubricants
12,016
4.69
Repairs
25,056
9.78
Taxes
8,275
3.23
Insurance
5,047
1.97
Interest on operating
capital
17,050
6 .65
General farm overhead
10,043
3.92
Other cash costs
9,633
3.76
Hired labor
45,552
17.78
Total cash costs
$
335,360
$
130.90
ter Costs:
Family labor
$
16,089
$
6.28
Depreciation
46,604
18.19
Interest on investment
Other than land
197,851
77.23
Interest on land
428,879
167.40
Total other costs
$
689,423
$
269.10
al all costs
$1
,024,783
$
399.99
Return above cash costs
$
354,839
$
138.50
Return above cash costs and
family labor
338,750
132.22
Return to total investment
292,146
114.03
Return to land
94.295
36.81
Production Assumptions : Herd size
2,562 cows; 19 cows/bull; 16%
replacement rate; cow
Loss 2%; calving rate 81% calf loss
birth to weaning
6%; 52% steers sold as
calves; 25% of
leifers sold as calves.
0-5
Table 0-5 Ranch Budget Results, 0-99 Head
Item
1979
Permitted
Use
Gross income
Total cash costs
16,816
6,588
Alternative
#3
Short run
Alternative
// 3
Long run
Alternative
#4
Short run
Alternative
// 5
Short run
18,518
6,970
(Dollars)
21,208
7,575
18,213
6,902
17,891
6,829
Eliminate
BLM
Grazing
14,548
6,077
Proposed
Action
Long run
18,593
6,987
Value of family labor
2,268
2,498
2,860
2,457
2,413
1,962
2,508
Depreciation
1,891
1,921
1,968
1,916
1,910
1,852
1,922
Interest on investment
other than land
5,314
5,728
6,381
5,654
5,576
4,764
5,746
Return above
cash costs
10,228
11,548
13,633
11,311
11,062
8,471
11,606
Return above cash costs
and family labor
7,960
9,050
10,773
8,854
8,649
6,509
9,098
Return to total
investment
6,069
7,129
8,805
6,938
6,739
4,657
7,176
Return to land
755
1,401
2,424
1,284
1,163
-107
1,430
Herd size
63.16
69.55
(Head)
79.66
68.41
67.20
54.64
69.83
Family Labor
605
666
(Hours)
763
655
643
523
669
Hired Labor
T7 - v~~ — ~
31
34
39
34
33
27
34
- - - — - ~ - j -luchu j-v-cxx wxlu uluci (uienidLivKb cmaxyseu ; mererore ,
duplicates were not run. Specif ally, the Proposed Action (Short run) summary is the same as Alternative //3
(Short run). Alternative 7/4 (Long run) summary is the same as the Proposed Action (Long run) summary.
Alternative #5 Long Term is the same as Alternative #4 Short Term
Table 0-6 Ranch Budget Results, 100-399 Head
1979
Proposed
Proposed
Alternative
Alternative
Item
Permitted
Action
Action
#3
#4
Use
Short run
Long run
Long run
Short run
(Dollars)
Gross income
66,535
69,131
70,397
74,740
68,613
Total cash costs
40,301
41,328
41,829
42,147
41,124
Value of family labor
5,076
6,313
6,429
6,826
6,266
Depreciation
4,808
4,848
4,867
4,934
4,840
Interest on investment
other than land
16,687
17,219
17 ,479
18,370
17,113
Return above
cash costs
26,234
27,803
28,568
32,593
27,489
Return above cash costs
and family labor
20,158
21,490
22,139
25,767
21,223
Return to total
investment
15,350
16,642
17,272
20,833
16,383
Return to land
-1,337
-577
-207
2,463
-730
Herd size
209.09
217.25
(Head)
221.23
234.88
215.63
Family Labor
1,620
1,683
(Hours)
1,714
1,820
1,671
Hired Labor
2,238
2,325
2,368
2,514
2,308
TJ~ One of the alternatives yielded AUMs practically identical with another alternative analysed; therefore, the
duplicate was not run. Specifically, Alternative #3 (Short run) summary is the same as the Proposed Action
(Short run) summary.
Table 0-6 (continued)
Item
Alternative
#4
Long run
Alternative
#5
Short run
Alternative
#5
Long run
Eliminate
BLM
Grazing
(Dollars)
Gross income
69,617
67,838
69,065
60,076
Total cash costs
41,521
40,817
41,302
37,745
Value of family labor
6,358
6,195
6,307
5,486
Depreciation
4,855
4,828
4,847
4,708
Interest on investment
other than land
17,319
16,954
17 ,206
15,362
Return above
cash costs
28,096
27,021
27 ,763
22,331
Return above cash costs
and family labor
21,738
20,826
21,456
16,845
Return to total
investment
16,883
15,998
16,609
12,137
Return to land
-436
-956
-597
-3,225
Herd size
218.78
(Head)
213.19
217.05
188.80
Family Labor
1,695
(Hours)
1,652
1,682
1,463
Hired Labor
2,342
2,282
2,323
2,021
Table 0-7 Ranch Budget Results, 400-999 Head
Item
1979
Permitted
Use
Proposed
Action
Short run
Proposed
Action
Long run
Alternative
#3
Short run
Alternative
#3
Long run
Gross income
180,569
130,863
(Dollars)
190,026
180,980
202,887
Total cash costs
94,282
94,381
97,447
94,420
101,751
Value of family labor
18,011
18,040
18,955
18,052
20,237
Depreciation
10,282
10,286
10,422
10,288
10,612
Interest on investment . . .
other than land
43,166
43,227
45,126
4
4/ ,
Return above
cash costs
86,287
86,482
92,579
86,560
101,136
Return above cast costs
and family labor
68,276
68,442
73,624
68,508
80,899
Return to total
investment
57,994
58,156
63,202
58,220
70,287
Return to land
14,828
14,929
18,076
14,968
22,495
Herd size
573.42
574.36
(Head) 603.45
574.73
644.30
Family Labor
4,803
4,811
<H°UrS) 5,055
4,814
5,397
Hired Labor
4,328
4,335
4,554
4,337
4,863
Table 0-7 (continued)
Item
Alternative
#4
Short run
Alternative
#4
Long run
Alternative
#5
Short run
Alternative
#5
Long run
Eliminate
BLw
Grazing
Gross income
179,935
188,094
(Dollars)
176,649
184,945
159,249
Total cash costs
94,070
96,801
92,970
95,746
87,147
Value of family labor
17,948
18,762
17 ,620
18,448
15,885
Depreciation
10,273
10,394
10,224
10,347
9,967
Interest on investment
other than land
43,035
44,726
42,354
44,073
38,748
Return above
cash costs
85,865
91,293
83,679
89,199
72,102
Return above cash costs
and family labor
67,917
72,531
66,059
70,751
56,217
Return to total
investment
57,644
62,137
55,835
60,404
46,250
Return to land
14,609
17,411
13,481
16,331
7,502
Herd size
571.41
597.32
(Head)
560.97
587.32
505.72
Family Labor
4,786
5,003
(Hours
} 4,699
4,919
4,236
Hired Labor
4,312
4,508
4,234
4,432
3,817
Table 0-8 Ranch Budget Results, 1,000 and Over Head
Item
1979
Permitted
Use
Proposed
Action
Short run
Proposed
Action
Long run
Alternative
#3
Short run
Alternative
#3
Long run
(Dollars)
Gross income
690,252
689,964
738,480
691,524
835,140
Total cash costs
335,712
335,629
349,542
336,077
377,261
Value of family labor
16,091
16,084
17,215
16,120
19,468
Depreciation
46,605
46,598
47,634
46,632
49,697
Interest on investment
other than land
197,876
197,804
209,892
198,193
233,974
Return above
cash costs
354,540
354,335
388,938
355,447
457,879
Return above cash costs
and family labor
338,449
338,251
371,723
339,327
438,411
Return to total
investment
291,844
291,653
324,089
292,695
388,714
Return to land
93,968
93,849
114,197
94,502
154,740
Herd size
2,562.19
2,561.12
(Head)
2 ,741.21
2,566.91
3,100.01
Family Labor
4,292
4,290
(Hours)
4,592
4,300
5,193
Hired Labor
12,145
12,140
12,993
12,167
14,694
Table 0-8 (continued)
Item
Alternative
#4
Short run
Alternative
// 4
Long run
Alternative
# 5
Short run
Alternative
f/5
Long run
Eliminate
BLM
Grazing
(Dollars)
Gross income
664,138
699,802
677,865
726,740
585,262
Total cash costs
328,224
338,452
332 ,161
346,175
305,606
Value of family labor
15,482
16,313
15,802
16,941
13,643
Depreciation
46,047
46,808
46,340
47 ,383
44,364
Interest on investment
other than land
191,370
200,255
194,790
206,967
171,718
Return above
cash costs
335,914
361,350
345,704
380,565
279,656
Return above cash costs
and family labor
320,432
345,037
329,902
363,624
266,013
Return to total
investment
274,385
298,229
283,562
316,241
221,649
Return to land
83,015
97,974
88,772
109,274
49,931
Herd size
2,465.25
2,597.64
(Head)
2,516.21
2,697.63
2,172,47
Family Labor
4,129
4,351
(Hours
)
4,215
4,519
3,639
Hired Labor
11,685
12,313
11,927
12,787
10,298
Appendix P
Sediment Yield from Construction of Range Improvements
In estimating sediment yield from construction activities, average values as
would be found in the EIS area were assumed for all columns on Form 7310-16
for the present situation, which came to an existing sediment yield of 0.6
ac-f t/mi^ /yr . It was further assumed that only the ground cover and land
use columns would change due to removal of ground cover during construction.
Values of 10 were assumed for these two columns from construction of:
fences, springs, wells, pipelines, guzzlers, reservoirs, waterholes,
seeding/burn, brush control /burn ; values of 8 were predicted for:
seeding/chain, brush control/chain, juniper control; values of 8 for land use
and 5 for ground cover were assumed for seeding/spray. No change was
predicted for brush control/spray since the soil surface would not be
disturbed and the dead vegetation would be left on the ground. Using these
assumptions, the short term sediment yield for the EIS area increases by 1.24
percent under the proposed action, 4.42 percent under Alternative 3, .98 per¬
cent under Alternative 4 and 1.87 percent under Alternative 5. No range
improvements would be constructed under Alternatives 1 and 2.
P-1
(
GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY
Acre-foot - The volume of water that will cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot.
Active Preference - That portion of the total grazing preference for which
grazing use may be authorized.
Actual Use - See Permitted Use.
Allotment - An area of land where one or more operators graze their live¬
stock. Generally consists of public land but may include parcels of
private or state lands. The number of livestock and season of use are
stipulated for each allotment. An allotment may consist of one or
several pastures.
Allotment Management Plan (AMP) - An intensive livestock grazing management
plan dealing with a specific unit of rangeland, based on multiple use
resource management objectives. The AMP considers livestock grazing in
relation to the renewable resources — watershed, vegetation and
wildlife. An AMP establishes the season of use, the number of livestock
to be permitted on the range and the range improvements needed.
Alluvial - Pertaining to material that is transported and deposited by
running water.
Animal Unit Month (AUM) - The amount of forage required to sustain the equiv¬
alent of one cow with one calf, or their equivalent for one month.
Annual Vegetative Growth - The amount of forage or herbage produced during
one growing season.
Archeoloic Resources - All physical evidence of past human activity, other
than historical documents, which can be used to reconstruct lifeways and
cultural history of past peoples. These include sites, artifacts,
environmental data and all other relevant information.
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - An area within the public
lands where special management attention is required (when such areas
are developed or used, or where no development is required) to protect
and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or
scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or
processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA
Sec. 103(a)).
Authorized Use - The total number of AUMs authorized for grazing each year.
Background - That area from 3-5 miles to 15 miles from the viewer.
G-l
Browse That part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines and trees
available for animal consumption.
Carrying Capacity — The maximum number of animals an area can sustain without
inducing damage to vegetation or related resourses, such as watershed.
Concentration Area — An area where factors such as terrain, water,
vegetation, fences or management practices result in livestock
congregation. Generally, these areas are grazed more heavily than
surrounding areas.
Contrast Rating — A method of determining the extent of visual impact for an
existing or proposed activity that will modify any landscape feature.
Critical Growing Period — The portion of a plant’s growing season, generally
between flowering and seed dissemination, when food reserves are being
stored and seeds produced. Grazing after the start of this date is
detrimental due to inadequate moisture for supporting further plant
growth later in the season.
Crucial Habitat A relatively small part of an animal’s range or habitat
which is essential for the animal’s existence because it contains
special qualities or features (e.g., water holes, winter food and cover,
nesting trees, strutting ground, upland meadow).
Cultural Resources — A term that includes resources of paleontologic , archeo—
logic or historic significance which are fragile, limited, and non¬
renewable portions of the human environment.
Direct Income — Earnings from production of workers in a specified industry.
See Indirect Income.
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation - The amount of gaseous oxygen (0) dissolved in a
liquid - usually water.
Distance Zones — The area that can be seen as foreground, middleground,
background or seldom seen.
Ecologically Significant Areas - Areas identified as having unique elements
or components of natural diversity related to plant communities, aquatic
types, special plant and animal species and/or outstanding natural
features. These areas may possess scientific, educational, cultural
and/or recreational benefits.
G-2
Erosion - Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind,
ice or gravity.
Exclosure - An area fenced to exclude livestock and wild horses.
Fecal Coliform - A group of bacteria used as an indicator of sanitary quality
in water.
Forage Production - The amount of forage that is produced within a designated
period of time on a given area (expressed in AUMs or pounds per acre.)
This is the proportion of total annual vegetation production which is
palatable to livestock.
Forb - Any non grasslike herbaceous plant.
Foreground - That area from 0 miles to 0.5-1 miles.
Grazing Preference - See Total Preference.
Groundwater - Subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation.
Gully - A channel, usually with steep sides, through which water commonly
flows during and immediately after rains or snow melt.
Habitat Diversity - The relative degree or abundance of plant species,
communities, habitats or habitat features (e.g. topography, canopy
layers) per unit of area.
Herb - A seed-producing plant that does not develop persistent woody tissue.
Herbage - Herbaceous plant growth, especially fleshy, edible plants.
Herbaceous Plants - Plants having little or no woody tissue.
Indirect Income — Earnings or personal income to workers outside a specified
industry generated by production in that industry. For example,
personal income to those outside the livestock industry generated by the
business and personal expenditures of the livestock industry as well as
successive rounds of expenditures which may result in the community.
Indirect income as defined here includes induced income.
Infiltration - The gradual downward flow of water from the surface through
soil to groundwater.
Intermittent Stream - A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in
direct response to precipitation. It receives little or no water from
springs and no long-continued supply from melting snow or other sources.
It is dry for a large part of the year, ordinarily more than 3 months.
G-3
Key Species A plant that is a relatively or potentially abundant species.
It should be able to endure moderately close grazing and serve as an
indicator of changes occurring in the vegetational complex. The key
species is an important vegetative component that, if overused, will
have a significant effect on watershed conditions, grazing capacity, or
other resource values. More than one key species may be selected on an
allotment . For example, a species may be important for watershed
protection and a different species may be important for livestock forage
or wildlife forage, etc.
Limiting Factor - A component of the environment which regulates animal
populations (e.g., food, water, cover).
Litter — A surface layer of loose, organic debris, consisting of freshly
fallen or slightly decomposed organic materials.
Livestock Forage Production - see Forage Production.
Management Framework Plan (MFP) - Land use plan for public lands which
provides a set of goals, objectives and constraints for a
specific planning area to guide the development of detailed plans for
the management of each resource.
Middleground - That area between the foreground and 3 to 5 miles from the
viewer.
National Natural Landmark — Areas of national significance designated by the
Secretary of Interior which contain outstanding representative
example(s) of the nation’s natural heritage, including terrestrial
communities, aquatic communities, landforms, geological features,
habitats of native plant and animal species, or fossil evidence.
National Register of Historic Places — Established by the Historic Preserva¬
tion Act of 1966, the Register is a listing maintained by the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service of architectural, historical,
archeologic and cultural sites of local, state or national
significance.
Paleontology — A science dealing with the life of past geological periods as
known from fossil remains.
Pasture - A fenced subdivision of a grazing allotment capable of being grazed
by livestock independently from the rest of the allotment.
Perennial Stream — A stream or portion of a stream that flows year long. It
receives water from precipitation, springs, melting snow and/or
groundwater.
G-4
Permits/Leases — Under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act, a permit is a
document authorizing use of the public lands within grazing districts
for the purpose of grazing livestock. Under Section 15 of the Taylor
and Grazing Act, a lease is a document authorizing livestock grazing use
of public lands outside grazing districts.
Permitted Use - See Authorized Use.
pH - The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. A low pH
indicates an acid, and a high pH indicates an alkaline substance. A pH
of 7.0 is considered neutral.
Planning Area Analysis (PAA) - A planning document which analyzes the
relationship of social and economic data to the physical and biological
data presented in a Unit Resource Analysis (URA).
Plant Composition - The proportions of various plant species annual
production in relation to the total annual production of all plants on a
given area.
Plant Maturity - That point in the growing season when an individual plant
species has set seed, stored food reserves and gone into the dormant
stage. This time is different for various species.
Plant Vigor - See Vigor
Preference - See Total Preference and Active Preference.
Proprietor - One who owns and operates their own business; one engaged in
economic activity on their own account and not as an employee. Farm or
ranch proprietor need not own the land used.
Public Land - Formal name for lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management .
Range Condition - As it is used in this document, range condition defines the
relative condition of the forage stand and the site-soil mantle. The
major factors considered in the determination of condition were plant
composition, protective cover and the present rate of erosion.
Range Improvement - A structure, action or practice that increases forage
production, improves watershed and range condition or facilitates
management of the range or the livestock grazing on it.
Range Trend - A measure of the direction of change in range condition.
G-5
Research Natural Areas Areas established and maintained for research and
education. The general public may be excluded or restricted where
necessary to protect studies or preserve research natural areas. Lands
may have: (1) Typical or unusual faunistic or floristic types,
associations, or other biotic phenomena, or (2) Characteristic or
outstanding geologic, pedologic or aquatic features or processes.
Residual Ground Cover — That portion of the total vegetative ground cover
that remains after the livestock grazing season.
Rest As used in this statement, refers to deferment of grazing on a range
area (pasture) to allow plants to replenish their food reserves.
Rill - A small, intermittent water course with steep sides, usually only a
few inches deep.
Riparian Related to wet areas associated with streams, springs, seeps, and
meadows.
Runoff - That portion of the precipitation on a drainage area that is dis¬
charged from the area in stream channels, including both surface and
subsurface flow.
Soil Surface Factor - A rating of erosion condition based on a scale of 0 to
100. See Appendix J for methodology.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) - The official within each State,
authorized by the State at the request of the Secretary of the Interior,
to act as a liaison for purposes of implementing the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966.
Thermal Cover - Vegetation or topography that prevents radiational heat loss,
reduces wind chill during cold weather, and intercepts solar radiation
during warm weather.
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 permittee or lessee. The active preference and
suspended preference are combined to make up the total grazing
preference.
Turbidity - The cloudy condition caused by suspended solids in a liquid.
Unallotted Lands - Public lands which currently have no authorized livestock
grazing.
G-6
Unit Resource Analysis - A BLM planning document which contains a comprehen¬
sive inventory and analysis of the physical resources and an analysis of
their potential for development, within a specified geographic area.
Upland - All rangelands other than riparian or wetland areas.
Useable Forage Production - The maximum stocking rate that with a particular
kind of livestock and grazing system will maintain a static or upward
trend in ecosite condition. This incorporates such things as the
suitability of the range to grazing as well as the proper use which can
be made on the plants within the area. Normally expressed in terms of
acres per animal unit month (ac/AUM) or sometimes referred to as the
total AUMS that are available in any given area, such as an allotment.
Areas that are unsuitable for livestock use are not considered to be
part of the useable forage production.
Utilization - The proportion of the current year's forage production that is
consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. This may refer either to a
single species or to the whole vegetative complex. Utilization is
expressed as a percent by weight, height or numbers within reach of the
grazing animals. Four levels of utilization are used in this document:
light (21-40%), moderate (41-60%), heavy (61-80%), and severe (81-100%).
Vegetation Allocation - In reference to forage, the distribution of the
available forage production to the various resource needs such as
wildlife, livestock, wild horses and nonconsumptive use.
Vegetation Manipulation - As used in this statement, refers to seeding, brush
control and juniper control range improvements.
Vegetation Type - A grouping of plant communities which have similar dominant
plant species.
Vegetative Ground Cover — The percent of the land surface covered by all
living and undecomposed remnants of vegetation within 20 feet of the
ground.
Vigor - The relative well-being and health of a plant as reflected by its
ability to manufacture sufficient food for growth, maintenance and
reproduction.
Visual Contrast - The effect of a striking difference in the form, line,
color or texture of the landscape features in the area being viewed.
Visual Resource - The land, water, vegetation, animals and other features
that are visible on all public lands.
G-7
Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes - The degree of alteration that is
acceptable within the characteristic landscape. It is based upon the
physical and sociological characteristics of any given homogenous area.
Water Yield - The amount of water discharged in streams.
Wetland - Related to wet areas associated with lakes, reservoirs and marshes.
Wilderness Inventory - An evaluation of the public lands in the form of a
written description and map showing those lands that meet the wilderness
criteria as established under Section 603(a) of FLPMA and Section 2(c)
of the Wilderness Act.
Wilderness Review - The term used to cover the entire wilderness inventory,
study, and reporting phases of the wilderness program of the Bureau.
Wilderness Study Area - A roadless area or island that has been inventoried
and found to have wilderness characteristics as described in Section
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Section
2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Work Year - One person working the full-time equivalent of one year.
G-8
REFERENCES CITED
*
REFERENCES CITED
Abrahamson, Lawrence P. and Logan A. Norris
1976. Statement on the Use of Herbicides in Forest Watersheds
Supply Potable Water. U.S. Forest Service Statement.
that
Adams, G.R.
1980. Results of Range/Wildlif e Prescribed Burning on the Fort Rock
Ranger District in Central Oregon. Fuels Management Notes, U.S.D.A.
For. Serv., Region 6, Portland, Oreg.
Alderfer , R.B. and R.R. Robinson
1974. Runoff from Pastures in Relation to Grazing Intensity and Soil
Compaction. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 39:948-958.
Anderson, E. William and Richard J. Scherzinger
1975. Improving Quality of Winter Forage for Elk by Cattle Grazing.
Journal of Range Management 28(2): 120-125.
Bailey, R.W. and O.L. Copeland, Jr.
1961. Low Flow Discharges and Plant Cover Relations on Two Mountain
Watersheds in Utah. Utah International Association of Science Hydrology
Publication 51:267-278. In: Mattison, J.L. and S.C. Buckhouse.
Ecological Land Units of Bear Creek Watershed and their Relationship to
Water Quality. Water Resources Research Institute, WRRI-53. Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oreg. 1977.
Blaisdell, J.P.
1958. Seasonal Development and Yield of Native Plants. USDA Tech.
Bulletin No. 1190.
Bostick, Vernon B. and W.E. Niles
1975. Inventory of Natural Landmarks of the Great Basin. (Two Volumes)
Report compiled for the USDI, National Park Service, University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, NV .
Bostwick, Don, John Schultz, and Gorden Rodewald
1975. The Cowboy Project: Exercise in Interdisciplinary Research.
Unpublished Study. Anthropology Department, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oreg.
Branson, F.A., G.F. Gifford, and S.R. Owen
1972. Rangeland Hydrology. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colo.
Britton, C.M. and M.H. Ralps
1978. Use of Fire as a Management Tool in Sagebrush Ecosystems. The
Sagebrush Ecosystem, a symposium, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Cahoon, Joe S. and G.H. Simonson
1969. Oregon's Long-Range Requirements for Water — General Soil Map
Report with Irrigable Areas, Klamath Drainage Basin, Appendix 1-14.
State Water Resources Board, Salem, Oreg.
R-l
California Region Framework Study Committee
1970. Comprehensive Framework Study, California Region.
Water Resources. Preliminary Field Draft Report.
Appendix V,
Campbell, C.J. and W. Green
1968. Perpetual Succsssion of Stream Channel Vegetation in a Semi-arid
Region. J. Ariz. Acac. Sci. S(2): 86-98.
Connell, J.H. and E. Orias
1964. The Ecological Regulation of Species Diversity.
98:399-414.
Amer. Natur.
Cook, C. Wayne
1971. Effects of Season and Intensity of Use on Desert Vegetation.
Utah State Experiment Station Bulletin 483. Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
Crosby, Virginia L.
1980. Sensitive Plant Species Known to Occur on Public Lands
Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Lakeview District.
Unpublished mimeo. USDI, BLM, Lakeview District Office, Lakeview, Oreg.
Daubenmire, Rexford
1968. Ecology of Fire in Grasslands. In : J.B. Cragg, ed. Advances in
Ecological Research, Vol. 5, Academic Press, NY, pp. 209-266.
1975. A Survey of Potential Natural Landmarks, Biotic Themes, on the
Columbia Plateau. Report prepared for the National Park Service, USDI,
Washington State University.
_ and V. Daubenmire
1968. Forest Vegetation of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho.
Wash. Ag. Exp. Sta. College of Ag. , Washington State University.
Downing, Kent and Roger Clark
1979. Users' and Managers' Perceptions of Dispersed Recreation Impacts:
A Focus on Roaded Forest Lands. In: Recreation Impacts on Wildlands:
Conference preceedings, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Duff, D.A.
1978. Livestock Grazing Impacts on Aquatic Habitat in Big Creek, Utah.
USDI, BLM, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.
_ and J.L. Cooper
1976. Techniques for Conducting Stream Habitat Survey on Natural
Resource Land. USDI, BLM Tech. Note T/N 238.
Egeline, Steve
1978. Relationship Between Small Mammals and
Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
Cover Dispersion.
M.S.
R-2
Elftraan, H.O.
1931. Pliestocene Mammal of Fossil Lake, Oregon American Museum
Novi t ates .
Finley, R.R.
1974. Changes in Plant Communities Following Rangeland Brush Control.
M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg.
Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness
1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Serv.
Gen. Tech. Report PWN-8. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Portland, Oreg.
_ } F.C. Hall, C.T. Dryness and C. Maser
1972. Federal Research Natural Areas in Oregon and Washington - A
Guidebook for Scientists and Educators. Supplement No. 3, USDA Forest
Service, PNW Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon
Garrison, George A.
1953. Effects of Clipping on Some Range Shrubs. Journal of Range
Management 6:309-317. Cited In Stoddard, Smith and Box, 1975 (q.v.).
_ » A.J. Bjugstad, D.A. Duncan, M.E. Lewis and D.R. Smith
1977. Vegetation and Environmental Features of Forest Ecosystems. USDA
Handbook 475, Wash. D.C.
Gee, Kerry
1981. Budgets for High Desert, Lost River and Warner Lakes Resource
Areas. National Economics Division, Economics Statistics and
Cooperative Services, U.S.D.A. , Fort Collins, Colo.
Gehr, Elliott, J. Nelson and R. Walke.
1978. Cultural Resources Overview: Ironside E.I.S. Area. Final Report
prepared by Pro-Lysts, Inc., Eugene, Oreg. for the Bureau of Land
Management .
Goodwin, Richard H. and William A. Niering
1971. Inland Wetlands of the United States Evaluated
Register Natural Landmarks. (Two volumes) A report
U.S.D.I., National Park Service. Connecticut College,
Conn.
Grigsby, Thomas L.
1976. Buckaroo Ranchers: Sociocultural Factors Related to Economic
Performance among Range Livestock Operators of Southeastern Oregon.
Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow,
Idaho .
Guenther, Keith and Thomas E. Kucera.
1978. Wildlife of the Pacific Northwest: Occurrence and Distribution
by Habitat, BLM District and National Forest. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region.
as Potential
prepared for
New London,
R-3
Haggarty, James C. and J.J. Flenniken
1977. Trampling as an Agency in the Formation of Edge Damage: An
Experiment in Lithic Technology. Paper presented at the 29th Annual
Northwest Anthropological Conference, Ellensburg, Wash.
Hanson, Clayton L. , Armine R. Kuhlman, Carl J. Erickson and James K. Lewis
1972. Range Condition and Runoff in Western South Dakota. South Dakota
Farm and Home Research 13:11-13.
Hanson, W. R. and L. A. Stoddard.
1940. Effects of Grazing upon Bunch Wheatgrass. Journal of the
American Society of Agronomists 32:278-289.
Harniss, R.O. and R.B. Murray
1973. Thirty Years of Vegetal Change Following Burning of
Grass Range. Journal of Range Management 26:322-325.
Sagebrush/
Hickey, W. C. , Jr.
1969. A Discussion of Grazing Management Systems and Some Pertinent
Literature (abstracts and excerpts) 1895-1966. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Region 2, Unpublished mimeo. , Denver, Colo.
Hopkins, W.E.
1979. Plant Associations of the Fremont National Forest. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, PNW Region 6, R6 ECOL-79-004, Portland, Oreg.
Hormay, A.L.
1970. Principles of Rest Rotation Grazing and Multiple-Use Land
Management. USDI, Bureau of Land Management and USDA, Forest Service,
Berkeley, Calif.
Howard, H.
1946. A Review of the Pliestocene Birds of Fossil Lake, Oregon.
Carnegie Institute of Washington.
Hyatt, S.W.
1966. Sagebrush Control-Costs, Benefits
Journal of Range Management 19:42-43.
and Results to the Rancher.
Hyder, Donald N. and W.A. Sawyer
1951. Rotation-Deferred Grazing as Compared to Season Long
Sagebrush-Bunchgrass Ranges in Oregon. Journal of Range
4(1): 30-34.
Grazing on
Management
Johnson, Steven R. , Howard L. Gray, and Stanley L. Ponce
1978. Range Cattle Impacts on Stream Water Quality in the Colorado
Front Range. USDA Forest Service Research Note RM-359. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo.
R-4
Leckenby, Donavin A., D.P. Sheehy, C.A. Nellis, et al .
[1980]. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands - The Great Basin of
Southeast Oregon — Mule Deer. Unpublished manuscript. (Part of a
series sponsored by the BLM and US Forest Service, Pac. Northwest For.
and Range Exp. Stn. )
Lee, L. C.
1974. A Training Manual for Montana Forest Habitat Types.
Forestry, University of Montana, Msla, Mt .
School of
Lindsay, M.G. , B.B. Lovell, J.A. Norgren, G.H. Simonson, B.R. Thomas and D.W.
Anderson
1969. Oregon's Long-Range Requirements for Water-General Soil Map
Report with Irrigable Areas, Malheur Lake Drainage Basin, Appendix 1-12.
State Water Resources Board, Salem, Oregon.
Logsdon, Robert L.
1976. Flake Damage and Dispersion Produced by Cattle: A Report of a
Field Experiment. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Northwest
Anthropholgical Conference, Seattle Central Community College, Seattle,
Wash.
Lovell, B.B., J.A. Norgren, G.H. Simonson, M.G. Lindsay and D. Anderson
1969. Oregon's Long-Range Requirements for Water-General Soil Map Report
with Irrigable Areas, Goose and Summer Lakes Drainage Basin, Appendix
1-13. State Water Resources Board, Salem, Oreg.
MacArthur, R.H.
1974. Environmental Factors Affecting Arid Species Diversity, Amer.
Natur. 98:387-413.
Martin, J. and Kevin Howe
1977. Paleontological Investigations at Fossil Lake, Oregon. A report
prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Oreg.
McLean, A. and E.W. Tisdale
1972. Recovery Rate of Depleted Range Sites
Grazing. Journal of Range Management 25:178-184
under Protection from
Meganck, Rich and K. Gibbs
1979. A Methodology Applied to the Analysis of Selected
Management Strategies and Dispersed Recreation. Final Report.
State University, School of Forestry, Corvallis, Oreg.
Grazing
Oregon
Nature Conservancy, Oregon Natural Heritage Program
1978. Oregon Natural Areas -- Eastern Oregon. Data Summary. 2 vols.
and maps. Prepared under contract with the Land Conservation and
Development Commission. Portland, Oreg.
R-5
Minor, Rick, S.D. Beckham and K.A. Toepal
1979. Cultural Resource Overview of the BLM Lakeview District,
Lakeview, Oregon, in fulfillment of Contract YA-512-RFP8-34. Submitted
by D.E. Dumond, University of Oregon, Department of Anthropology,
Eugene, Oreg. (Photocopy)
Muegler , W.F. and J.P. Blaisdell
1958. Effects on Associated Species of Burning Rotobeating,
and Railing Sagebrush. Journal of Range Management 11:61-66
Spraying
Norris, Logan A.
1961. Chemical Brush Control and Herbicide Residues in the Forest
Environment. Ln: Herbicides and Vegetative Management in Forests
Ranges, and Noncrop Lands. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg!
pp. 103-123. Cited in: USDI, BLM, 1978 e. (q.v.)
Oregon Department of Energy
1980. Oregon's Energy Future: Fourth Annual Report, January 1, 1980.
Oregon Dept, of Energy, Salem, Oreg.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
1976a. Proposed Water Quality Management Plan - Goose and Summer Lakes
Basin. (consists of 2 volumes: text and appendices).
1976b. Proposed Water Quality Management
(consists of 2 volumes: text and appendices).
Plan
Klamath Basin.
1980. Special Computer Run in March 1980 by ODEQ of the EPA STORET
numbers 402437, 402718, 402436, 402418, 402419, 402421. Unpublished
computer printout provided by ODEQ, Portland, Oreg.
Oregon Department of Human Resources, Employment Division
1976, 1977. Covered Employment and Payrolls, Salem, Oreg.
1977-1980.
Employment .
State/County Resident Labor Force, Unemployment
Annual issues for 1976 through 1979. Salem, Oreg.
and
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
1977. Oregon's Threatened or Endangered Wildlife. Portland, Oreg.
1980. 1980 Oregon Game Mammal General Regulations and Controlled Hunt
Season. Portland, Oreg.
1981. Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. Portland, Oreg.
R-6
Oregon Department of Transportation
1976. Oregon Recreation Demand Bulletin 1975. Technical Document 1 of
the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Parks and
Recreation Branch. Salem, Oreg.
1978. Oregon Outdoor Recreation Plan 1978. Review Draft. Photocopy.
Salem, Oreg.
Oregon State University, Extension Service, Extension Economic Information
Office
1979. Commodity Data Sheets. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg.
Oregon State Water Resources Board
1971. Klamath Basin. Salem, Oreg.
Owensby, G.E., E.F. Smith, and K.L. Anderson
1973. Deferred Rotation Grazing with Steers in the Kansas Flint Hills.
Journal of Range Management 26:393-395.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission
1970. Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study of
Water and Related lands. Appendix V, Water Resources. Vancouver, Wash.
Peek, J.M., R.A. Riggs and J.L. Laver
1979. Evaluation of Fall Burning on Bighorn Sheep Winter Range.
Journal of Range Management 32:430-432
Pianka, E.R.
1966. Latitudinal Gradients in Species Diversity: A Review of
Concepts. Amer. Natur. 100:33-46
Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchick, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby
1977. Forest Habital Types of Montana. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Gen.
Tec. Rpt. INT-34. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Sta. Ogden, Utah.
Portland State University
1976. State of Oregon, Population Projections for Oregon and Its
Counties, 1975-2000. Population Bulletin, CPRC Series P-2 #2, Center
for Population Research and Census, Portland, Oreg.
1979. Population Estimate: Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities.
July 1971-1979 (annual reports). Center for Population Research and
Census, Portland, Oreg.
Rauzi, Frank and Clayton L. Hanson
1966. Water Intake and Runoff as Affected by Intensity of Grazing.
Journal of Range Management 19:351-356.
R-7
Reynolds, Timothy and Charles H. Trost
1978. The Response of Native Vertebrate Populations to Crested Wheat-
grass Planting and Grazing by Sheep. Journal of Range Management 33(2):
122-125.
Robbins, Jackie W.D.
1978. Environmental Impact Resulting from Unconfined Animal Production.
EPA-60012-78-046 . Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Okla.
Roney, John
1977. Livestock and Lithics; The Effects of Trampling,
preliminary draft. USDI, BLM, Winnemucca District, Nev.
Photocopy of
Savage, D.E.
1969. The Relationship of Sage Grouse to Upland Meadows in Nevada.
Nevada Cooperative Wildlife Research, Reno, Nev.
Shufeldt, R.E.
1913. Review of the Fossil Fauna of the Desert Region of Oregon.
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.
Sternberg, C.H.
1884. The Fossil Fields of Southern Oregon. Kansas City Review of
Science and Industry.
Stoddart, L.A. , A. D. Smith and T.W. Box
1975. Range Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Storm, Robert M.
1966. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon II, Amphibians and
Reptiles, Special Report 206. Agriculture Experiment Station, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oreg.
Sturges, David L.
1978. Hydrologic Relations of Sagebrush Lands. The
Ecosystem: a Symposium. April 1978, Utah State University.
Sagebrush
Thomas, Jack Ward, Chris Maser, Jon E. Rodick
1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands - The Great Basin of
Southeastern Oregon, Riparian Zones. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oreg.
Toepal, Kathryn A., Rick Minor and William F. Willingham
1980. Human Adaptation in the Fort Rock Basin: A Class II Cultural
Resources Inventory of BLM Lands in Christmas Lake Valley, South Central
Oregon. A report submitted to the BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview,
Oregon, in fulfillment of contract YA-512-CT. Submitted by C.M. Aikens
and K.A. Toepal, University of Oregon, Dept, of Anthropology, Eugene,
Oregon (Photocopy).
R-8
Tueller, P. and C. Poulton
1960. Vegetation Changes at Squaw Butte 1937-1960. Unpublished mimeo,
Squaw Butte Experiment Station, Burns, Oreg.
Tueller, Paul and Gerald D. Tower
1979. Vegetation Stagnation in Three-Phase Big Game Exclosures.
Journal of Range Management 32(4) : 258-263
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic, Statistics, and Cooperative Service
1979. Farm, Real Estate Market Developments. Washington, D.C. July 15,
1979.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests - The Blue Mountains of
Oregon and Washington. J.W. Thomas, ed . U.S.D.A., Ag. Handbk. # 553.
1980. 1977 County Inter-industry Tables. Unpublished materials
developed for RARE II studies. Region 6, Portland, Oreg.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1972. Census of Population: 1970. General Social and Economic
Characteristics. Final Report PC(1)-C39 Oregon. U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., Table 44, p 39-127.
1977.
Areas :
76-37.
Estimates of the Population of Oregon Counties and Metropolitan
July 1, 1975 (Revised) and 1976 (Provisional) Series P-26, No.
1980a. Preliminary Population Counts - Oregon.
1980 c. 1978 Census of Agriculture, Oregon State and County Data. U.S.
Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic
Analysis Division
1980b. Regional Economic Information System. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1978. Climatological Data - Annual Summary, Oregon, 1978. Asheville,
North Car.
R-9
U.s. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management
1978. Vegetation Management with Herbicides: Western Oregon Final
Environmental Statement. Prepared by the Oregon State Office, Portland
Or eg.
1979a. Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under
Wilderness Review. Washington, D.C.
1979b. Social Economic Data System - Dynamic Regional Analysis Model
(DYRAM) Applications by Oregon State Office, Portland, Oreg.
1979c. Planning Area Analysis High Desert, Lost River and Warner
Lakes Resource Areas, Lakeview District Office, Lakeview, Oreg.
19 79d . Unit Resource Analysis — High Desert, Lost River and Warner
Lakes Resource Areas. BLM, Lakeview District Office, Lakeview, Oreg.
1980a. Wilderness Inventory, Oregon and Washington -- Final Intensive
Inventory Decisions. Prepared by the Oregon State Office, Portland,
Oreg.
1980b. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC's): Policy and
Procedures Guidelines. Washington, D.C.
1980c. Owyhee Grazing FEIS. Boise District Office, Boise, Idaho.
Uresk, D.W.,
1980.
Central
W.H. Richard and J.F. Cline
Perennial Grasses and Their Response to a Wildfire
Washington. Journal of Range Management 33:111-114
in South
Urness, Philip J.
1966. Influence of Range Improvement Practices on Composition,
Production and Utilization of Artemisia Deer Winter Range in Central
Oregon. A dissertation presented to Oregon State University for partial
fulfillment of Ph.D requirements. 183 pp.
Vaura, Marten and Forrest Sneva
1978. Seasonal Diets of Fur Ungulates Grazing the Cold
Presented to the First International Rangeland Congress,
Available from Eastern Oregon Agricultural Reseach Center;
and Burns, Oreg.
Desert Biome.
August 1978.
Union, Oregon
R-10
Vo Hand, L.E.
1976. Plant Communities of the Central Oregon Pumice Zone.
Forest Service, PNW Reg. A6-Area Guide 4-2.
U.S.D.A. ,
Weide, David L.
1973. Postglacial Geomorphology and Environments of the Warner Valley-
Hart Mountain Area, Oregon. PhD. Dissertation. University of
California, Los Angeles, Calif. 259 p.
Winegar, H. H.
1977. Camp Creek Channel Fencing — Plant, Wildlife, Soil, and Water
Response. Rangeman's Journal 4(1): 10-12.
Winter, J.R. and James K. Whittaker
1979. An Economic Analysis of Land Prices of Mountainous Grazing Land
in Eastern Oregon. Special Report 560, Oregon State University Agricul¬
tural Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oreg.
R-l 1
' .
'
INDEX
* »
INDEX
Page
Employment........ . 2-59, 2-65, 3-45, 3-51, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57
Erosion. .1-3, 1-16, 1-23, 2-18, 3-15, 3-16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-38, 3-58, 3-60
Exclusion (Livestock) . 1-4, 3-9, 3-10, 3-23, 3-24, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-35
Fecal Coliform . 1-16, 2-26, 3-18, 3-19
Fishing . . . . . 2-44, 2-67, 2-68, 3-35, 3-36, 3-45, 3-55, 3-59
Grazing System . 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-12, 1-14, 1-15, 1-26, 1-27, 3-2, 3-4, 3-5,
. 3-34, 3-38, 3-42
Hunting . . . 2-44, 2-67, 2-68, 3-35, 3-36, 3-45, 3-55, 3-59
Income
AUM Value .
Construction .
Personal . . . 2-58
Wildlife-related recreation .
Dependency .
National Register of Historic Places
Riparian Vegetation . 1-1, 1-16,
. 3-10, 3-12, 3-14
Sediment Yield .
Sightseeing .
Threatened and Endangered Species
Animals .
Plants .
Vegetation Types
2-63,
, 2-61, 2-66, 2-67, 3-51, 3-53,
. 2-67,
. 2-47,
2-1, 2-10, 2-31, 2-42, 3-2, 3-7,
, 3-15, 3-16, 3-20, 3-30, 3-32,
. 1-16, 3-19, 3-20,
. 2-44, 3-35,
. 1-23,
- 1-4, 1-23, 2-10, 2-17, 3-2,
3-46,
3-45,
3-55,
3-45,
2-61,
2- 48,
3-8,
3- 34,
3-58,
3-36,
2- 42,
3- 15,
3-50
3-55
3-56
3-55
2-68
3-38
3-9,
3-57
3-60
3-58
3-34
3-58
Condition and Trend . . . . . 2-1, 2-9, 3-2
Vegetation Manipulation . 1-11, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 3-1 1,
. 3-13, 3-15, 3-16, 3-18, 3-21, 3-35, 3-44, 3-59
Wetlands. .1-1, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 2-1, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-15, 2-31, 2-41, 3-9,
. . . 3-10, 3-14, 3-15, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-32
Wild Horses - 1-1, 1-3, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-17, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29,
. 2-68, 3-9, 3-15, 3-17, 3-20, 3-21, 3-59
Wilderness...... . . . . . 1-23, 2-49, 3-1
Wildlife. .1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-23, 1-25, 1-27, 2-31,
. .......2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-37, 2-39, 2-42, 2-61, 3-9, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23,
. 3-24, 3-25, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-35, 3-60
☆ GP0 1981 797-689
R 16 E
R. 17 E.
R. 18 E.
R 19 E
R 20 E.
T 29 S
HARNEY CO
T 30 S.
1WWM
Figure 1-1A
oaiuao •»Auaa
VUBaqn \jna
1W3IAI30VNVIA1 0NV1 JO 0V3
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
DESERT RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
T. 31 S
T 32 S
HARNEY
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
WARNER LAKES RESOURCE
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
AREA
1981
R 22 E
R.23E
R.24E.
R.25E.
T. 39 S
T 40 S
T.4IS
R. 22 E
R 27 E
R 28 E
R 29 E
R. 30 E
R 31 E.
R 23 E
R. 24 E
T. 36 S.
T. 37 S.
T. 38 S.
T. 39 S.
T. 40 S.
T. 41 S.
R. 14 E.
R. 15 E,
R. I 6 E.
R. 17 E.
R. 18 E.
R. 19 E.
R.20E.
un
s°or
BLf
*1
□
Lc
fc
IT
I
•n
--h-
iell , ?es.
■ l
iM
tr
iORS
m ri\i.
[<S>
Ot ! Re.
HEAb
1 G
Vi I low
Valle)
Res.
Midwa /
Res
w
390
0/06
iwkfly
o
Res>
Kilgore Res.
0
%
?Z
5
J/ />
Res.
■f*
HL
□
eEi
el
I I
ft
JS
3
i
z
i °
1 — n
£
EL
U
LEGEND
Public Land
Within Allotments
Unallotted
Fenced in with U.S.F.S.
Water & Power Resource Service
U.S. Forest Service
State Land
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Resource Area Boundary
- Allotment Boundary
800 Allotment Numbers
— © — U.S. Highway
State Highway
Other Major Roads
Vegetation Manipulation Projects — Proposed Action
Spray/Seed
Burn/Seed
Chain/Seed
Brush Control /Burn
Brush Control / Chain
Juniper Control
\LU.1I'A
IWWM
1MWWI
z
FU
Figure 1-1C
□
ZL
CL
CV
"c*
IF
j
a?
zsi
r—
m
o
i=n
Jjcl
l
z=
tt
R. 14 1/2
R.I5 E.
R. 16 E.
MODOC CO
R. I 7 E.
ZL
I i
i I
i I
HIGH
— + —
!9
(ft
OR
DE
5LERT
7n
a
R.
1_
ZL
1302
XT
■
lake:viev
C/?4. Ve p?^
EGON
Zt
R. 18 E.
CALIFORNIA
R. 19 E.
MODOC CO
R. 20 E.
T
Tzzr
LOST
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT
RIVER RESOURCE AREA
Lakeview Grazing Management
Environmental Impact Statement
1981
.75 t"1
3 5-' 2
< 3 o
o T w
(T> _
O
( D
3
ft
22
>
O
m
S
m
2
-I
Bureau of land
>. JLiiwary
Denver SerTiM
Denver Federal Center
BWg. 50, OC-521
B.O, Box 25047
Denver, CO 80225
s moWxdi
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11