environmental consequences chapter 4 — environmental ......wild horse management areas pose...

Environmental Consequences

4 -1

Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts thatare projected to occur as a result of implementing landmanagement actions described for each alternative.The baseline used for project impacts is the currentcondition described in Chapter 2–Affected Environ-ment. Impacts are projected for the short term (0 to 10years unless otherwise noted) and for the long term (10to 20 years).

Each of the resource management activities that couldimpact other resource values are analyzed by program.There are some programs that would have the sameimpact across all alternatives, or would have little or noeffect and do not need further analysis. The analysisfor each alternative is presented by resource andorganized into four sections:

Management Goal: These are defined in Chapter 3and would be the same for each alternative.

Analysis of Impacts: This is a description of thepossible impacts, both beneficial and adverse, from aproposed land use allocation or management action.The impact or change is compared to the currentmanagement situation, Alternative A. For ease ofreading, the analysis shown in Alternative A may bereferenced in following alternative impact discussionswith such statements as, “. . . impacts would be thesame as Alternative A. . . ,” or “. . . impacts would bethe same as Alternative A, except for . . .,” as appli-cable.

Summary: At the end of each resource discussion is asummary comparison of impacts for each alternative,describing how well it meets the management goal.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: Thefinal section under each resource discussion is adescription of secondary, indirect, and cumulativeimpacts of the past, present, and reasonably-foreseeablefuture actions for each alternative. This section alsoconsiders impacts of other agency actions, as well asactions on private land within or adjacent to theplanning area.

Assumptions

Several general assumptions were made to facilitate theanalysis of potential impacts. The assumptions listed

below are common to all alternatives. Other assump-tions specific to a particular resource are listed underthat resource.

• Changes in Bureau of Land Management (BLM)policies have been made since the current land useplans were approved. This includes such things asthe “Standards for Rangeland Health and Guide-lines for Livestock Grazing Management” (USDI-BLM 1997a).

• All alternatives would maintain the vegetationresource and meet needs for water, nutrient, andenergy cycling.

• Funding and personnel would be sufficient toimplement any alternative described and would bethe same across all alternatives.

• Monitoring studies would be completed as indi-cated, and adjustments or revisions would be madeas described in the Adaptive Management sectionof Chapter 3.

• Appropriate maintenance would be carried out tomaintain the functional capability of all develop-ments (roads, fences, and other projects).

• The approved Resource Management Plan (RMP)would remain in effect for 15 to 20 years.

Critical Elements of the Human Environment

The following critical elements of the human environ-ment are addressed in Chapter 4, as required by the“National Environmental Policy Act” (NEPA): airquality, floodplains, cultural/paleontological resources,prime or unique farmlands, Native American religiousconcerns, threatened or endangered species, areas ofcritical environmental concern (ACEC’s), potentialwild and scenic rivers (WSR’s), wilderness study areas(WSA’s), visual resources, water resources, andenvironmental justice. The alternatives call for varyingdegrees of resource use and protection. As a result,there are varying degrees or forms of protective man-agement or mitigation for some of these resources orland use allocations. These critical elements will alsobe considered, as appropriate, in site-specific projectNEPA analysis, design, and implementation.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:37 PM1

Proposed Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement

4 - 2

Plant Communities

Shrub Steppe

Management Goal 1—Restore, protect, and enhancethe diversity and distribution of desirable vegetationcommunities, including perennial native and desir-able introduced plant species. Provide for theircontinued existence and normal function in nutrient,water, and energy cycles.

Management Goal 2—Protect healthy, functioningecosystems consisting of native plant communities.Restore degraded high-potential landscapes anddecadent shrublands.

Assumptions

Characteristics used to analyze the degree to whichvegetation communities meet the desired range ofconditions and thus, rangeland vegetation managementobjectives, are displayed in Figure 4-1.

Reduced vegetation structure and ground cover lead toincreased soil erosion rates. Soil erosion rates on shrubsteppe communities are highly dependent on theproportion of the soil surface protected from raindropimpact by vegetation. Erosion rates increase exponen-tially as plant cover decreases (Meeuwig 1970).

Prescribed burn treatments would create a mosaicpattern of islands and stringers and would maintainstructure (connectivity) and desired diversity. Wildlandfire may accomplish these patterns, but because ofcheatgrass and exotic annuals, large, contiguous areasare often burned instead of a mosaic of burned andunburned areas.

The alternatives have the potential to affect vegetationin terms of the relative abundance of species withincommunities, the relative distribution of plant commu-nities, and the relative occurrence of seral stages ofthose communities. However, implementation of anyalternative would not result in the complete eliminationof a plant species, plant community, or seral stage.Management actions would not intentionally eliminatea special status plant species.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Maintenance of vegetative composition of nonnativeseedings would ensure continued forage production.

Some stands of seeded nonnative perennial specieswould continue to be managed primarily for forageproduction and would make minimal progress towardsupporting greater species or structural diversity.Connectivity of big sagebrush cover may be reduced.Implementation of vegetation manipulation projectsmust be consistent with existing management objec-tives.

Integrated weed management actions would slow thespread of established stands of noxious weeds andreduce the establishment of new infestations.

Watershed improvements for both function and pro-cesses would maintain or enhance vegetation condi-tions in most cases. Water resource managementactivities would usually meet minimum constructionstandards, as would construction and maintenance ofroads. There would be minimal or no damage to shrubsteppe vegetation communities. If flooding occurs dueto natural causes or related to construction, rehabilita-tion could be carried out swiftly and effectively.Commodity uses, including recreational use, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, livestock production,mineral exploration, and other uses, would increaselocalized areas of soil disturbance and increase themechanisms of seed dispersal, impacting sagebrushsteppe communities.

The ecological condition of the shrub steppe commu-nity could be improved, and there could be an increaseof forage production through the development andimplementation of economically feasible grazingsystems and range improvements. In areas such as theBeaty Butte allotment, not all of the animal unit months(AUM’s) are utilized; however, livestock tend toconcentrate in small areas around water sources,causing concentrated overutilization. Methods to moveand disperse livestock would benefit the diversity andcondition of the shrub steppe around such sites.

Carrying capacities and seasons of use for livestock insome areas would continue at a level that wouldprovide for a diversity of seral stages of rangelandplant communities, while other areas would support theearlier seral stages of rangeland vegetation typesresulting from localized problems in range manage-ment.

Disturbance associated with relatively high carryingcapacities and long seasons of use for livestock wouldresult in a landscape dominated by the low structuraldiversity (annual grasses and forbs) characteristic ofthe earlier seral stages of rangeland vegetation. Theuse of livestock grazing systems would have both

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:37 PM2


4 -3

I.Pristine “Complete”Pre-EuroamericanSagebrush Steppe

II. Late Seral

Sagebrush Steppe

III. IV.Depauperate Native PerennialLate Seral Grasses dominateSagebrush Steppe

Threshold of

Site Change

V. VI.Brush with only Introducedintroduced annuals Wheatgrass and Ryegrassin understory pastures

VII. VII.Cheatgrass / Introduced grassMedusahead pastures with

shrub reinvasion

? ? ?

Figure 4-1.— State and transition model of successional change in sagebrush steppe (from West 1999).

↓↓↓↓↓

↓↓↓↓↓ ↑↑↑↑↑

↓↓↓↓↓

↓↓↓↓↓

↓↓↓↓↓

↓↓↓↓↓ ↑↑↑↑↑

↑↑↑↑↑

←←←←←

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:37 PM3


4 - 4

positive and negative impacts on vegetation, dependingon the system and the vegetation community. Theimpacts of the different grazing systems on eachvegetation community are described in Appendix E2 ofthe Draft RMP/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).The grazing systems are described in Appendix E5.

The rest/rotation system is both the most commonlivestock grazing system in use in the resource area (56percent of acres grazed) and also the system that wouldbe expected to most improve key species composition.Therefore, the vegetation composition on over half ofthe resource area would potentially improve under thisalternative. There are allotments that primarily use arest/rotation system, but some pastures utilize othersystems that may be more beneficial, such as springgrazing in a riparian pasture. For the purpose of thisanalysis, the positive impacts of this combination arerecorded as part of the rest/rotation system because thatsystem controls the largest acreage within the allot-ment. The key herbaceous vegetation compositionwould either be improved or maintained under theother five grazing systems; this accounts for 36 percentof the acres under a grazing system in the resourcearea. About one percent of the acreage in the resourcearea would show a short-term decrease in speciescomposition as a result of being grazed under a spring/summer grazing system. This is due to the fact thatforage species would be grazed during their growingseason.

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems couldresult in a decrease in palatable woody vegetation, suchas willows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush.These grazing systems are found on about 4 percent ofthe acres that are grazed in the resource area. Thedifference in the alternatives is the rate at which thepalatable woody species composition could decline. Asummary of grazing impacts to key species vegetationby type of grazing system and season of use is shownin Table 4-1. Specific impacts of livestock grazing tothe various plant communities by grazing system arediscussed in Appendix E2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.

Wild horse management areas pose different problemsand need to be kept at appropriate management levelsin order to meet specific management (horses, wildlife,plant community health, livestock, and recreation)objectives. Where appropriate management levels areexceeded, or during drought, patches and larger areasof shrub steppe communities could be destroyed. Hoofdisturbances along regular trails could cause long-lasting soil degradation and loss of water infiltration.

No new SMA's would be designated (ACEC’s or

WSR’s), thus eliminating the possibility of specialprotective management for new research natural areas(RNA’s), Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP)plant community cells (emphasizing shrub steppe), andBLM special status plant species habitats. The habitatmanagement plan for the Black Hills area wouldcontinue to restrict OHV use, as would the emergencyclosures for Table Rock and South Green Mountain toprotect BLM sensitive plant species.

Full suppression of wildland fire outside of the FortRock Fire Management Area would not allow forwildland fire use to improve resources. Use of pre-scribed fire would be on a case-by-case basis. Areasthat are burned by wildland fire would be rehabilitatedor revegetated to protect soil, water, and vegetationresources or to prevent unacceptable damage (such asintroduction of noxious weeds and cheatgrass). Rest-ing rehabilitated areas for a minimum of two growingseasons would allow vegetation to reestablish, allowlitter to build up on the soil, and reduce erosion. Twoseasons of rest could also make the disturbed area lesssusceptible to the invasion of noxious weeds.

The identification of plant communities considered “atrisk” by the Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project (ICBEMP) due to cultural valueswould require increased consultation with the Tribalpeople and awareness among resource specialists.

With most of the area accessible to OHV use, thepotential for water channeling, vegetation removal,weed dispersal, and soil disturbance would increase. Amoderate increase in localized impacts would resultwithin areas currently used for recreation.

Exploration, development, and production of mineralscould cause changes in species composition andrelative abundance of species, despite preparation ofplans of operation. Even after reclamation efforts, itwould be unlikely that environmental conditionssupporting the predisturbance plant community wouldbe restored. The scale of these effects would varyacross the alternatives as larger areas would have eithersurface restrictions on energy and mineral explorationand development or no-surface-occupancy stipulations.Mitigation measures would be included in plan ofoperations. Soils could be stockpiled for future recla-mation and native seeds could be gathered and grownfor future seed sources from the site.

New road construction, road maintenance, and right-of-way use to support commodity-related activities wouldminimally increase vegetation impacts. Long-termimpacts from roads and rights-of-way would be mini-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:37 PM4


4 -5

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:37 PM5


4 - 6

mized with best management practices (BMP’s).Short-term impacts would occur until disturbed sur-faces were contoured and revegetated.

Alternative B

Upland native shrub steppe communities would bemanaged to attain a trend toward desired range ofconditions based on site potential. Managementactions would be for maintenance of the conditionwhere vegetation composition and structure wereconsistent with desired conditions. Forage productionand other commodity values of native and nonnativevegetation resources would be optimized.

Impacts to shrub species would be similar to thoseidentified in Alternative A. Connectivity of big sage-brush cover would be maintained in native vegetationcommunities that provide important wildlife habitat.

Impacts resulting from vegetation manipulation,primarily seedings, would be similar to those identifiedin Alternative A; however, more use of nonnativespecies might be employed. This might ensure seedingsuccess but would provide less diversity. Some standsof seeded nonnative perennial species would continueto be managed primarily for forage production, soconnectivity of big sagebrush cover may be reduced.

Weed management would have impacts similar to thoseidentified in Alternative A.

Management of special status plant, fish, and wildlifespecies would have the same impacts as identified inAlternative A.

Impacts from livestock management actions would besimilar to those identified in Alternative A. As a resultof optimizing livestock use of available forage, thebenefits of returning vegetation material to the soilwould be minimized. Long-term vigor and health ofvegetation communities could be maintained across thelandscape, except at localized areas of concentratedactivity. About one percent of the acreage in theresource area would show a short-term decrease inspecies composition as a result of spring/summerlivestock grazing during the growing season. In thelong term, impacts of spring/summer grazing would bereduced significantly when replaced by spring, de-ferred, deferred rotation, or rest/rotation grazingsystems. The grazing system or combination ofsystems best suited to replace spring/summer grazingwould be determined by allotment, depending on thevegetation and the multiple use objectives for thatallotment. In the long term, there would be less thanone percent of the resource area under spring/summergrazing under Alternative B.

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems may resultin a decrease in palatable woody vegetation, such aswillows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush. Therate of decline would be faster under this alternativethan under Alternative A. A summary of grazing

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM6


4 -7

impacts to key species vegetation by type of grazingsystem and season of use is shown in Table 4-1.Specific impacts of livestock grazing to the variousplant communities by grazing system are fully dis-cussed in Appendix E2 of the Draft RMP/EIS.

Impacts from wild horse management would be asdescribed in Alternative A, except impacts wouldincrease due to greater horse numbers in both the BeatyButte and Paisley Herd Management Areas. Wildhorse use of an area is much more widespread thanlivestock use; horses use hilltops, ridgelines, and otherareas. They also concentrate around water holes orrunning water and have been known to dig up areas incanyon bottoms where water is running below thesurface. Several factors play into the equation for wildhorse management: the herd numbers, forage AUM’sfor the horses, and how frequently herds are gathered.The net result would be an increase in horse impacts onsagebrush steppe plant communities in the PaisleyDesert and Beaty Butte Herd Management Areas. Hoofdisturbances along regular trails and territories wouldbe long-lasting and could lead to soil degradation andloss of water infiltration.

Impacts to vegetation from new project constructionwould be similar to those identified in Alternative A,though more projects could be constructed.

Management of wildland fire and prescribed fire wouldhave impacts similar to those identified in AlternativeA; however, treatment configuration of prescribedburns would emphasize commodity production such aslivestock forage, as opposed to mosaics, which benefitwildlife.

Impacts from recreation use would be similar to thoseidentified in Alternative A, except there would be moredevelopment of roads, trails, and campgrounds, andless emphasis on dispersed recreation. Recreation usewould be more concentrated; therefore, the impacts ofvisitor use (such as vegetation trampling and removal)would be more concentrated. Impacts from OHV usewould be of the same type identified in Alternative A,but fewer acres would be designated open (Tables 3-5and 4-5).

The impacts from mineral exploration or developmentwould be similar to those identified in Alternative A,except the acreage of high mineral potential landremaining available for exploration and developmentwould be highest under this alternative.

New road construction, road maintenance, and right-of-way use to support commodity-related activities would

be similar to Alternative A, but of greater magnitude.

Alternative C

The ecological condition of the shrub steppe commu-nity could be improved with the emphasis on diversify-ing composition and structure of vegetation.

Nonnative seedings would change over time by allow-ing natural establishment of native shrubs and grasses,and in some cases may be actively rehabilitated by useof prescribed fire or physical manipulation to nativeseedings, especially where mosaic plant communitiesare desired. Large nonnative seedings could be brokenup into mosaics of native vegetation usinggreenstripping. These actions would support theprogress toward greater species and/or structuraldiversity. Connectivity of big sagebrush cover wouldbe encouraged, especially in greater sage-grousenesting areas.

With the aid of rehabilitation, less livestock grazing,and the use of prescribed fire, this alternative wouldgenerally reduce dominance by woody species, such asjuniper and bitterbrush, and would increase mosaics ofdiverse structures of multiple-aged shrubs, forbs, andperennial grasses. This would result in greater produc-tivity and improved natural functions and watershedstability. Shrub reintroduction into burned sites wouldmaintain diversity at a moderate scale, especiallywithin habitat of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species.

Watershed improvement for both function and pro-cesses would enhance vegetation conditions in mostcases. Water resource management activities, as wellas construction and maintenance of roads, would nothave a negative effect on plant communities if they metminimum construction standards. In some cases,actions such as check dams (to slow down overlandflow) would be beneficial to the shrub steppe commu-nity.

Proactive management is needed to prevent unnaturallylarge and/or frequent wildland fires in areas where fuelbuildup or exotic annual grass invasions have occurred.Such management actions may include altering grazingregimes to prevent annual plant invasions (such asspring rest/rotation in seedings), prescribed fire toprevent fuel buildup (especially to reduce high woodyvegetation densities), brush beating to release forbs andgrasses and to reduce shrub densities, and/or restrictingOHV use.

Areas that are burned by wildland fire would berehabilitated or revegetated to protect vegetation

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM7


4 - 8

resources and to prevent introduction of noxious weedsand cheatgrass. Livestock use of burned areas wouldbe deferred for a minimum of two years followingrehabilitation. This would allow the desired vegetationto become established and litter accumulation to haverecovered to levels that are adequate to support andprotect plant community functions.

The impacts of livestock management actions would besimilar to Alternative A. However, there would be 20percent fewer AUM’s and no authorized temporarynonrenewable grazing use. Appropriate grazing couldretain adequate plant litter to maintain soil productivityand limit accelerated erosion, but with lower utilizationlevels, progress toward attaining desired range ofconditions would be accelerated. Less fencing andwater development would open new areas for grazingbut would require more activity in moving livestockaway from existing water resources. Long-term vigorand health of vegetation communities, which includesmaintenance of soil stability and energy, nutrient, andwater cycling, would be maintained across the land-scape, except at small, localized areas of livestockconcentrations. Much of the reduced grazing pressureswould be within proposed ACEC’s and would helpprotect and enhance the biodiversity of these plantcommunity cells.

The vegetation composition on areas under rest/rotation grazing systems (56 percent of the area grazed)would improve under this alternative. The spring/falland deferred grazing systems may result in a decreasein palatable woody vegetation, such as willows,quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrush. These grazingsystems are found on about 4 percent of the acres thatare grazed in the resource area. Decline would beslowest under this alternative. Also, there may be adecline in palatable woody species under winter anddeferred rotation grazing that would not occur in theother alternatives.

About one percent of the acres in the resource areawould have a decrease in species composition underthe spring/summer grazing system. These impactswould be short term or as long as the spring/summergrazing systems were still in effect. The long-termimpacts of spring/summer grazing would be reducedsignificantly, as this system would be replaced byspring, deferred, deferred rotation, or rest/rotationgrazing systems. The grazing system or combination ofsystems best suited to replace spring/summer grazingwould be determined by allotment, depending on thevegetation and the multiple use objectives for thatallotment. In the long term, less than one percent ofthe resource area would be under spring/summer

grazing in this alternative.

A summary of grazing impacts to key species vegeta-tion by type of grazing system and season of use isshown in Table 4-1. Specific impacts of livestockgrazing to the various plant communities by grazingsystem are fully discussed in Appendix E2 of the DraftRMP/EIS.

Wild horse impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

Livestock forage production and range improvementswould be reduced. Construction of fewer new range-land projects would limit impacts to vegetation andwould allow for recovery of heavily used areas aroundwater sources.

This alternative proposes a significant increase inSMA's: 12 new ACEC’s, 1 existing ACEC expansion,and 1 new WSR. These designations require specialmanagement to protect the natural resources, especiallythose that overlap RNA’s. This special managementwould protect native plant communities from otheruses and allow those communities to reach theirpotential, especially those designated as plant commu-nity “cells” by the ONHP. Among these cells are 12examples of sagebrush steppe communities. Thesedesignations would give priority management attentionto the areas.

Recreation would emphasize dispersed camping andrecreational use and undeveloped types of recreation,thereby lessening the magnitude of impacts. At thesame time, dispersed recreation use is difficult tocontrol. Support facilities and interpretation of naturaland cultural values would help develop a conservationethic for the recreational users. Rehabilitation orclosure of recreation sites where other resource valuesare being jeopardized would help restore plant commu-nity diversity and structure.

Impacts from OHV use would be the same types asidentified in Alternative A, but of much less magnitudebecause none of the area would have an open designa-tion. There would be a 79 percent increase in limitedand closed designations. This would allow morecontrol over the use of OHV’s and would significantlylower the associated negative impacts.

The impacts from mineral exploration or developmentwould be similar to those identified in Alternative A;however, this alternative would be the most restrictive.The withdrawal of the proposed Red Knoll ACEC frommining would have a positive influence on maintainingthe naturalness of the sagebrush steppe and the cultural

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM8


4 -9

plant values of this area.

Rights-of-way and pipelines would have the leastnegative impact of all the alternatives. Nominalcorridor width would be half the size proposed inAlternative B, thus reducing the amount of physicaldisturbance to plant communities associated with theseactions. The few actions involving legal public oradministrative access would be limited and generally oflittle impact; however, where new roads are con-structed, BMP’s would be implemented (Appendix D).

Alternative D

This alternative is a balance between Alternatives Aand C, so that natural values would be protected andimproved while providing some commodity produc-tion. Many vegetation communities would progresstoward a reduced dominance by woody species and anincreased mosaic of multiple-aged shrubs, forbs, andperennial grasses (both native and introduced species).Long-term vigor and health of the vegetation communi-ties, which include maintenance of soil stability andenergy, nutrient, and water cycling, would be main-tained across the landscape, except in localized areas ofconcentrated activity and in degraded communities ofweeds/cheatgrass or shrub-invaded crested wheatgrassseedings. Shrub reintroduction into rehabilitatedburned sites would maintain diversity at most scales.All acreage seeded would receive native seed mixturesand in some areas, introduce adapted perennial grasses.

Impacts from vegetation manipulation, primarilyseedings, would be similar to those in Alternative A.Use of a mixture of native and introduced specieswould maintain some diversity and some degree ofseeding success. The chances of establishment ofmixed seedings on marginal sites and during poorclimatic conditions would be higher than using allnative species. This alternative would support estab-lishment of desirable perennial cover in sites currentlydominated by sagebrush, annual species, and westernjuniper. However, the long-term goal would be tosupport biodiverse and sustainable plant communities.

Management of special status plant species would havethe same impacts as those identified in Alternative Cdue to the number of existing and new SMA's beingproposed to protect and enhance special status plantspecies. The ACEC/RNA’s being proposed wouldpreserve plant community cells identified by the ONHPand would protect plants and other resource values notcurrently being protected under Alternative A.

Livestock forage (AUM’s) would not change. Tempo-

rary nonrenewable grazing use would be allowed whenit did not conflict with other resource values, uses, orobjectives. Administrative solutions (seasons of use,stocking levels, etc.) would attempt to maintain otherresource values for multiple use and sustainability. Theimpacts would be similar to Alternative A. Comparedto Alternative C, plant litter would be less available forincorporation into soils, biological crusts would beless, and soils would be less protected from erosiveoverland flow.

The vegetation composition on areas under rest/rotation grazing systems (56 percent of the area grazed)would improve. The spring/fall and deferred grazingsystems may result in a decrease in palatable woodyvegetation, such as willows, quaking aspen, andantelope bitterbrush. These grazing systems are foundon about 4 percent of the acres that are grazed. Rate ofdecline would be the same as under Alternative A.About one percent of the acres in the resource areawould have a decrease in species composition underthe spring/summer grazing system. These impactswould be short term or as long as the spring/summergrazing systems are still in effect. The long-termimpacts of spring/summer grazing would be reducedsignificantly, as this system would be replaced byspring, deferred, deferred rotation, or rest/rotationgrazing systems. The grazing system or combination ofsystems best suited to replace spring/summer grazingwould be determined by allotment, depending on theexisting vegetation and the multiple use objectives forthat allotment. In the long term, there would be lessthan one percent of the resource area under spring/summer grazing. A summary of grazing impacts to keyspecies vegetation by type of grazing system andseason of use is shown in Table 4-1. Specific impactsof livestock grazing to the various plant communitiesby grazing system are discussed in Appendix E2 of theDraft RMP/EIS.

Wild horse impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

Impacts to vegetation from new project constructionwould be similar to those identified in Alternative A.

Management of wildland fire and prescribed fire wouldhave impacts similar to those identified in AlternativeA.

Impacts from undeveloped recreational opportunitieswould be similar to those identified in Alternative C,but there would be less emphasis on undeveloped,dispersed recreation. There would be more emphasison establishing new recreation sites and developingtourism opportunities. The specific effects on the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM9


4 - 10

plant communities would depend on where theseactivities take place. Areas open to OHV use would besmaller than Alternative A; limited and closed OHVdesignations would be greater than Alternative A. Thisalternative allows for more concentration of recre-ational activities, therefore increasing the accumulatednegative effects. The increase of closed roads wouldmitigate those effects in ACEC’s.

More vegetative communities would be protected byright-of-way avoidance areas compared to AlternativeA. The protection provided by right-of way exclusionareas would be the same under all alternatives. Futureright-of-way corridor widths would be limited to 1,000feet on each side of the centerline, about the same asunder Alternative A and almost twice as large asAlternative C. The risk of weed infestation would besimilar to Alternative A, but higher than Alternative Cwithin the disturbed corridor.

The impacts from mineral exploration or developmentwould be similar to those identified in Alternative A,except the acreage of high mineral potential landremaining available for exploration and developmentwould be less. In the Red Knoll ACEC, a smaller areawould be proposed for mineral withdrawal (Tables 3-5and 4-5). Only the land with higher mineral potentialwould be proposed for withdrawal. Some of the RedKnoll ACEC would remain open to potential miningimpacts.

Roads causing resource damage or that are no longerneeded would be closed and rehabilitated allowing thepossibility for increased biodiversity and improvementof plant communities. It would also help to stem theintroduction of invasive weeds and plants such ascheatgrass. When acquiring legal access, emphasiswould be placed on providing access to areas contain-ing high public resource values. This would increasethe possibility of increased vegetation disturbance inthose areas.

Alternative E

Shrub steppe communities over the last 150 years havehad impacts that are irreversable, such as grazing bysheep and livestock, introduction of cheatgrass andother nonnative aggressive weeds, suppression ofwildland fires, and range improvements that helpdetermine where and when cattle graze. All of theseactions have changed the landscape significantly frompre-European contact. None of the planning area is inprecontact “pristine” condition, nor would the BLM tryto return the landscape to that state (even if it waspossible). To abandon active management of the area

would have a long-term negative impact on the shrubsteppe plant communities.

Altered vegetation communities would not progresstoward desired range of conditions. Natural processesof succession within communities dominated by annualand woody species would rarely progress towarddesired range of conditions, even when actions impact-ing vegetative resources were reduced or eliminated.Additionally, impacts resulting from increased numbersand cyclic growth of wild horse populations, andfailure to control the establishment and spread ofnoxious weeds, would not be consistent with meetingvegetation management objectives.

Monocultures of nonnative seeded species would notbe managed to improve diversity. Some smaller standsmay contain adequate native seed to develop thedesirable mosaic of multi-aged shrubs, forbs, andnative grasses as a result of natural establishment.Many larger stands dominated by competitive nonna-tive species would allow little opportunity for estab-lishment or increased dominance by native species.

In the absence of noxious weed control and manage-ment, weeds would continue to impact sagebrushsteppe communities and soil stability. Though anumber of actions that increase the risk of dominanceby noxious weeds would be limited by actions ofAlternative E, seed dispersal and soil disturbancefavoring undesirable plants would continue. Nativesagebrush steppe species do not compete well withmany introduced noxious weeds, even when distur-bances are removed and seed dispersal mechanisms arereduced (Roche and Burrill 1992; Butler 1993). Lackof adequate measures to control the introduction andspread of noxious weeds would reduce the biodiversityand productivity of many shrub steppe communities.

With the removal of livestock grazing, those impactsidentified in Alternatives A–D would be eliminated.The condition of areas previously impacted wouldrecover as allowed by competing exotic annual speciesand/or lack of soil. Natural succession would improvethe condition of many vegetation communities, eventhough the process would take longer than with activerehabilitation. Altered vegetation communities whichhave reached or passed a viable threshold and aredominated by annual species and/or noxious weedswould not improve (Figure 4-1). Utilization of forageresources by wildlife would continue. Deposition ofplant litter and incorporation of organic matter into thesoil would increase across the landscape, resulting inincreased productivity, decreased erosion caused byoverland flow of precipitation, and progress toward

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM10


4 -11

desired range of conditions. On sites dominated bynative species, rates of water, nutrient, and energycycling would be restored to near-natural levels. Sitessupporting shallow-rooted exotic annual species wouldcontinue to alter water, nutrient, and energy cycling.

Wild horse populations would have the same impactsas Alternative A. Horses would be retained at appropri-ate management levels, which could be adjusted.

Short-term impacts to vegetation would occur asexisting rangeland projects supporting livestockgrazing were abandoned and structures removed. Inthe long term, areas disturbed during project removalwould revegetate naturally to resemble surroundingvegetation communities; however, areas around pastwaterholes would recover more slowly, depending onthe extent of previous impacts.

On average, the annual acreage burned by wildland firewould increase significantly due to greater fuel loadsfrom lack of suppression and decreased grazing. Thesize and frequency of wildland fire in sites dominatedby exotic annual species would increase. Increased firefrequency, especially in sites dominated by flammableannual species and along the tracks of frequent summerstorm activity, would maintain communities currentlyvegetated by annual and shrub vegetation, with littleopportunity for the establishment and increased domi-nance of perennials. Communities with perennials maydegrade toward more annual species dominance. Asannual species dominance increases, soil erosionaccelerates, especially immediately following fire.Lack of rehabilitation to establish desirable vegetationcomponents and protect soil resources would result insignificant long-term impacts.

The condition of vegetation resources in areas notsubject to frequent fire would improve as the impactsfrom livestock grazing were eliminated. However,without some prescribed fires or other rehabilitationactions, shrubs would tend to outcompete grass andperennial understory plants. Areas dominated bycheatgrass and other annuals would increase overdesirable perennial plant cover. Depending on the soiltype and other ecological conditions, conversion ofshrub/annual grassland and annual grassland to peren-nial-dominated communities would occur very slowly.This change would probably be offset by conversion toannual species as a result of frequent wildland fires.

Fine fuels would increase with limited utilization ofherbaceous growth, resulting in increased occurrenceand frequency of wildland fire. The condition of somevegetation communities currently dominated by a

desirable mosaic of native species and with a healthyunderstory of forbs and perennials would be main-tained in those areas not subject to frequent fire.Frequent wildland fire in healthy, native communitieswould cause a decline in vegetation diversity andhealth and would allow for encroachment of weeds andannual species; this would lead to a decline in naturallevels of nutrients, water, and energy cycling. Diver-sity and health of altered vegetation communitiesdominated by annual species would continue to declinewith frequent fire.

Impacts to vegetation from recreation activities wouldincrease within areas of concentrated activity, includingdeveloped facilities. Human-caused wildland fire mayincrease as recreational activity increases, resulting inimpacts to vegetation resources.

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails on allpublic lands would limit direct and indirect impactsidentified in Alternative A.

The entire planning area would be proposed for with-drawal and would not be available for mineral develop-ment; therefore, there would be no associated negativeimpacts. This would have a positive effect on plantcommunities because of the lack of disturbance.

Minimal new road construction, as well as the restric-tion of rights-of-way to existing corridors, wouldminimize or eliminate long-term impacts of surfacedisturbance. Limited maintenance of existing roadswould increase impacts to vegetative resources as aresult of normal breakdown of roadbeds, wet weatherrutting by vehicles, and channeling of runoff.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, sagebrush steppe would continueto improve in areas that are in late seral, althoughrecovery rates and extent of recovery would be reducedin sagebrush areas without perennial understory and inseedings, especially where shrubs have begun toinvade. Management would continue on a case-by-case, site-specific basis with less consideration for theramifications of watershed analysis. Rangeland healthstandards would be analyzed for each allotment in theresource area. The major impacts to the sagebrushsteppe communities are from wildland fires (short-termimpact, but possibility of annual exotic plant introduc-tion), invasion by juniper (with loss of diversity,especially in the understory), weed invasion, andcontinued possible livestock misuse in seedings (suchas repeated spring use every year). All of these actionswould drive the threshold of site change away from

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM11


4 - 12

rehabilitation and toward pure stands of cheatgrass andweeds (Table 4-2). The management goal could not beachieved under this alternative.

Impacts under Alternative B would be similar toAlternative A; however, there would be an increasedimpact from livestock grazing for increased commodityyield. Improvements could occur on a case-by-casebasis, especially with more aggressive juniper manage-ment, but would have minimal desirable impact. Whilenoxious weed management would emphasize protec-tion of commodity resources, these actions would havean indirect effect on the desirable vegetative communi-ties. The continued use of nonnative seedings wouldbe counterproductive for biodiversity. The manage-ment goal for shrub steppe could not be achieved underthis alternative because of the emphasis on commodityproduction and public uses.

Impacts under Alternative C would be much less thanAlternatives A or B, especially with the decrease inlivestock AUM’s. Because of the wider watershed-scale management approach, recovery rates could bemuch faster, resulting in better conditions with greaterbiodiversity and desirable vegetative communities.Alternative C has the most aggressive prescribedburning and wildland fire use, as well as the mostaggressive weed and juniper management strategies.With an aggressive emergency fire rehabilitationprogram, the long-term benefits from prescribed andwildland fire activities could be used to help restoredegraded sagebrush steppe communities. This type offire management, along with greenstripping and otherpossible mechanical treatments for thinning of sage-brush, could rehabilitate dense, stagnant stands andmeet the desired range of condition standards. Withemphasis on protection and restoration of naturalvalues, the management goal for shrub steppe commu-nities could be achieved under this alternative, espe-cially in late seral communities.

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar toAlternative C; however, keeping the same livestock

AUM’s, management, and livestock grazing strategiescould reduce recovery rates for late seral and othershrub steppe communities. The increase of wild horsenumbers and AUM’s in the Paisley Herd ManagementArea could reduce the recovery rates in the wild horseareas, especially in the areas that are already in earlyseral stage, brush with introduced annuals, andseedings. The management goal for shrub steppecommunities possibly could be achieved, but at a muchslower rate than Alternative C and only with an aggres-sive program of greenstripping, active seed programsfor rehabilitation, prescribed fires, and studies tounderstand more about sagebrush steppe communities.

The impacts of different grazing systems, by vegetationtype, are described in Appendix E2 of the Draft RMP/EIS. Grazing systems are described in Appendix E5.The rest/rotation grazing system would be expected tomost improve key species composition. As a result, thevegetation composition on over half of the acres (56percent) in the resource area would improve under allalternatives. While the rest/rotation system maybenefit many vegetation types, it must not be assumedthat it would always provide the most benefit. Anothergrazing system or combination of systems may bebetter suited for some vegetation types and allotments.

The spring/summer grazing system is the one grazingsystem that may result in a decrease in key speciescomposition across all alternatives. The key herba-ceous vegetation composition would either be im-proved or maintained under the other five grazingsystems across all alternatives—this accounts for 36percent of the acres under a grazing system in theresource area.

The number of acres with a decrease in species compo-sition in the spring/summer grazing system would varyby alternative. These impacts would be in the shortterm or as long as the spring/summer grazing systemswere still in effect. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, thelong-term impacts of spring/summer grazing would bereduced significantly as this system would be replaced

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM12


4 -13

by spring, deferred, deferred rotation, or rest/rotationgrazing systems. The grazing system or combination ofsystems best suited to replace spring/summer grazingwould be determined on an allotment-by-allotmentbasis, depending on the vegetation and the multiple-useobjectives for that allotment. In the long term, therewould be less than 1 percent of the acres in the re-source area under spring/summer grazing in Alterna-tives B, C, and D.

The spring/fall and deferred grazing systems wouldresult in a decrease in palatable woody vegetation suchas willows, quaking aspen, and antelope bitterbrushacross Alternatives A–D.

Under Alternative E, even with the elimination oflivestock grazing, impacts resulting from wild horsepopulations and failure to control the establishment andspread of noxious weeds would have a negative effecton the shrub steppe community. Natural processeswould be the primary determinants of ecosystemconditions and plant communities. However, allowingnatural processes to dominate in heavily alteredecosystems would not restore natural plant communi-ties, natural ecosystems, or natural fire regimes (assum-ing “natural” means more typical of pre-Euroamericansettlement conditions). Instead, entirely new ecosys-tems would develop. In areas dominated by nonnativeannual and biennial plants, fire return intervals woulddecrease. In areas dominated by dense stands ofwoody species, fire return intervals and subsequent fireseverity would increase. These new ecosystems wouldlikely support a different suite of plant species. Popu-lation levels of many current species, especially thosewith limited distribution or already in decline, wouldlikely decrease, and some may be extirpated. Naturalprocesses of succession within communities dominatedby annual and woody species would rarely progresstoward desired range of conditions, even when actionswere taken for rehabilitation. The management goalfor shrub steppe communities would not be achievedduring the life of the plan if natural processes were leftto determine the outcome of habitat conditions.

Secondary, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

In studying the cumulative effects of the dynamics ofthe sagebrush steppe over time, there have been majorimpacts that are in evidence today. Since introductionof cattle, sheep, and horses into the planning area 150years ago, many changes have taken place, due in partto changes in fire and livestock grazing management.The most drastic effect on land management was theprevention of wildland fires and the accidental intro-duction of noxious weeds and nonnative annual grasses

(such as cheatgrass). The altered understory and fireregime, plus accelerated soil erosion, have causedmany areas to decline to the point where they have lostthe potential for native perennial plant communitydominance.

Eight major “states” or pathways of shrub steppe plantcommunity conditions have been modeled by research-ers (Figure 4-1; West 1999). These states cross overthe divisions of sagebrush species and subspecies thatmake up the shrub steppe communities. None of theplanning area is in pre-contact “pristine” condition, noris it possible to return the landscape to that state. Inanalyzing the conditions of sagebrush steppe communi-ties, information from the ecological site inventoriesand statewide GAP analysis (Kagan and Caicco 1996)was used. Some of the states in the model are easy tocapture; however, neither of these mapping methodswas very precise in capturing states II, III, or V. Theunderstories that determine each of these states couldbe examined for site-specific projects or could bedetermined for grazing allotment analyses. As moreinformation is gathered, this model would help inunderstanding shrub steppe community dynamics andcould influence management decisions.

There is little representation of the late seral sagebrushsteppe (state II) which is the relictual (a persistentremnant of an otherwise extinct flora or plant commu-nity) remains of the pre-European shrub steppe com-munity. Stagnant sagebrush (state III), which consistsof shrubs with depauperate or bare understory, com-prises about 4 percent (99,500 acres) of the planningarea. Herb-dominated stands (state IV) and areaswhere perennial native grasses dominate do not occurexcept in small patches in the planning area (around 2percent or 54,300 acres). Where they do occur, ACEC/RNA’s have been proposed for these plant communi-ties’ protection and research. All four of these statescan be reversed and have good potential for rehabilita-tion management and actions.

The remainder of the sagebrush steppe communityconsists of states that have exceeded the “. . . thresholdof site change.” Subsequent management requiresexpensive, risky, and extensive solutions to return toone of the more desireable native states (I–IV). Theremaining states consist of desertified sagebrushsteppe, which constitutes brush with only introducedannuals (cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass seedings) inthe understory (state V). This comprises about 17percent (375,000 acres) of the planning area. Intro-duced wheatgrass and ryegrass pastures (state VI), suchas crested wheatgrass seedings, comprise about 3percent (72,000 acres) of the planning area. Introduced

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM13


4 - 14

grass pastures with shrub reinvasion (state VII) com-prise about 3 percent (60,640 acres) of the planningarea. Cheatgrass/medusahead (state VIII) comprise atleast 10 percent of the planning area.

By identifying and quantifying the described conditions(states) of sagebrush steppe in the planning area,management can better direct the use of allotments andrehabilitation possibilities. Also, these states are amethod for examining wildlife populations within thesame parameters (Knick et al. 1999). It is cheaper andmore feasible to foster good stewardship of land havinglate seral vegetation (manage while in states I–IV)rather than to rely on restoration efforts after degrada-tion has taken place (states V–VIII).

One of the recent proposals for rehabilitation afterwildland fires is to plant crested wheatgrass immedi-ately after a fire (especially if preferred native seedsare not available). Then, after the soil has been stabi-lized, go into the area and replant with native seed.This is costly, and in many instances may not work.Recent research has demonstrated that planting crestedwheatgrass caused a decline in soil quality and mayincrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmo-sphere. Soil revegetated with native grasses is a moreeffective sink for carbon. The results suggest that theeffects of this introduced species extend beyond thedisplacement of native species and the reduction ofdiversity, and include the alteration of pools and flowsof energy and nutrients in the ecosystem (Christian andWilson 1999).

The past discussion is a method for determining pastuse and effects of management on the sagebrush steppeand how the individual plants interact with each other.The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impactsto sagebrush steppe vegetation is loss of late seralcommunities, destruction of understory and perennialvegetation, loss of biodiversity, and conversion tomarginal and degraded communities below the thresh-old of possible restoration. In the section on monitor-ing, methods for breaking up areas of monoculture,whether it be cheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, or sage-brush stands, mechanical means such as brush beating,replanting of sagebrush, or prescription burns all needto be considered to create a mosaic of diverse plantcommunities.

The impacts on plant communities from activitiesimplemented on adjacent private, state, and Federallands would involve mainly fire management andrecreational uses. The closure of roads and OHV usecould have a significant impact on shrub steppe com-munities. The loss of habitat due to noxious weed

invasion could cause severe impacts to sagebrushcommunities. Integrated weed management involvingall landowners would be important for effectiveprevention of noxious weed invasion and establish-ment.

Riparian and Wetlands

Introduction

Due to the interrelated nature of riparian/wetlandvegetation, hydrology, watershed function, waterquality, and aquatic and wildlife habitat, the followingsection includes a discussion of the impacts of manage-ment alternatives on all of these resource valuescollectively in one location. More detailed descriptionsof impacts to some of these related resource values arealso discussed in other resource impact sections ofChapter 4.

Management Goal—Restore, maintain, or improveriparian vegetation, habitat diversity, and associatedwatershed function to achieve healthy and productiveriparian areas and wetlands.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Under current management, BMP’s are developed andapplied on a case-by-case basis. Because there iscurrently no set of standard BMP’s, they cannot beanalyzed here.

Managing for proper functioning condition only as aminimum goal may limit further improvement towardsite potential in riparian/wetland areas. In other words,proper functioning condition is not the ultimate goalbut the first step in attaining desired range of condition.Focusing specifically on the riparian/wetland areasdiscounts effects at a watershed scale. Management topromote or maintain proper functioning condition on aminimum of 75 percent of the riparian/wetland areascould limit further improvements toward site potential.Actions that maintain/improve watershed conditions,improve ecological condition, improve vegetationcover and condition, manage nonnative seedings, andmanage forest and woodland areas would have apositive impact in the long term on riparian/wetlandareas by increasing vegetation cover on uplands andreducing erosion into riparian/wetland areas. Impactswould be minimal, however, because improvementfrom these actions would be slow and incremental on avariety of sites scattered throughout the resource area.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM14


4 -15

Juniper removal and prescribed burn projects in uplandportions of watersheds could have positive impacts onriparian/wetland vegetation by improving groundcover, infiltration, soil moisture storage, and watershedconditions in the uplands. Increasing grass, forb, and(eventually) shrub cover is expected to improveinfiltration rates and soil moisture storage.

Management of special status plant species would havea beneficial effect on riparian/wetland vegetationwhere the specific plant species depended on improvedriparian/wetland vegetation. However, emphasizingmanagement for the requirements of individual speciescould minimize overall watershed improvement byconcentrating on local site improvement at the cost ofwider, watershed-level improvement. Incorporation ofspecial status plant species management into allotmentmonitoring and evaluation processes would be benefi-cial where the plant habitat depended on improvedriparian/wetland vegetation.

Control of weeds would improve or maintain water-shed and riparian conditions, which would result in apositive effect to riparian/wetland vegetation. Byreducing competition for water and nutrients, groundcover would improve to species with better soil-holdingcapabilities. Native species protect banks and surviveflood flows better than many introduced and noxiousweeds. Continued public education would help reduceweed spread.

Continued adjustment of management on riparian/wetland areas would be beneficial to riparian functionand water quality. Improvements could be limited bythe restricted goals and objectives permitted under thecurrent plans.

Riparian/wetland vegetation maintenance and restora-tion would improve fish and aquatic habitat; however,improvement limited only to proper functioningcondition could prevent further improvement to sitepotential, as described above.

Managing for proper functioning riparian/wetlandconditions that consider plant community structure,cover, forage, and other riparian habitat elementsimportant to game and nongame wildlife species couldhave positive effects on riparian/wetland vegetationand associated riparian/wetland-dependent wildlifespecies. Deer fawning and riparian/wetland nestinghabitat would improve.

Existing grazing systems have led to improved riparian/wetland conditions, and the option is available tofurther adjust systems and modify or construct

exclosures to meet objectives (grazing systems andtheir effects are described in Appendix E-2 of the DraftRMP/EIS and Appendix E-5). However, objectives aredefined primarily by proper functioning condition, andas discussed in Chapter 2, proper functioning conditionis only a beginning point, with desired range of condi-tion usually being a much more advanced state. Hence,the level of improvement would be limited compared tosetting objectives based on site potential.

Impact of grazing authorization and rangeland projectimplementation on riparian/wetland sites is site-specific. Grazing management on many of these sitesin the resource area has been adjusted to maintain orimprove riparian sites by managing for vegetation andstream channel improvement. Other sites still needmanagement adjustment, mainly small wetland/riparianareas within larger pastures. Project work would onlybe completed with environmental analyses and mitiga-tive measures to protect riparian/wetland function.

Authorization of temporary nonrenewable grazing usecould preclude the accumulation of surplus plant matterfor ground cover, litter development, and enhancementof watershed conditions, riparian/wetland vegetation,and ground-nesting wildlife species. Unauthorizedgrazing use in riparian or wetland pastures could have anegative impact on these resources. If use is detectedearly, this action would have a minimal negative effect.If use occurs over a longer period, it could have anegative effect, if bank-stabilizing or wetland vegeta-tion is removed over authorized levels.

Maintenance of current spring developments forlivestock, wild horse, and wildlife water would havepositive effects on offsite riparian/wetland vegetationby distributing use away from critical riparian/wetlandareas. Water availability away from other wetlandriparian sites distributes use to more locations. Mainte-nance of exclosure fences around spring developmentsand outflows prevents grazing and trampling of vegeta-tion at the spring site. However, by not returningspring flows into their natural channels, loss of ripar-ian/wetland vegetation extent would continue.

Playa or lakebed water development could impact sitescurrently in proper functioning condition but would beallowed only where it did not negatively impactthreatened or endangered plants or animals. Limitingadditional playa and lakebed developments wouldmaintain the current proper functioning condition ofaffected lentic systems and would be a positive impactto wetland conditions. Lakebed development couldchange the water regimes onsite or allow water to betransported offsite, negatively affecting wetland

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM15


4 - 16

vegetation. Lakebed pit construction could penetratethe impermeable subsoil layer in the lakebed and resultin the loss of the water-holding capability of the lake.

Wild horses use the herd management areas year-roundand impact riparian/wetland sites negatively in someareas (especially springs in the Beaty Butte area).These effects include uncontrolled removal of vegeta-tion and trampling. Confining horses to herd manage-ment areas would reduce damage and benefit theriparian resources outside these areas. Effects onriparian/wetland vegetation due to new water develop-ment project implementation would need to be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis, but generally newdevelopments near riparian/wetland areas would have anegative effect if horses had access to remove vegeta-tion. Fences and other management structures couldhave a beneficial effect by preventing use in theseareas.

Managing public lands to primarily provide social andeconomic benefits to local residents, businesses,visitors, and future generations could have potentiallygreater impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation in thefuture.

All wildland fires would have a negative short-termimpact on wetland/riparian vegetation as ground coveris removed and woody species are burned. Short-termeffects from wildland fire in riparian/wetlands that arein proper functioning condition would be less adverse,and functionally, these areas would respond morequickly to revegetation and rehabilitation efforts. Inthe long term, if the fire resulted in increased perennialground cover and resprouting of woody species, itwould have positive effects by improving watershedconditions. Sprouting species, some willows, andquaking aspen would respond more quickly after fire.

Fire control activities, including fire line construction,aerial retardant application, and engine access, canhave negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation.These types of fire control activities cause grounddisturbance that can result in increased sedimentationand nick-points in stream channels. Effects would needto be determined on a case-by-case basis and mitigatedor eliminated where possible.

Rehabilitating burned areas to mitigate the adverseeffects of wildland fire on soil and vegetation in a cost-effective manner and to minimize the possibility ofwildland fire recurrence or invasion of weeds wouldhave a positive effect on riparian/wetland vegetationand would be beneficial by reducing soil loss andsediment production. However, benefits may be

limited, since emergency fire rehabilitation activitiesare implemented on a case-by-case basis followingwildland fire, and a separate environmental assessmentis completed for each emergency fire rehabilitationproject.

Prescribed fire can be an effective tool for increasingground cover and releasing quaking aspen stands fromcompetition with invasive species, and would bebeneficial to riparian/wetland vegetation. At thecurrent level of prescribed fire activity (10,000–20,000acres per year), impacts to riparian/wetland vegetationare minimal and short term. This level, however, maybe inadequate to meet the upland vegetation require-ments to return to a natural fire cycle. Some quakingaspen sites would continue to decline as juniperoutcompeted quaking aspen for water, nutrients, andspace. As with wildland fire, prescribed fire can havesome short-term detrimental effects as ground cover isremoved and erosion and sedimentation increase.These effects can be minimized by prescription design.As ground cover is increased and better soil-holdingvegetation is established by grasses rather than shrubs,riparian wetland sites would benefit in the long term.

Current management of the Warner Wetlands SpecialRecreation Management Area and the remaining publicland as an extensive recreation management area couldcause negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetationon some localized sites. Current recreation develop-ments are minimal and have minimal impacts onriparian/wetland vegetation. Increased public usecould have a negative effect as more people are at-tracted to the area and remove vegetation, alter drain-age patterns, and compact riparian/wetland sites.Controlling public use could have a positive effect.

Continuing the Cabin Lake/Silver Lake Mule DeerWinter Range Cooperative Vehicle Closure could havea positive effect on riparian/wetland vegetation bylimiting off-road travel during a period when soils aresaturated and the potential for erosion is greatest.Managing motorized vehicles in accordance withexisting open and limited designations would continueto cause negative effects on riparian/wetland vegetationon a site-specific basis, since approximately 2.5 millionacres of the resource area are open to OHV’s. Thisallows cross-country travel off of existing roads.Controlling OHV use would have a positive effect bylimiting potential for channelization and vegetationremoval. Organized events would only be authorized ifthere were no effects to riparian/wetland resources.

Effects of energy and mineral exploration, location,development, and production would depend on the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM16


4 -17

location and degree of disturbance. The effects wouldvary from none, to small-scale effects away fromriparian/wetland areas, to major impacts if the explora-tion requires road development and disturbance inriparian/wetland sites. The effects would be similar foroil and gas leasing, geothermal energy, and mineralmaterial disposal. Effects would occur from grounddisturbance that would increase erosion, removeriparian/wetland vegetation, and alter drainage patternsby site and road development. Release of contaminantsby development of ore or materials used in extractioncould impact riparian/wetland vegetation. Water usedin mineral production could dewater streams or reducestream flows.

Right-of-way development in, across, or near riparian/wetland areas (primarily associated with roads) wouldhave a negative impact on riparian function. Develop-ment could result in the loss or constriction of flood-plains, disruption or restriction of channel form, andremoval of vegetation. Surface and subsurface flowswould be disrupted. Drainage patterns could bealtered, creating erosion and incision of channels. Thistype of impact can be observed on several area roadswhere channels have incised because floodplains havebeen narrowed by road construction. Most negativeimpacts to riparian/wetland vegetation would be longterm. Rehabilitation following surface disturbancewould focus on restoring wetlands to normal function-ing conditioning.

Acquiring legal public access to existing, BLM-administered riparian/wetland areas through conserva-tion and scenic easements would ensure future accessto these areas, allow management and monitoring ofthese sites, and should cause no effects to riparian/wetland vegetation. Public use over current levels isnot expected over the life of the plan, so impactsshould not increase. Riparian/wetland acquisitionwould increase public land acreage of these specialhabitats and would benefit riparian/wetland habitatsand water quality as specific management is applied toimprove these acquired sites. Current policy does notallow for the direct sale of these types of habitats out ofthe public domain; therefore, the total acres of thesehabitats would not decrease during the life of the plan.

Construction of new roads or maintenance of existingroads in or through riparian or wetland areas wouldhave a negative impact by reducing vegetation andincreasing potential for soil erosion similar to right-of-way development. Development could result in theloss or constriction of floodplains, disruption orconstriction of channel form, and removal of vegeta-tion. Surface and subsurface flows would be disrupted.

This type of impact can be observed on several arearoads where channels have incised because floodplainshave been narrowed by road construction. The degreeof impact would depend on the extent of the projectwithin the riparian/wetland zone.

Alternative B

Implementation of BMP’s would reduce or eliminatesome of the impacts to riparian/wetland habitatsdescribed below (Appendix D).

Implementation of riparian/wetland restoration projectswould benefit riparian/wetland vegetation. Mainte-nance of spring developments could have positiveimpacts on riparian/wetland vegetation by distributinglivestock use away from riparian/wetland areas,thereby better managing grazing use and trampling ofvegetation.

Actions to maintain/improve watershed conditions,improve ecological condition, improve vegetationcover and condition, manage nonnative seedings, andmanage forest and woodland areas would have impactssimilar to those under Alternative A. However, posi-tive impacts would likely occur more slowly, sinceemphasis would be on the production and use offorage, as well as other commodity uses.

Juniper management would have more positive effectson riparian/wetland vegetation than Alternative A,since up to 75 percent of early- to mid-successionalstands of juniper would be treated. It is not knownexactly what percentage of this juniper managementwould have a direct benefit to riparian/wetland areas.However, projects associated with riparian/wetlandareas would have a high priority to produce moreimprovement to such sites.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,cover, and plant community structure necessary forwildlife are available on public land would not nega-tively effect riparian/wetland vegetation if wildlife andlivestock use did not concentrate in these areas.

Maximizing authorization of temporary nonrenewablegrazing use and increasing livestock grazing use by upto 11,657 AUM’s could further preclude the opportuni-ties to enhance other resource values.

Playa or lakebed water developments could degradesites currently in proper functioning condition andcould have a negative impact to wetland conditions.These effects are described in Alternative A.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM17


4 - 18

Wild horse management impacts could cumulativelyimpact riparian/wetland vegetation if the increase ofdomestic livestock grazing use occurs in the same areaas wild horse use.

Impacts from social and economic uses could beintensified with emphasis on commodity productionand other public use.

Wildland fire and rehabilitation impacts would besimilar to Alternative A. However, short- and long-term prescribed fire impacts could increase with thethreefold increase of prescribed fire activity proposed.Deferment of grazing for a minimum of two growingseasons after wildland or prescribed fire in uplandareas would promote residual ground cover necessaryfor ground-nesting species and protect upland function.

Optimizing management of the Warner WetlandsSpecial Recreation Management Area and expandingmanagement of existing developed and undevelopedrecreation sites could have greater impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation, due to increased visitor use of thearea.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on theopen OHV use designation and maximizing opportuni-ties for organized OHV events could cause morenegative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation bydirectly damaging vegetation and increasing erosion.

The effects on riparian/wetland vegetation from energyand mineral exploration, location, and developmentwould be similar to Alternative A, but of greatermagnitude since it emphasizes commodity production.

The impacts of disposal or exchange of public lands onriparian/wetland habitats would be similar to Al-ternative A.

New road construction and maintenance of existingroads would have a greater potential for impactingwatershed health under this alternative and therefore,have a negative impact on riparian/wetland vegetationby increasing high flows and contributing excesssediment. However, the level of effect could beminimized by following road construction BMP’s forriparian/wetlands.

Alternative C

Implementation of BMP’s would reduce or eliminatesome of the impacts described below (Appendix D).

Western juniper, old growth, snag management, and

bighorn sheep management would have the sameeffects on riparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative B.

Noxious weed management would have the greatestbeneficial impacts to riparian/wetland habitats byeradication of a greater number of weeds within theresource area.

Manage upland habitats so that the forage, water,cover, and structure necessary for game and nongamewildlife species would positively benefit riparian/wetland vegetation. Manage livestock forage produc-tion to support an increase of 8,390 additional wildlifeAUM’s would have a minimal impact on riparian/wetland vegetation.

Reducing domestic livestock grazing authorization by23,015 AUM’s and eliminating livestock grazing inriparian conservation areas would eliminate or reduceimpacts to riparian/wetland habitats associated withlivestock use, including vegetation trampling andoveruse, bank destabilization, and fouling the water.Eliminating authorization of temporary nonrenewablegrazing use and abandonment and rehabilitation ofrangeland projects could also benefit special statusspecies if adequate water is available for use.

Grazing use authorization would be reduced by about21,647 AUM’s, emphasizing other resource values.Grazing impacts would be less from those found inAlternatives A and B, as long as minimum riparianstandards for rangeland health were met. Exclusion oflivestock in riparian/wetland habitats would havebeneficial impacts.

Rehabilitation of spring developments would havepositive effects on riparian/wetland vegetation byreturning all flow to the original channel, as long aslivestock were excluded from these areas. Eliminatingnew playa and lakebed development and rehabilitatingnonfunctioning sites would benefit riparian/wetlandhabitats and return the sites to proper functioningcondition.

Impacts from suppression of wildland fires would begreater than Alternatives A or B. With the increasedupper limit of 640,000 acres burned annually and thepossible designation of areas for wildland fire use,there is a potential for an increased, permanent loss ofriparian/wetland vegetation, depending on where thefires occur and the condition of the habitat prior to theburn. Nonfunctioning riparian/wetland areas could beidentified and not placed in designated wildland fireuse areas. In habitat in proper functioning condition,wildland fire use would cause temporary riparian/

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM18


4 -19

wetland vegetation loss. Emergency fire rehabilitationwould continue to occur to meet resource objectivesand rehabilitate areas in nonfunctioning condition.

Prescribed fires could be designed to mitigate oreliminate habitat losses through the use of BMP’s.Prescribed burn projects could have more impact thanAlternatives A and B, since the upper size limit forprescribed and wildland fires combined would increaseto 640,000 acres per year. Riparian/wetland areas inproper functioning condition would recover from firequicker than those not functioning properly and theimpacts would be short term. These effects would bethe same as described in Alternative A.

Improving ecological conditions and restoration in theuplands after a prescribed or wildland fire wouldbenefit riparian/wetland habitat by maximizing vegeta-tive production, protecting upland function, andcontributing to the continued health of the watershed.Minimum standards for rangeland health would befollowed. Rehabilitation seed mixes would be limitedto native perennial species only.

Managing recreational use in the Warner WetlandsSpecial Recreation Management Area and emphasizingundeveloped, dispersed recreation opportunities inNorth Lake Special Recreation Management Areawould benefit riparian/wetland vegetation.

Managing motorized vehicles with an emphasis on thelimited OHV use designations and restricting organizedOHV events to existing roads and trails would benefitriparian/wetland vegetation.

Effects of energy and mineral exploration, location,development, and production on riparian/wetlandhabitats could vary from small scale to major impacts ifthe exploration requires road development and otherdisturbance. Although all practical measures to main-tain or restore riparian/wetland habitat are required ofall mining operations, impacts to these resources wouldcontinue to occur in the form of localized surfacedisturbance over the short term. The effects would besimilar for oil and gas leasing, geothermal energy, andsolid mineral material disposal. The effects would beless than either Alternatives A or B, since this alterna-tive emphasizes protection of natural values and closescertain areas to mineral entry.

The impacts of disposal or exchange of public lands onriparian/wetland habitats would be similar to Alterna-tive A.

New road construction would have less potential for

impacting watershed health under this alternative andtherefore, would have minimal impacts on riparian/wetland habitat. The level of effect could be mini-mized by following BMP’s, road construction andrehabilitation standards, and adhering to other resourceobjectives. The removal of all roads within riparianconservation areas and other unneeded roads within theresource area would positively impact riparian andwatershed conditions.

Alternative D

Implementation of BMP’s would reduce or eliminatesome of the impacts described below (Appendix D).

Western juniper, old growth, snag management, andbighorn sheep management would benefit riparian/wetland habitat.

Noxious weed management would benefit riparian/wetland habitats, with greater emphasis on restorationof infested areas.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,cover, structure, and security necessary for game andnongame wildlife species would benefit riparian/wetland vegetation. Managing livestock forage pro-duction to support an increase of 9,138 additionalwildlife AUM’s would have a minimal impact onriparian/wetland vegetation.

If standards and compliance with the conditions of the“Bald Eagle Management Area Plan” (USDA-FS 1994)are followed, effects to riparian/wetland vegetationfrom timber management would be minimal.

Grazing impacts on riparian/wetlands would be mini-mized under this alternative as long as minimumstandards for rangeland health were met. Implement-ing livestock grazing systems in riparian conservationareas that promote the recovery or maintenance ofriparian systems to the desired range of conditions(based on site potential) would benefit riparian/wetlandhabitats. The potential for authorization of suspendednonuse and temporary nonrenewable grazing use couldcause impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation; however,these uses would only be authorized if conflicts withother uses would not occur. The abandonment andrehabilitation of rangeland projects that do not contrib-ute to meeting other management objectives couldbenefit riparian/wetland vegetation and allow forrestoration of sites not in functioning condition.

Modification of spring developments would benefitriparian/wetland vegetation by distributing livestock

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM19


4 - 20

use away from riparian/wetland areas, thereby bettermanaging grazing use and trampling of vegetation.

Restricting further playa and lakebed development andinitiating restoration of these systems would benefitriparian/wetland habitats by returning the sites toproper functioning condition.

Impacts from suppression of wildland fires and pre-scribed fire use would be greater than Alternatives A orB and similar to Alternative C. With the increasedupper limit of 640,000 acres burned annually and thepossible designation of areas for wildland fire use,there is potential for the permanent loss of moreriparian/wetland vegetation, depending on where thefires occur and the condition of the habitat prior toburning. Prescribed fires could be designed to mitigateor eliminate losses, and nonfunctioning riparian/wetland areas could be identified prior to the designa-tion of new wildland fire use areas. Emergency firerehabilitation would continue to occur to meet resourceobjectives and rehabilitate areas not in functioningcondition. Riparian/wetland areas in proper function-ing condition would recover more rapidly than thosenot in proper functioning condition, and impacts wouldbe short term.

Improving ecological conditions and restoration in theuplands after a prescribed or wildland fire would havethe same beneficial impacts on riparian/wetland habitatby maximizing vegetative production, and wouldprotect upland function and contribute to the continuedhealth of the watershed. Minimum standards forecosystem health would be followed and seed mixeswould not be limited to native perennial species only.

Management of recreational use in the Warner Wet-lands and North Lake Special Recreation ManagementAreas would benefit riparian/wetland vegetation bylimiting use in these areas.

Managing motorized vehicles with more of an empha-sis (than Alternatives A or B) on the limited OHV usedesignations and restricting organized OHV events toexisting roads and trails would benefit riparian/wetlandvegetation.

Effects of energy and mineral exploration, location,development, and production in riparian/wetlandhabitats could vary from small scale to major impacts ifthe exploration required road development and otherdisturbance. Although all practical measures to main-tain or restore riparian/wetland habitat are required ofall mining operations, impacts to these resources wouldcontinue to occur in the form of localized surface

disturbance over the short term. The effects would besimilar for oil and gas leasing, geothermal energy, andsolid mineral material disposal. The effects would beless since they emphasize protection of natural valuesand close more areas to mineral entry than eitherAlternatives A or B.

The impacts of disposal or exchange of public lands onriparian/wetland habitats would be similar to Alterna-tive A.

New road construction would have less potential forimpacting watershed health than Alternatives A or B.The level of effect could be minimized by followingroad construction and rehabilitation standards andadhering to other resource objectives and BMP’s. Theremoval of any roads within riparian conservation areasthat are impacting the stream and/or riparian zonewould improve riparian and watershed conditions.

Alternative E

Full implementation and maintenance of the WarnerWetlands and Lake Abert ACEC plans would not occurunder this alternative and would cause negative im-pacts to riparian/wetland vegetation from erosion andflooding.

Natural processes would regulate western juniper, oldgrowth, and snag management under this alternative.Juniper expansion would continue causing negativeimpacts to riparian/wetland vegetation.

Special status plant species would not be activelymanaged under this alternative except for futurefederally listed species, as specified in future recoveryplans. This action would have a minimal effect onriparian/wetland vegetation.

Noxious weed management would focus only on highpriority areas to protect adjacent private property andwould have negative impacts on riparian/wetlandhabitats currently infested or occupied in the futureunder this alternative.

Maintenance and restoration would not occur in fishand aquatic habitat, continuing to cause negativeimpacts to riparian/wetland vegetation.

There would be no management of upland habitats(including rangeland improvements) to provide forage,water, cover, structure, and security necessary for gameand nongame wildlife species. This would causenegative effects on riparian/wetland vegetation due toconcentrated wildlife use. Bighorn sheep would be

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM20


4 -21

allowed to disperse naturally and could cause negativeeffects on riparian/wetland vegetation if concentrationoccurs.

Since livestock grazing would be eliminated under thisalternative, there would be no effects from grazingmanagement.

BLM-authorized projects would be limited to thoserequired by law and wild horse survival. BMP’s wouldbe implemented on any new projects. The abandon-ment of all rangeland projects could negatively impactriparian/wetland vegetation by concentrating wildlifeuse. No maintenance or rehabilitation of springdevelopments would occur under this alternative,negatively affecting riparian/wetland vegetation withinnonfunctioning sites. Restoration of playa and lakebedhabitats would not occur under this alternative, nega-tively affecting nonfunctioning riparian/wetland areasand areas at risk in the future.

Wild horses could cause negative impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation if horse numbers increased aboveappropriate management levels and concentrationoccurred.

Social and economic uses would cause the least impactto riparian/wetland vegetation, since no commodityproduction would be allowed from public land.

Prescribed burning would not be initiated under thisalternative. Impacts from wildland fires would be thegreatest under this alternative. The appropriate man-agement response would emphasize initial attack, fullsuppression only to protect human life, and otherFederal, state, or private property. Large tracts ofcrucial wildlife and special status species habitat couldbe burned and left unusable for the life of this plan. Noemergency fire rehabilitation would be completedfollowing a wildland fire. Riparian/wetland areascurrently below proper functioning condition wouldnot be restored after wildland fire. Future conditions ofriparian/wetland areas would be the result of naturalprocesses across the landscape, as no restoration wouldbe conducted.

Managing motorized vehicles with emphasis on limitedand closed OHV use designation and not authorizingorganized OHV events would have the same effects onriparian/wetland vegetation as Alternative C.

The effects on riparian/wetland habitat from the energyand minerals program would be least under this alterna-tive, only authorizing energy and mineral actionsrequired by law.

No riparian or wetland acquisition or disposal wouldoccur under this alternative, negatively affecting thepotential for increase of riparian/wetlands in publicownership.

New road construction would have the least potentialfor impacting watershed health under this alternative.Only new roads required by law would be constructed.The level of impacts could be minimized further byfollowing road construction and rehabilitation stan-dards and adhering to other resource objectives andBMP’s. Road maintenance would not occur under thisalternative. Those roads negatively affecting riparian/wetland areas would continue to cause impacts, andother roads would have potential to cause negativeeffects in the future without regular maintenance.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, riparian/wetland vegetation andassociated wildlife habitats would continue to improve,although recovery rates and extent of recovery wouldbe reduced to allow for commodity uses, includinglivestock, transportation, and recreation. Managementwould continue on a case-by-case basis on a site-specific level with less consideration for watershed-scale effects. The major impacts to riparian/wetlandvegetation are from wildland fire (short-term impact),and the lack of an aggressive juniper/quaking aspenand weed management program (long-term impact).The management goal for riparian/wetland vegetationcould be achieved under this alternative, with theexception of quaking aspen management and thecontinuing encroachment of juniper into these stands.Without immediate treatment, some quaking aspenstands could be lost forever. Wetland areas could alsobe infested with noxious weeds if more effectivechemicals are not approved.

Because of law and policy (“Endangered Species Act”and “Clean Water Act” [CWA], etc.) setting highminimum management standards, the impacts fromAlternative B would be similar to Alternative A, eventhough commodity production would be emphasized.Minimally acceptable conditions would be required,and mitigation would occur on a case-by-case basisrather than on a watershed scale. While improvementswould occur, they would take longer and not be asextensive as under Alternative A. The managementgoal for riparian/wetland vegetation could be achieved,but at a much slower rate due to the emphasis oncommodity production and public use. Noxious weedmanagement would emphasize protection of commod-ity resources as opposed to watershed resources.Juniper management would be more aggressive than

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM21


4 - 22

Alternative A and would have a beneficial impact toriparian/wetland vegetation.

Negative impacts from Alternative C would be muchless than under Alternatives A or B. Recovery rateswould be much faster, resulting in better riparian/wetland vegetation conditions. Watershed-scale effectswould result in more stable conditions. With emphasison protection and restoration of natural values, themanagement goal for riparian/wetland vegetationwould be achieved. This alternative has the mostaggressive weed, juniper, prescribed burning, andwildland fire use management programs, which couldcause greater short-term impacts to riparian/wetlandvegetation. An aggressive emergency fire rehabilita-tion program following wildland fire, coupled withprescribed fire, could be used to restore nonfunctioningriparian/wetland sites.

Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alter-native C; however, recovery rates for riparian/wetlandvegetation would require more time to achieve desiredrange of condition. Slower recovery rates would bedue to less stringent direction to restore watershedfunction, so less improvement would occur. Moreconsideration is given to watershed scale effects thanunder Alternatives A and B. The management goal forriparian/wetland vegetation could be achieved underthis alternative.

Impacts from Alternative E would be similar to Alter-native D; however, without active restoration, currentlynonfunctioning riparian/wetland habitats may neverreach their full potential. Watershed-scale effectswould progress toward natural recovery of uplands, butincreased juniper encroachment would continue tocause negative watershed level effects to riparian/wetland vegetation. By allowing natural processes todetermine the outcome of habitat conditions, themanagement goal for riparian/wetland vegetation maynever be achieved on limited sites under this alterna-tive.


The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impactsto riparian/wetland vegetation are habitat loss, destruc-tion, conversion to less marginal habitat, and loss ofhabitat connectivity. This habitat loss can result fromupstream impacts on other land ownerships from foreststand conversion, channel alteration, water withdrawal,road construction, and other vegetation treatments.

The cumulative effects of conversion of riparian/wetland habitat in combination with the BLM’s pro-

posed alternatives could have major impacts on specialstatus and other wildlife species dependent on thesehabitats. Private landowners have converted anddrained some wetland habitats to create livestockforage and pasture. Channelization and irrigationwater withdrawal on private lands have altered floodand late season flows, which has impacted lowerstream reaches and wetland function. Some privatelandowners have also implemented wetland restorationprojects that restore riparian/wetland function. Activi-ties involving prescribed burning would have to becoordinated with adjacent landowners to minimizecumulative, short-term impacts caused by the combinedactions. The loss of habitat due to noxious weedinvasion could cause severe impacts to riparian/wetland vegetation and special status and other wildlifespecies using these habitats. Integrated weed manage-ment involving all private landowners is essential toprotecting these habitats from noxious weed invasionand establishment.

Actions that have a cumulative effect on watershedfunction, especially in relation to a watershed’s abilityto capture, store, and slowly release water, would effectriparian and wetland vegetation. On United StatesForest Service (USFS) and private lands in the upperelevations of shared watersheds, forest managementpractices such as commercial and precommercialthinning, partial cut and sanitation, salvage sales,prescribed burning, and wildland fire, would causenegative impacts downstream. On most forestedwatersheds in the planning area, equivalent clear-cutacres from timber harvest and road construction(resulting in increased canopy openings and decreasedground cover), along with channel incision andchannelization, have resulted in increased flood flows,increased flood frequency, and floods that occur earlierin the season. The Deep Creek, Silver Creek, andChewaucan watershed assessments/analyses (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1998a; USDA-FS 1997b, 1999)have demonstrated these changes to some degree ineach watershed. The change to earlier, more frequentand intense flood flows has impacted channel form,and thereby fish and aquatic habitat. The cumulativeeffects that created our current conditions are nowbeing reversed as watershed/landscape analyses arecompleted and forest health improvements are imple-mented. Improving forest health should improvewatershed conditions, thus having a beneficial effect onriparian/wetland vegetation. The cumulative effect ofthese projects would build over time to again return tobetter fish and aquatic habitat conditions.

Private land trends are difficult to predict, but moreprograms are available to assist private land owners in

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM22


4 -23

implementation of watershed improvements. Withincreased participation of private land managers, someimprovement in stream conditions is anticipated.

Increased sedimentation could result as roads andculverts are placed. However, effects would need to bedetermined on a case-by-case basis and could beminimized by mitigation.

Forest and Woodlands

Management Goal 1—In commercial (pine) foreststands, maintain or restore forest health and meetwildlife habitat needs.

Assumptions

Due to scattered locations, small area size, harsh sites,and low volumes per acre, management of the commer-cial forest stands for programmed, sustained yield ofcommercial forest products is not economically fea-sible. Treatment of the scattered stands outside SMA's(ACEC/RNA’s, WSR’s, WSA’s, etc.) is usually notfeasible unless combined with similar land on adjacentownerships or as part of a larger landscape treatment.As a result, acres of forest treatments and commercialproduction are not predictable and are not discussedbelow.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternatives A–D

Management of commercial forestlands within SMA'swould be directed by specific plans to protect thespecial values of the area. Outside SMA's, commercialforest stands would be treated on an “opportunity”basis, as described above. Wildland fires whichthreaten commercial stands would be fully suppressedin most cases. Table 4-3 shows a summary of impactsto commercial forestland by alternative.

Alternative E

No stand treatments would be done. Forest stands, as aresult, would typically be dense, overstocked, andstressed. As ladder fuels increased, the risk of cata-strophic loss of entire forest stands from wildland firewould increase over time. Risk of catastrophic lossfrom insects and disease would also increase over time,as trees became more stressed and less resilient.

Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A–D would have similar impacts. Table 4-3 shows that the area of commercial forest withinSMA's is the same across these alternatives (8,739acres, or 60 percent of the total commercial forestland).Management of these forestlands would be guided by,and subordinate to, the management objectives of theSMA's in which they are located. Treatment of thescattered stands outside SMA's is usually feasible onlywhen it can be combined with treatments on adjacentownerships or as part of a larger landscape treatment.Wildland fires which threaten commercial forest standswould be suppressed in most cases. Under AlternativeE, no stand treatments to improve forest health wouldbe done.


The extent of forest health treatments on commercialforestlands, mainly by thinning and prescribed fire,would be uncertain under Alternatives A–D. Sincethese forest stands are relatively small in size, anytreatment would be dependent on landscape-scaleapplications, feasibility to combine with adjacentownerships, or the overall management objectives ofSMA's. Under Alternative E, no stand treatmentswould be done. As understory densities increased,trees would become more stressed and less resilient.Risk of catastrophic loss from insects and stand-replacing fires would increase with time, with little orno natural regeneration of trees due to destruction ofthe seed source and competition for light, nutrients, andwater.

Management Goal 2—Restore productivity andbiodiversity in western juniper woodlands and quak-ing aspen groves.

Alternatives A–D

Outside historic (old growth) sites, western juniperwoodlands would be managed for the enhancement ofother resource values. In areas dominated by invasivejuniper (less than 130 years old), management wouldbe driven by the goal of maintaining or restoring nativegrass or shrub communities after removal of the juniperoverstory.

The concept of a sustained yield of commercial forestproducts does not technically apply, since the speciesitself is classified as noncommercial. A programmedharvest of juniper products on a sustained-yield basis isnot proposed under any alternatives in this plan.However, recovery or salvage of such products as

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM23


4 - 24

firewood, posts, poles, sawlogs, boughs, and biomasswould take place on many of the juniper stands whichhave been burned or identified for treatment (Map V-3)for enhancement of other resource values.

Management of juniper woodlands within ACEC/RNA’s could be further defined in specific plans toprotect the special values of the areas. Management ofjuniper within WSA’s would be limited to wildland fireuse or prescribed fire methods by the “Interim Manage-ment Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review” 1995(wilderness IMP) (USDI-BLM 1995b). Table 4-3shows a summary of impacts to juniper woodlands byalternative. In treated areas, juniper dominance wouldbe generally limited to rocky outcrops, ridges, andother historic (old growth) sites where wildland firefrequency is limited by lower site productivity andsparse fuels. Western juniper would occur at lowdensities in association with vigorous shrubs, grasses,and forbs (where site potential permits). Historicwestern juniper sites would retain old growth charac-teristics.

Under Alternative A, quaking aspen stands would betreated on a case-by-case basis. Treated stands wouldimprove through removal of competing species and/orpromotion of regeneration. Untreated stands wouldcontinue to decline (Wall et al. 2001) due to competi-tion and lack of resprouting. Under Alternatives B, C,

and D, the direction to treat all quaking aspen standswithin the life of the plan would greatly improve standcondition and benefit aspen-dependent wildlife species.

Alternative E

No active restoration treatments would be done inwestern juniper or quaking aspen stands.

Western juniper would continue to dominate invadedsites, as well as historic juniper sites. Western juniperwoodlands would continue to increase in density andarea, except in areas of recent wildland fire. Historicwestern juniper sites would continue to experience anincrease in younger trees, with increased mortality ofindividual old growth juniper on the driest sites.

Quaking aspen stands would continue to decline anddie out (Wall et al. 2001), except after instances ofwildland fire.

Summary of Impacts

Table 4-3 shows the area of juniper woodlands locatedwithin SMA's, ranging from 0 to 28 percent, dependingon the alternative. Management of these juniperwoodlands would be determined by the specificobjectives for the special management area (SMA).Alternative A would maintain the present management

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM24


4 -25

practice of meeting public demand for juniper prod-ucts, while reserving individual snags and old growthtrees within treatment areas. By maximizing juniperharvest and treating up to 75 percent of early- to mid-successional juniper woodlands, Alternative B wouldtreat the largest area of juniper and provide the greatestrelease of native grass and sagebrush communities.Alternatives C and D would treat fewer acres, whileAlternative E would involve no management treatmentsat all.

Alternative A would provide no guidelines for quakingaspen management, while Alternatives B, C, and Dwould prescribe treatment of all quaking aspen standsbeing invaded by western juniper and provide thegreatest benefit to aspen-dependent wildlife species.Alternative E provides no active treatment of quakingaspen stands.


Historic (old growth) juniper sites would be managedto enhance old growth trees (by thinning or fire) underall alternatives except Alternative E. These old growthstands would improve in vigor by removing competi-tive, smaller, invasive trees. In areas dominated byinvasive juniper (less than 130 years old), the greatestimprovement in grass/sagebrush communities wouldoccur through the release of native grasses and sage-brush under Alternative B. Alternatives C and D wouldtreat fewer acres but still improve species compositionon a large scale. Alternative E would result in contin-ued juniper expansion and increased density in existinginvaded areas. Alternative A would not specificallyaddress management of quaking aspen groves, butAlternatives B, C, and D would improve condition ofaspen groves by treating all groves being invaded bywestern juniper, which, in effect, is nearly all aspenstands. Alternative E would involve no treatment andwould allow juniper to take over these stands, with asubsequent decline and termination of the quakingaspen groves.

Special Status Plants

Management Goal 1—Manage public lands tomaintain, restore, or enhance populations andhabitats of special status plant species. Priority forthe application of management actions would be: (1)Federal endangered or threatened species, (2) Fed-eral proposed species, (3) Federal candidate species,(4) State listed species, (5) BLM sensitive species, (6)BLM assessment species, and (7) BLM trackingspecies.

Management Goal 2—Protect, restore, and enhancethe variety of native plant species and communities inabundance and distributions that provide for theircontinued existence and normal functioning.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

The present management is driven by the requirementsof the individual plant species and would emphasizemaintenance rather than restoration and enhancement.Conservation agreements would be written and imple-mented with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) for those species at highest risk. This wouldleave some other special status species at risk and leavelittle emphasis on managing for those specific habitatrequirements.

Management of special status plant species/communi-ties and cultural plant species/communities wouldimprove vegetation community diversity.

Weed invasions into areas where rangeland health hasdeclined or where surface disturbing projects aredeveloped would have a major, adverse impact onspecial status plant populations. Weeds would competedirectly for resources (space, light, water) and couldprevent special status plants from fully occupying theirhistoric ranges. This would be especially true formedusahead invasion in sensitive buckwheat sites, oneof the few noxious weeds that invades these barren ashsoil sites.

The continuation of current livestock grazing practices,including seasons of use, stocking levels, and turn-outlocations, could have an adverse, long-term impact onsome special status plant species. Exclosure fenceshave been constructed at three sites to evaluate theeffect of grazing pressures on special status species:prostrate buckwheat, Columbia cress, and Bogg’s Lakehedge-hyssop. Repeated studies at these sites for thepast 7 years have demonstrated that all three plantspecies have been negatively impacted by livestockgrazing. The prevalence of introduced plants that nowcompete with native species (especially cheatgrass),grazing on the plants, and the direct trampling impactof livestock, suggest that overall impacts on specialstatus species are and would continue to be adverse.Direct impacts to certain species which are known tobe palatable to livestock would continue to be adverseunless sites were fenced or grazing impacts wereotherwise mitigated, such as through a change in theseason of use.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM25


4 - 26

Creation of exclosures around parts of the specialstatus plant species areas have produced a baseline offoraging use (livestock and wildlife) effects for com-parison to nonforaging areas and protected habitat.This data helps with management of the plant speciesand has added to the general biodiversity of the com-munities.

Fire management would have a variety of impacts onspecial status plants. Wildland and prescribed fireshave a positive impact on some of the species. Formany species, there is not enough biomass or fine fuelsto carry a fire in the plant community. Fire suppressionactivities, such as line construction, would avoid plantsites as much as possible. Maps have been preparedwith plant locations for resource fire advisers to use toavoid sites.

Use of heavy equipment in existing ACEC’s, RNA’s,and WSA’s would be avoided and would require lineofficer approval. Use of retardant would not be limitedwithin these areas for initial attack. Use of retardantduring extended attack would be considered as part ofthe wildland fire situation analysis, considering theresource values at risk. Maps showing SMA bound-aries and sensitive and cultural plant species locationswould be available for wildland fire situation analyses.As a result of these precautions, impacts to specialstatus plants or communities from fire suppressionwould be minimal. Management for some specialstatus species and cultural plants that are not firetolerant (unknown for some of the species) mightconstrain the use of prescribed fire.

Seeding or planting of native or exotic plant species tostabilize wildland fire or other disturbed areas or toprovide additional forage for wildlife or domesticlivestock, could alter habitat or affect populations ofspecial status plant species. These actions couldincrease competition for occupation of a site and alternutrient cycling regimes by the extensive use ofnitrogen-fixing species, such as legumes, in theseedings.

An increase in recreation use within areas of highspecial status plant concentrations would result inadverse impacts. This could occur through tramplingand subsequent weed introductions where sites aredisturbed. An increase in OHV activities could resultin long-term adverse impacts on special status plantspecies, particularly those occurring on volcanic ashand sandy soils. Impacts would include destruction ofhabitat, destruction of plants, and weed introductionsresulting in habitat modification and increased compe-tition for resources. Overall, recreation use is antici-

pated to be adverse.

Locatable mining activities, leasable mineral activities,and mineral material disposal activities would have thepotential to impact special status plants and theirhabitats. The extent of impacts would be determinedprimarily by the amount of activity, location, andmining techniques. Leasable mineral activities wouldbe subject to stipulations which generally result inminimal direct impacts to special status plants. Habitatfragmentation could cause long-term indirect negativeimpacts, as gene flows could be disrupted where sitesbecome unavailable for colonization and exotic/noxious weeds are introduced. Mineral materialdisposal activities would have no impact on specialstatus plants because this would not be allowed nearknown occurrences or habitats.

Adjustments in land tenure would generally be benefi-cial, as BLM policy emphasizes retention of publicland with high resource values and would not permitexchange or sale of public land occupied by specialstatus species (unless land of equal or higher biologicalvalue is acquired in exchange). Prior to approval andissuance of any rights-of-way, lease, or permit, siteexaminations for special status plants would be con-ducted; therefore, generally no adverse impact wouldoccur.

Alternative B

Vegetative treatments, including juniper control,prescribed burning, and seedings, could impact specialstatus species, depending on the species, the number ofexotic species within the area, overall ecologicalcondition, and the likelihood that exotics wouldcolonize the sites following treatment. Field surveyswould be conducted prior to treatments; however, dueto the generally large size of such treatments, speciesmay be overlooked and adverse impacts could result ifspecies are uprooted during mechanical treatments.

Increased livestock use would have a short-term impactto special status plant species particularly throughtrampling in concentrated use areas, defoliation of thepalatable species, and potential introduction of weedseeds into new sites. Exclosure fences would beconstructed to protect plant sites; some individual sitescould be lost because of the lag time between establish-ing and confirming monitoring results and constructionof protective exclosures. Long-term impacts would beslight to moderate to species as a whole; direct long-term negative impacts to certain species which areknown to be palatable to livestock would continue atmost sites, except those areas fenced to exclude

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM26


4 -27

livestock.

Depending on the number of projects proposed,construction of new projects could result in long-termindirect adverse impacts on some species if the projectsresulted in moving livestock into areas that werepreviously used lightly. In some cases, special statusplants could benefit by improved dispersion of live-stock. This action may result in numerous indirectimpacts to species, particularly through introduction ofweed seeds and potential reduction in seral stages atlocalized sites.

As in Alternative A, locatable mining activities, leas-able mineral activities, and mineral material activitieswould have the potential to impact special status plantsand their habitats. In the Devils Garden, if not desig-nated wilderness, all lava resources would be availablefor commercial collection. Though no special statusplants are known to exist in the area, one rare Mimulusspecies may grow there. Inventories would have to becarried out before mining occurs. Lake Abert would beopen to mining salts in the lake. This does not threatenany plant species, but extraction, development, andother disturbances related to mining could have anadverse impact on special status plants.

Fire management would have the same potentialimpacts as Alternative A, as would the seeding orplanting of native or exotic plant species to provideadditional forage for wildlife or domestic livestock orto stabilize disturbed areas.

An increase in recreation uses in areas of high plantconcentrations would result in adverse impacts tospecial status plant species. This could occur throughtrampling and subsequent weed introductions wheresites are disturbed. Overall, recreation use would beslight to moderately adverse, depending on concentra-tions of recreational use. OHV activities would havethe same types of impacts as in Alternative A.

Impacts from adjustments in land tenure and rights-of-way, leases, or permits would be the same as Alterna-tive A.

Alternative C

This alternative would manage for desired range ofconditions by using a mix of restoration and enhance-ment measures for special status plant species, and byusing protection measures only where there are noopportunities for restoration. It would emphasize landmanagement that fosters overall community health,habitat integrity, and landscape-level issue resolution,

as well as meeting the requirements of individualspecies and their habitats. Conservation agreementswould be developed to protect and monitor specialstatus plant species and habitats. There also would bemore emphasis to conduct systematic inventories ofpopulations and distributions of special status plantspecies where baseline information does not currentlyexist.

Vegetation treatment impacts would be the same asAlternative B. However, there would be fewer treat-ments, and less acreage would be treated and impacted.

Wildland fire management impacts would be the sameas Alternative B, with special status plant speciesconsidered in all suppression actions. Since mostsensitive plants are adapted to fire, the implementationof more prescribed fire, compared to Alternatives A andB, would not significantly impact sensitive plantspecies. Prescribed fire is recommended at CaveSprings (which is now fully protected from grazing byfencing) as a method of clearing vegetation, which iscompeting with the reestablishment of desert allocarya.Several other methods of reestablishing this extirpatedspecies have been attempted, and all have failed.

Livestock grazing would decrease AUM’s by 20percent, and no temporary nonrenewable grazing usewould be authorized, thus lessening the adverse effectson sensitive plants. This would be especially true inareas where livestock grazing has been documented tohave a direct effect on specific special status plants.Studies have shown, using existing exclosure fencesaround part of the communities, that special statusspecies plants are being threatened by grazing ofwildlife, livestock, and wild horses. Fencing wouldprotect populations of Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop,prostrate buckwheat, Cusick’s buckwheat, snowlinecymopterus, and Columbia cress from livestock andwild horses.

Observation and monitoring have demonstrated thatwild horses prefer areas that are open and similar to theash-flow, open soil areas of sensitive plant species.Horses tend to destructively congregate in these areasand mark them with their dung piles. In the BeatyButte Herd Management Area, horse trails cross severalsensitive plant species areas. While the AUM’s offorage for wild horses would not change in either herdarea, wild horse impacts would still occur. The popula-tion of Crosby’s buckwheat near Fish Fin in BeatyButte, and possibly Cusick’s buckwheat and snowlinecymopteris in the Black Hills, would need to bemonitored to determine if horses are causing damage tothose populations. Horses range and graze much

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM27


4 - 28

differently than livestock; the ashy hills where thebuckwheats grow are regularly visited by wild horses.Wild horse hoof action and creation of trails kill theplants that are barely surviving in these hostile habitats.

Nine of the ACEC’s (proposed and existing) havespecial status species growing within them and wouldbe managed, in part, to enhance those values. CreatingACEC’s with special management would have benefi-cial effects for both plants and their habitats within theACEC boundaries. The added protection of overlap-ping WSA boundaries exists on about 115,652 acres.In these nine ACEC’s, careful consideration would begiven to mitigate or deny authorization of activities thatcould have a potentially negative effect on the plants orhabitats. What may be good for other resources (suchas project developments) could have a negative impacton the plants or their habitats. WSR designation ofGuano Creek in the area of Crosby’s buckwheat andgrimy ivesia would limit mining activity and otherpotentially surface-disturbing activities.

Benefits to be derived from OHV restrictions wouldinclude elimination of OHV disturbance for specific,vulnerable special status plants and their populations.The likelihood that OHV activity would bring weedseed into species habitat would be reduced; however,weed establishment may still occur through othermeans. In addition, limitations in all ACEC/RNA’s todesignated roads and trails would provide protection toplant sites. Benefits would occur to sites currentlyidentified as vulnerable to OHV activity, and emer-gency closure procedures would be used if new con-flicts were identified. OHV activity in parts of thevolcanic ash and sand complexes, where limitationswould not be imposed, would result in certain plantsbeing vulnerable to direct and indirect impacts in theshort term.

Locatable mining activities, leasable mineral activities,and mineral material disposal would be much morerestricted than Alternatives A or B, including mineralwithdrawal for most of the Red Knoll ACEC. Therewould be less possibility of disturbance to sensitiveplant sites by mineral extraction, access road construc-tion, or other supporting activities.

Issuance of any rights-of-way, leases, or permits wouldhave the same impacts as Alternative A. Adjustmentsin land tenure would be advantageous to special statusplants. This alternative places emphasis on acquiringland of high habitat quality and containing othersignificant biological resources, including specialstatus species. An opportunity to acquire a privatesection of Mud Creek (20 acres) through the coopera-

tion of The Nature Conservancy, would protect Oregonsemaphore grass (Pleuropogon oregonus), the onlyFederal candidate for listing in Lake County. There isalso an opportunity to reintroduce this species in otherlocations on Mud Creek from grass stock grown atOregon State University.

Alternative D

This alternative is similar to Alternative C, except thatprotection of habitats or populations would have equalmanagement weight with that of habitat restoration orenhancement. Conservation agreements would bedeveloped to protect special status plant species andhabitats. Conservation strategies would then be writtento ensure the continuance of these species. Systematicinventories of populations and distributions of specialstatus plant species would be conducted as in Alterna-tive C.

Vegetation treatment impacts would be similar toAlternative C, particularly those associated withprescribed fire treatments.

Livestock grazing would be the same as Alternative A.The current livestock grazing practices, includingseasons of use, stocking levels, and turnout locations,would have an adverse long-term impact on somespecial status plant species. Even though administra-tive solutions would be emphasized for rangelandprojects, fencing would be required in several areas toprotect special status plant species from grazing bywild horses and livestock. Special status speciesmanagement objectives would be incorporated intoallotment monitoring and evaluation processes, as in allother alternatives.

While the AUM’s of forage allocated to wild horseswould not change in either herd area, wild horseimpacts would still occur. The population of Crosby’sbuckwheat near Fish Fin in Beaty Butte and possiblyCusick’s buckwheat and snowline cymopteris in theBlack Hills, would need to be monitored to determineif horses were causing damage. Although horsesusually are not in the Black Hills, Cusick’s buckwheatand snowline cymopteris monitoring would need toinclude horse presence and use of area. Hoof actionand trails would kill the plants that are barely survivingin these fragile ash habitats.

Nine of the ACEC’s (proposed and existing) havespecial status species growing within them and wouldbe managed, in part, to enhance those values. Theadded protection of overlapping WSA boundariesexists. In these nine ACEC’s, careful consideration

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM28


4 -29

would be given to mitigate or deny authorization ofactivities that could have a potentially negative effecton the plants or habitats. These actions, combined withconservation agreements, would provide protection forthe habitat and individual plant species.

OHV designations in the open class would be less thanAlternative A; for the limited class, they would besubstantially higher than Alternatives A or B, but lessthan Alternative C; for closed class, they would beslightly more than Alternatives A or B (Table 4-5).These designations, coupled with an increase inrecreation use within areas of high special status plantconcentrations, could result in adverse impacts. Recre-ation use is anticipated to have a moderately adverseeffect on special status plants and communities.

Wildland fire management impacts would be the sameas Alternative C, with special status plant speciesconsidered in all suppression actions. A prescribed fireto help with the reintroduction of desert allocarya atCave Springs would be proposed.

Locatable mining activities, leasable mineral activities,and mineral material disposal would have the sameimpacts as Alternative C, except that there would beless area proposed for withdrawal in the Red KnollACEC, allowing a possible sight increase in distur-bance by mineral extraction, access roads, and othersupporting activities.

Issuance of any rights-of-way, leases, or permits wouldbe the same as Alternative A. Adjustments in landtenure would be advantageous to special status plantsand would be the same as Alternative C.

Alternative E

Lack of aggressive weed control would have thepotential to result in severe long-term adverse impactsto numerous sensitive species, particularly those alongroads and trails where vehicle use may import weeds.Noxious weeds would spread into plant sites, physi-cally displacing populations, preventing normalreproductive processes, and causing water competitionon ash soil sites.

Absence of livestock grazing would have a beneficialimpact on those special status plants currently grazedor trampled by livestock. In addition, livestock as amechanism for transporting noxious weeds into newareas would be eliminated. With no project develop-ment, mining or other similar disturbances, naturalprocesses would benefit special status plant species.Wild horse impacts would be similar to Alternatives B,

C, and D.

If prescribed fire is not allowed, many plant communi-ties that are on the threshold of becoming decadent ordesertified would eventually become cheatgrass/meduashead communities or would be overcrowdedwith shrubs at the expense of the perennial grass/forbunderstory (Figure 4-1). This action would have adirect impact on special status plants, many of whichare already in soils and locations where conditions aremarginal for survival. Fire suppression to protect lifeand property could result in certain sites burningrepeatedly within a short time. This may have anadverse effect on plant communities in an early seralstage and would adversely affect some special statusspecies. However, a beneficial impact may be thatminimal direct physical damage would occur to plantsites as a result of fire suppression activities.

Lack of recreation management and uncontrolledrecreation activities would result in detrimental effects,such as trampling, harvesting damage, and weedintroduction in special status species habitats. Theseeffects would occur in areas where recreational activi-ties, such as hiking and camping, are likely to increase.

With cross-country OHV use eliminated, sensitiveplant sites would receive full protection from short-term trampling and long-term trails caused by OHVactivity. The removal of OHV vehicles in the SandDunes would have a positive effect, increasing thepossibility that native plants, even special statusspecies, would return to previously disturbed areas.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, special status plant species andtheir habitat could continue to improve, althoughrecovery rates and extent of recovery would vary andcould be reduced to allow for commodity uses. Mitiga-tion would occur on a case-by-case basis rather than ona watershed or larger scale. While improvementswould occur, they would take longer. The majorimpacts to special status plant species are from wild-land fire (short-term impacts and in some cases,depending on plant species, beneficial), the weedmanagement program (long-term impact), grazingimpacts from wild horses and livestock, and recreation(especially OHV impacts). The management goals forspecial status plant species and their habitats could beachieved under this alternative with added protectionby fencing. Alternative A would have an overallbeneficial impact and would facilitate meeting theobjectives for most special status plants and theirhabitats.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM29


4 - 30

Under Alternative B, in habitats that would be heavilyimpacted, special status plant species may decline orremain at low levels, potentially contributing to Federallisting of some plant species. Species would beprotected individually with little regard for overallhabitat health. The objective for special status plantsmay not be met for species found in heavily impactedareas and where general ecological health is critical tospecies survival. Overall, this alternative wouldprovide for maintenance of special status plant species,but there is a risk that some species and sites mayreceive significant adverse impacts and require fencingor other mitigation to meet the objectives.

The overall impact of Alternative C would be positive.Major threats would include OHV activities at the mostcritical plant sites, management of livestock grazing,and project development placement. All could bemitigated by early planning of activities. Beneficialimpacts would be obtained with retention and estab-lishment of ACEC’s, because numerous plant popula-tions would be given priority management protectionwithin adequate boundaries for species and habitatrepresentation within a full range of variation. Theemphasis on restoration or enhancement would havemore importance than protection and maintenancemeasures. Alternative C would have an overall benefi-cial impact and would facilitate meeting the objectivesfor most special status plants and their habitats.

Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alter-native C, especially with the establishment of newACEC’s; however, recovery rates for special statusplant species habitat would require more time toimprove. The emphasis would be a balance of protec-tion of habitats and populations with equal weight onrestoration and enhancement. The overall impact ofAlternative D would be slightly more positive thanAlternative A. However, this alternative has severalthreats to these plants and their communities: theamount of area open to OHV activities, the samelivestock grazing goals, increased wildhorse use, andsimple ignorance of the special status plants. Plantsand activities potentially affecting them would need tobe monitored. The ACEC designations would createbeneficial impacts, as would restoration plans forimpacted habitats. Numerous plant populations wouldbe given priority management protection withinadequate boundaries for species and habitat representa-tion within a full range of variation.

Impacts from Alternative E would be similar to Alter-native D, but there would be no disturbance frompermitted activities and active restoration (there wouldbe no restoration or enhancement and no protective

fences). The overall impact on special status plantswould be negative. Although there would be nolivestock grazing, there would be negative wildlife andwild horse impacts. Lack of noxious weed control andwildland fire suppression would be critical factorscausing displacement of plants at certain sites. Duringthe life of this plan, the management goal for specialstatus plant species and their associated habitats maynever be achieved in horse herd areas, areas of repeatedwildland fires, and where noxious weeds would not becontrolled because of allowing natural processes todetermine the outcome of habitat conditions. Thiscould contribute to the Federal listing of some plantspecies.


The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impactsto special status plant species would be habitat degra-dation or loss (threatening viability of populations),destruction of the plants, and loss of habitat connectiv-ity and variability.

The impacts from activities implemented on theadjacent public lands creates additional cumulativeimpacts on the landscape scale. Oregon Department ofTransportation (ODOT) coordinates with the BLM forspraying of noxious weeds so special status species invulnerable areas may be protected. The USFS andUSFWS contact the BLM for possible joint impacts,such as fence building, road maintenance, and otheractions on their respective administered lands. TheONHP is the data steward for the State and the BLMspecial status plant species; however, it is not involvedin management of those species on Federal lands.

Wild horses from outside the Beaty Butte Herd Man-agement Area could constitute a threat to special statusplant species as they move from adjacent ownerships.The BLM manages the herds on BLM land and coordi-nates with the other agencies, but the cumulativeeffects still occur.

In the writing of conservation agreements, the BLMtakes into account the entire range and distribution of aspecial status plant species. The cumulative effects of“threats” across the entire range of these species isimportant in creating conservation strategies. Anexample is grimy ivesia: there are only 31 plants in theplanning area; however, on the Sheldon NationalAntelope Refuge in Nevada, there are a relatively largenumber of plants. By analyzing all populations andtheir ecology, conservation strategies could be pro-posed.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM30


4 -31

Land use authorizations could result in substantialsurface disturbance, whereby special status plantscould be indirectly impacted by fragmentation ofhabitat or introduction of exotic plants from disturbedareas.

One potential threat to special status plants is thegradual warming of the atmosphere and increase ofcarbon dioxide; this combination could have a long-term impact on sensitive plant species that are finelyadapted to their environment. The BLM cannot changethese impacts, but would consider them in viewing allimpacts on special status plant species.

Noxious Weeds and CompetingUndesirable Vegetation

Management Goal—Control the introduction andproliferation of noxious weeds and competing unde-sirable plant species, and reduce the extent anddensity of established populations to acceptable levels.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Projects or activities designed to maintain or improvewatershed function, rangeland health, and wildlifehabitat would involve ongoing efforts to control weedsto protect/restore plant diversity. Improvements inecological function would have a positive impact, inthat weeds would be less likely to invade, althoughthere would still be some risk of plant establishment.Maintaining and restoring habitat in good conditionwould reduce the risk of weed invasion. Improvedrange condition would result in a decreased likelihoodof weed establishment and an increased resiliency toweed invasion. Conversely, any resource activity ormanagement action which results in ground disturbancecould increase the risk of weed invasion and establish-ment.

Construction and maintenance of projects, use of heavyequipment, livestock grazing, fire suppression, andrecreation activities could all contribute to the spreadof existing weeds and the introduction of new species.People, vehicles, equipment, livestock, and wildlifecoming from outside the planning area could bringweeds with them and could spread existing infesta-tions. Weeds could be introduced through contami-nated seed, mulch, and forage. Cleaning equipmentprior to any maintenance or construction activity andbefore leaving the job site (if the site is already in-

fested) would reduce the risk of seed and plant partmovement to other areas. Awarding contracts forprojects to local contractors could reduce the risk ofintroduction and spread of new weeds from outside theplanning area.

Ten-mile maintenance buffers between domestic sheep/goats and bighorn sheep would preclude the use ofsheep or goats as weed control agents within the bufferarea. Weed-infested areas where sheep and goatswould be effective in controlling weeds are currentlylocated within this 10-mile buffer. The potential fordisease transmission exists for bighorn sheep whichstray outside of their occupied habitat if domesticsheep and goats are being used for weed control. Aprohibition on the disturbance of raptor nest/roost sitesmay preclude weed treatment activities within a certaindistance from a nest/roost and at certain times of theyear.

Deferring grazing following fire would reduce the riskof weed invasion by eliminating a possible mechanismof seed dispersion and the likelihood of increaseddisturbance, allowing desirable vegetation to becomeestablished. Reducing stocking levels, maintainingnonnative seedings in a vigorously productive state,and rehabilitating projects that do not meet manage-ment objectives would decrease the risk of weedinvasion and establishment. However, livestock waterdevelopments would encourage concentrated usearound waterholes, which would likely result in bareground, providing a site for weed establishment. Onceestablished, the weeds could be easily spread byanimals to uninfested areas. Temporary nonrenewablegrazing use in weed-infested areas could increase therisk of weed spread. The potential impacts resultingfrom the authorization of temporary nonrenewablegrazing use could be mitigated by not allowing tempo-rary nonrenewable grazing use in weed-infested areasduring a time when propagules can be transportedelsewhere by livestock or vehicles. The potentialimpacts resulting from livestock grazing could bemitigated by not allowing livestock in weed-infestedareas during a time when propagules can be transportedelsewhere. Livestock arriving from outside the plan-ning area could be held in feedlots to allow weed seedto pass through the digestive system and fall off thecoat. Requiring certified weed-free seed, mulch, andforage could reduce the risk of weed introduction tonew areas.

The maintenance of wild horse numbers and lowpriority for restoration of poor condition rangelands inthe Paisley Desert Herd Management Area wouldcontribute to deteriorated range condition and could

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM31


4 - 32

increase the risk of weed invasion and establishment.

Weed control in WSA’s and ACEC’s would be carriedout according to special guidance to protect or enhanceresource values. Weeds found on acquired lands whichare adjacent to or within existing WSA’s that meetwilderness criteria would be aggressively controlled.Weed control would benefit the natural values found inthese SMA's.

Prescribed fire would have a beneficial impact as aweed control method and as a tool to stimulatereestablisment of native plants. This would be a part ofan integrated weed management prescription to achieveresource objectives. However, some weed species arestimulated by fire and are better able to take advantageof the disturbance than more desirable native plants.Fire suppression activities could introduce weeds whenfire equipment and supporting resources are brought infrom areas outside the planning area. Existing weedscould be spread to other areas. Emergency fire reha-bilitation activities would reduce the risk of weedinvasion by reestablishing vegetation on burned sites;however, these activities could potentially introduce orspread weeds through equipment and vehicle use orcontaminated seed. Mitigation measures would beimplemented to reduce this possibility.

Motorized vehicles could introduce weeds fromelsewhere and/or spread existing weeds along ways andtrails. Driving cross-country could open up undis-turbed areas to weeds spread by vehicles and couldestablish a conduit for weed movement. However, theincreasing demand for recreation would present anincreased opportunity to provide weed educationmaterials. Restricting some recreation uses/accesscould reduce the risk of introduction and the spread ofweeds. Allowing organized OHV events wouldprovide an opportunity to educate large groups aboutweeds. Closing roads decreases the risk of weedsbeing introduced and spread by vehicles.

All Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I areas(Map VRM-1 of the Draft RMP/EIS) would requirediligent, ongoing inventory and control of weeds.Large weed patches seen from a distance could detractfrom the visual resource value.

Mining and road construction/maintenance actionscould contribute to the spread of existing weeds and theintroduction of weed species.

Corridors and rights-of-way tend to be hot spots forweeds. They act as conduits for weed spread andestablishment. Acquiring access through weed-infested

properties is possible. Mitigation measures couldinclude locating access routes to avoid weed-infestedareas and cooperation with willing landowners tocontrol infestations as access is acquired.

Alternative B

The “Abert Rim Weed Management Area Plan” (USDI-BLM 1995e) would be expanded to provide guidancefor the proposed Greater Abert Weed ManagementArea. This area would include all lands within theAbert Subbasin. The plan would be modeled after the“Warner Basin Weed Management Area Plan” (USDI-BLM 1999g). The Abert Subbasin includes lands ofseveral jurisdictions. Noxious weeds and undesirableplants are invading and expanding in the subbasin (justas they are in other parts of the planning area). Thedevelopment of a cooperative weed managementstrategy for the basin would benefit all lands in thesubbasin. Presently, the weed infestations are stillreasonably manageable. If a cooperative effort tocontrol weeds across the subbasin is not adopted, theweed problem would get much worse. Losses towildlife habitat, water quality, forage production,silviculture, agricultural production, and recreationvalues would accelerate.

Projects or activities which maintain or improvewatershed function, rangeland health, and wildlifehabitat, as well as management actions which result inground disturbance, would have the same impactdescribed under Alternative A. The emphasis onincreased commodity production would provide greateropportunities for weed introduction, spread, andestablishment. As such, the weed program would needto become more aggressive with increased efforts ineducation, prevention, early detection, and control.People, vehicles, equipment, livestock, and wildlifecoming from outside the planning area would have thesame impact as in Alternative A.

Projects such as fencing, mining, vegetation projects tooptimize forage production and use by livestock andwildlife, juniper harvest, increased prescribed fire, andcommercial use in the Sunstone Collection Area wouldcause more disturbance to soil and vegetation andwould increase the potential for weed invasion.

Wild horse impacts on weed introduction and expan-sion would be similar to Alternative A. Even if num-bers of horses were reduced, there would likely be asubsequent increase in livestock use with similarimpacts on weed introductions and expansion.

OHV, VRM, mining, land tenure, rights-of-way, and

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM32


4 -33

road construction/maintenance actions would have thesame types of impact as Alternative A, but would likelybe of greater magnitude.

Alternative C

Impacts of developing and implementing the “GreaterAbert Weed Management Area Plan” would be thesame as described under Alternative B.

Projects or activities which maintain or improvewatershed function, rangeland health, and wildlifehabitat, as well as activities or management actionswhich result in ground disturbance, would have thesame impact that is described under Alternative A. Theemphasis on protection of natural values under thisalternative would dictate that the weed program be themost aggressive. A zero-tolerance policy for noxiousweeds would result in eradication attempts on allexisting sites, increased efforts in inventory andeducation, and restoration of all weed sites toward thereestablishment of native species.

The actions proposed under this alternative, such asfewer range improvements, less emphasis on providinglivestock forage, excluding livestock from streams,springs, and riparian and wetland areas, no temporarynonrenewable grazing use, rehabilitation projects usingnative species only, removal of roads in riparian areas,increased mineral restrictions, and limiting OHV use toexisting roads and trails, would have a positive impactin that these actions would result in a decreasedlikelihood that weeds would be introduced and existinginfestations would be less likely to spread.

Actions pertaining to prescribed fire, wildland fire use,and wild horses would have the same impact as Alter-native A.

Alternative D

Impacts of developing and implementing the “GreaterAbert Weed Management Area Plan” would be thesame as described under Alternative B.

Projects or activities which maintain or improvewatershed function, rangeland health, and wildlifehabitat, as well as activities or management actionswhich result in ground disturbance, would have thesame impact as Alternative A. Since this alternativestrives to strike a balance between protecting andimproving natural values while providing commodityproduction, the weed program would be expanded frompresent management. Inventory, control, and restora-tion efforts would increase. Education and outreach

efforts would be expanded to include areas outside ofLake County in an attempt to prevent other speciesfrom spreading into the planning area.

Livestock grazing impacts would be similar to Alterna-tive A. Increasing AUM’s for wild horses and increas-ing the appropriate management level in the PaisleyDesert Herd Management Area would cause moredisturbance to soil and vegetation and increase thepotential for weed invasion and establishment.

Actions pertaining to prescribed fire and wildland fireuse would have the same impact as Alternative A.

Actions such as limiting OHV use to designated orexisting roads and trails in some areas (Map R-7),removing livestock from streams which are functioningat risk or nonfunctioning, and restricting mineraldevelopment (Maps M-8, -9, and -10) would have apositive impact. There would be a decreased likeli-hood that weeds would be introduced and existinginfestations would be less likely to spread.

VRM, land tenure, rights-of-way, and road construc-tion/maintenance actions would have the same types ofimpact as Alternative A.

Alternative E

Since uses would be limited, commodity productionexcluded, and natural processes maximized, theimpacts to weeds would be both positive and negative.The exclusion of commodity production activitieswould generally be positive in that there would befewer opportunities for ground disturbance and trans-port of plant parts by people and equipment associatedwith the commodity use. Only high priority noxiousweed species and infested areas on BLM land would betreated to prevent spread to adjacent private property.

Activities which maintain or improve watershedfunction, rangeland health, and wildlife habitat, as wellas management actions which result in ground distur-bance, would have the same impact that is describedunder Alternative A. Maintaining roads for administra-tive access, maintaining existing water developmentscrucial to wildlife and wild horses, and removingriparian exclosures could result in ground disturbance,which would increase the risk of weed introduction andestablishment.

Impacts from wild horses would be the same as de-scribed in Alternative D.

The lack of active fire rehabilitation following wild-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM33


4 - 34

land fire could have detrimental effects if the firepasses through a weed-infested area. Many weedspecies are encouraged by fire and could dominate thesite following a fire if no rehabilitation is implemented.

Summary of Impacts

Under all alternatives, the introduction and spread ofweeds would continue. Any management action whichresults in ground disturbance could increase the risk ofweed invasion and establishment. The degree to whichthe introduction and spread of weeds can be controlledvaries by alternative. In Alternative A, weeds wouldcontinue to invade from areas outside the planningarea, though the size and number of existing infesta-tions could decrease with continued treatment. InAlternative B, there would be an increased risk of weedintroduction and establishment because of increases incommodity production that would bring additionalequipment and people to the area, possibly bringingweeds from elsewhere or spreading existing infesta-tions. In Alternative C, the short-term risk of weedintroduction and establishment would be high asrestoration projects were implemented, disturbing theground surface. In the long term, the risk of weedinvasion would decrease as improvements in ecologicalfunction occur. Under Alternative D, the risk of weedintroduction and establishment could decrease asinventory, control, and education efforts are expanded.The impact in Alternative E would be mixed. Theexclusion of permitted uses and commodity productioncould provide less opportunity for weed introductionand establishment. However, the lack of restorationand fire rehabilitation could lead to an increase inweeds spread.


At the present time, the Fremont National Forest doesnot have a comprehensive, well-established weedmanagement program. As a result, the forest wouldcontinue to be a source of weed infestation since theheadwaters of many of the streams on the planning areaare located on the forest. Weed seeds would continueto travel downstream onto BLM-administered lands.

If the injunction against the use of certain herbicides islifted in the future, it would facilitate the control anderadication of weeds on BLM-administered lands.However, it is likely that regardless of the methodsused to control weeds, their introduction and spreadwould continue for the foreseeable future.

Soils and Microbiotic Crusts

Management Goal—Manage soil and microbioticcrusts on public lands to maintain, restore, or en-hance soil erosion class and watershed improvement.Protect areas of fragile soil using best managementpractices (BMP’s).

Analysis of Impacts

The lack of specific data from the planning area makesimpact analysis difficult, if not impossible. However,there is some scientific evidence that is pertinent.Ponzetti (2001) states that “. . . biotic crust responses torecovery from grazing in Oregon appear similar to thatof other arid and semi-arid ecosystems.” This data “. . .demonstrates overall effects of grazing on lichen andbryophyte soil crusts of Oregon, rather than merelysite-specific responses. Slightly lower mean speciesrichness of crusts was found in the currently grazedpastures.” This is consistent with data from other partsof the western continental United States and Australia.In general, “. . . biotic crusts from shrub steppe habitatsin Oregon are likely to develop greater species richnessif they are protected from livestock grazing. However,the magnitude of that difference and the years ofprotection required to realize an increase in richnessremains unknown and may vary from site to site.”

Ponzetti found lower crust cover in currently grazedsites. This is consistent with research in the southwest-ern United States but has not been documented for theColumbia or Northern Great Basins. “Since bioticcrusts are known to increase soil stability and reductionin biotic crust cover and surface roughness increasesthe potential for soil loss. Other functional attributesof crusts may be affected by reduced cover, includingcontributions of nutrients and soil organic matter.”They concluded that within the study region, “. . .biotic soil crust communities are more sensitive tolivestock disturbance than vascular plant communi-ties.” If the data being collected by ecological siteinventory or other research is similar to these conclu-sions, microbiotic crust analysis may need to becomean integral part of rangeland health assessment and infuture management decisions.

Alternative A

BMP’s (Appendix D) are implemented on a case-by-case basis and are not always applied. As a result,impacts to soils can occur from the construction ormaintenance of roads, range improvements, and othersurface-disturbing projects. Impacts include soil

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM34


4 -35

compaction from vehicle, livestock, or wild horse useand loss of soil offsite by wind and water erosion.Soils currently in poor condition in the Paisley Desertand Sheeprock areas would remain a low priority forrestoration and would possibly get worse.

Domestic livestock and wild horses would continue tohave negative impacts to soils by increased compactionat waterholes and along trails. Overuse of vegetationcould degrade soil conditions. Areas with poor soilconditions would remain in poor condition. Livestockgrazing has a different effect on crusts depending onsoil types. Livestock use that does not implement rest/rotation strategies that minimize frequency of surfacedisturbance during dry seasons and maximizes periodsbetween disturbances may need to be changed toreduce impacts to biological soil crusts (Belnap et al.2001). Little information exists on the effects of horsepopulations on biological crusts; however, hoof distur-bances along regular trails could cause long-lasting lossof crust cover.

Both prescribed fire and wildland fire remove vegeta-tion and microbiotic crusts which could lead to in-creased soil erosion. Wildland fires tend to burn athigher temperatures than prescribed fires and couldsterilize the soil, killing soil microbes, destroying seedsources, and volatilizing soil nutrients such as nitrogen.Areas burned by wildland fire would be rehabilitatedon a case-by-case basis. Burned areas would be restedfrom livestock grazing for a minimum of two growingseasons. This would eventually provide vegetativecover and reduce soil erosion.

Soil compaction and erosion would occur in localizedareas with high concentrations of recreation users, suchas developed or primitive campgrounds.

Leaving a high percentage of the planning area open toOHV use (Table 4-5) could have an impact on soils.Vehicles would be able to drive off existing roads andways, which would result in soil compaction, therebyslowing or preventing water infiltration and causingerosion.

Soils would be impacted by continued mining activityat the existing Tucker Hill Perlite Mine west of ValleyFalls, the Oil-Dri diatomaceous earth mining operationin Christmas Valley, and the sunstone mining claims inWarner Valley, as well as mining proposals that couldarise in the future (Table 4-6). Soils could be removedoffsite or lost to erosion. To minimize this impact andto aid in reclamation of mined sites, soil would bestockpiled onsite and seeded, as needed, to stabilizesoil movement and retain organic matter.

Using the ICBEMP road density classification, currentroad density in the planning area is very low to moder-ate (ranging from 0.02 to 1.7 miles of road per squaremile; Map R-4 of the Draft RMP/EIS). This roaddensity level would not have a significant impact onsoils, except in localized areas where roads passthrough highly-erodible soils. The projected level ofnew road construction and average annual road mainte-nance levels would not cause a significant impact onsoils.

Alternative B

Implementing BMP’s (Appendix D) on all projectswould reduce impacts to soils. Restoration of areas inpoor condition, such as Paisley Desert and Sheeprock,would be a high priority under this alternative. Suchrestoration would improve soil conditions.

Increased livestock use would increase soil compac-tion, especially around watering and salting areas, andwould reduce vegetation cover and litter. These actionswould increase soil erosion potential. Wild horseimpacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Prescribed fire and wildland fire impacts would besimilar to Alternative A. However, the impacts ofprescribed fire would be up to three times greater.

Recreation and OHV use would have a similar impactas Alternative A.

Mining activity would impact soils similar to Alterna-tive A. However, the magnitude of impact would begreater (Table 4-6). Any stockpiled soil for reclama-tion would be seeded to provide a vegetation cover toreduce offsite soil loss from the stockpiles due to windand water erosion during the life of the mining opera-tion.

Road closures would be few under this alternative, butwould help to reduce soil compaction and potentialerosion in localized areas. Additional road construc-tion and maintenance and right-of-way use, to supportcommodity-related activities, would minimally increasesoil impacts.

Alternative C

Improvements to soil condition would be greatest underthis alternative. Watershed improvement for bothfunction and processes would enhance soil conditionsin most cases. Restoration of areas in poor condition,such as the Paisley Desert and Sheeprock areas, wouldbe a high priority. Such restoration would improve soil

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM35


4 - 36

conditions. Use of BMP’s would be required on allsoil-disturbing projects. Fewer projects would becompleted. This would reduce loss of soil duringconstruction, as well as reduce soil loss from erosionafter the project is finished.

Reduced livestock grazing levels could retain adequateplant litter to maintain soil productivity and limiterosion. Progress toward attaining desired range ofconditions would be accelerated. Wild horse impactswould be similar to Alternative A.

Total protection from disturbance would be the easiestway to improve microbiotic soil crusts, but this is notoften possible or desirable. However, protection ofrelic sites as rangeland reference areas would provideimportant baseline comparisons for ecological potentialand future scientific research. While biotic crusts havenot been the main criteria for proposing ACEC’s, theproposed areas would be less disturbed, allowing forthe crusts to recover naturally from damage caused byoff-road vehicles and livestock grazing. The benefitsfrom healthy microbiotic crusts are nutrient inputs,better water infiltration and soil surface stability, and insome cases, healthy biocrusts prevent invasion ofsmall-seeded invasive plant species (Belnap et al.2001).

Impacts of wildland fire would be similar to AlternativeB. Impacts of prescribed fire would be similar toAlternative A, but of greater magnitude than Alterna-tives A or B.

Recreation impacts would be similar to Alternative A.All OHV use would be limited to existing or desig-nated roads and trails. Off-road driving of any kindwould not be allowed. This would prevent develop-ment of new trails, soil compaction, and new erosionsources. Microbiotic crusts would have a greaterchance to recover to ecological potential.

Mineral exploration and development activity would behighly restricted (Table 4-6); therefore, impacts to soilswould be minimal.

The greatest number of existing roads would be closedunder this alternative (Table 4-4). This would reducesoil compaction and erosion potential, especially insome watersheds. New road construction and roadmaintenance actions would have similar impacts asAlternative A.

Alternative D

Improvements to soil condition would be greater than

Alternatives A or B, but less than Alternative C.Restoration of areas in poor condition, such as thePaisley Desert and Sheeprock areas, would be a highpriority. Such restoration would improve soil condi-tions. Use of BMP’s would be required on all potentialsoil-disturbing projects. This would reduce loss of soilduring construction, as well as reduce soil loss fromerosion after the project is finished.

Livestock grazing impacts on soils would be similar toAlternative A. Wild horse impacts would be similar toAlternative A, but of greater magnitude due to in-creased horse numbers.

Recreation impacts would be similar to Alternative A.Impacts to soils from OHV use could be significant.Approximately 56 percent (Table 4-5; Map R-7) of theplanning area would be open to cross-country travel,which would result in increased soil compaction anderosion potential.

Mining activity would be restricted in many ways(Maps M-8, -9, and -10) and would have impactssimilar to Alternative C (Table 4-6). On any mineralexploration or development activity, topsoil would bestockpiled and used for later reclamation. Stockpiledsoil would be seeded to reduce loss to wind or watererosion.

Road closures (Table 4-4) would decrease soil compac-tion and erosion, especially in some watersheds. Newroad construction and road maintenance actions wouldhave similar impacts as Alternative A.

Alternative E

BMP’s would be implemented for all soil-disturbingprojects. However, very few new projects would bedone. Areas currently in poor condition in the PaisleyDesert and Sheeprock areas would remain a lowpriority for improvement and would possibly getworse.

With the removal of livestock grazing, the condition ofsoils previously impacted could recover over time.Deposition of plant litter and incorporation of organicmatter into the soil would increase across the land-scape, resulting in increased soil productivity, de-creased erosion from overland flow, and progresstoward the desired range of conditions. On sitesdominated by native species, rates of water, nutrientand energy cycling, and soil movement would berestored to near historic levels. Sites supportingshallow-rooted exotic annual species would continue ina degraded condition.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM36


4 -37

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM37


4 - 38

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM38


4 -39

Short-term impacts to soil could occur as existingrangeland projects are abandoned and removed. In thelong term, areas disturbed during project removalwould be stabilized by natural revegetation. However,areas around water holes would recover more slowly,depending on the extent of historic impacts.

Wild horses would have negative impacts to soilssimilar to Alternative A. Areas with poor soil condi-tions would remain in poor condition.

The impacts of wildland fire would be similar toAlternative A. However, human-caused wildland firemay increase as recreational activity increases, result-ing in increased impacts to soils.

Impacts to soils from recreation activities wouldincrease within areas of concentrated activity, includingprimitive sites and developed facilities.

All OHV use would be limited to existing roads andtrails. Off-road driving of any kind would not beallowed. This would prevent development of newtrails, soil compaction, and new erosion sources.Limited maintenance of existing roads could increaseimpacts as a result of the normal breakdown of road-beds, wet-weather rutting by vehicles, and channelingof runoff.

Summary of Impacts

BMP’s would be implemented for all ground-disturbingactivities, such as new projects, fences, road mainte-nance, and pipelines (Appendix D). The soil manage-ment objective would be met under all the alternatives;however, Alternative C would provide the greatestamount of protection to soils, followed by AlternativeD.

The greatest potential impacts to soils would be off-road vehicle use, mineral development, and new roadconstruction. The likelihood of new, large scalemineral development is low under all alternatives.Very little new road construction would be expected,since there has been virtually none in the past 20 years.

Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts

Watershed condition, including soils, on public landshave improved since the late 1800s. With the imple-mentation of BMP’s as standard operation proceduresunder all alternatives, this improvement would con-tinue. However, there are some upland soil conditionsthat would not recover without active restoration. Suchrestoration projects are described within several other

resource management sections in various alternatives.

Soil, vegetation, and watershed conditions are intri-cately tied together. While improving one componentcan help improve the others, the greatest benefit comesfrom the synergistic effect of improving all componentsconcurrently. It is the intent of this plan that thesynergistic, positive effects would be carried throughthe life of the plan and beyond.

Water Resources/WatershedHealth

Management Goal 1—Protect or restore watershedfunction and processes which determine the appropri-ate rates of precipitation capture, storage, and re-lease.

Management Goal 2—Ensure that surface water andgroundwater influenced by Bureau of Land Manage-ment (BLM) activities comply with or are makingsignificant progress toward achieving State of Oregonwater quality standards for beneficial uses, as estab-lished by the Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality (ODEQ).

Assumptions Common to Alternatives

• Water quality management plans or total maximumdaily loads would improve watershed health.

• The CWA would be implemented through the useof BMP’s (Appendix D) and the future develop-ment of water quality management plans.

• Management activities that improve vegetation inuplands and riparian areas would decrease floodmagnitude and frequency and improve late seasonflows.

• Native plant communities would capture, store,use, and release water in a manner which decreaseserosion.

• A correlation exists between the amount of com-paction in a watershed and the number of miles ofroads and trails present.

Analysis of Impacts

Direct impacts: The indicators of change for directimpacts to watershed health are: (1) the percentage of

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM39


4 - 40

a watershed in potential natural plant communities and(2) the amount of compacted land surface present.Upland plant communities are currently being invento-ried to determine what communities are present andeach community’s condition. This process is calledecological site inventory. An estimate can be made ofplant communities and their condition for areas whereno inventory data currently exists, but the estimatewould be updated with the ecological site inventoryinformation when available. The amount of compactedarea in the watershed would be estimated by thenumber of miles of roads and trails present. If awatershed has many roads and trails, it would also haveborrow pits, foot trails, recreation sites, and othercompacted areas in relative proportion to the amount ofroads and trails. Road density would be used as asurrogate for estimating the amount of compaction in agiven watershed.

Risk analysis: The data necessary to analyze theindicators of change for direct impacts is currentlybeing collected for some parts of the planning area andcannot always be estimated for Alternatives B throughE. This impact analysis would look at the risk ofproposed management based on total number of acresmanaged, ability of management to change the vegeta-tion community, and ability of management to increasecompaction of bare soil. While some managementactions could have a wide range of effects, more acresaffected or more intense management would increasethe risk of changing the vegetation community, increas-ing compaction, and increasing the amount of bare soil.One example would be OHV use. The risk to water-shed function would increase with the amount of acresopen to off-road travel. Not all use would cause adecrease to watershed function, but the risk wouldexist.

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would comply with the CWA bymanaging for restoration and maintenance of thephysical, biological, and chemical integrity of the waterin the planning area. This would include managementstriving to meet Oregon State water quality standardsand implementing BMP’s. This would provide thebaseline resource protection and would protect water-shed health. Over time, the condition of watershedswould improve.

There are about 261,500 acres of relatively unmanagedland within the planning area. This area would havelittle or no recreation, roads, mining, and grazingmanagement. This allows for the natural capture,storage, and release of precipitation. These lands

would have a very low risk of management changingthe rate of infiltration or soil water storage capacity.

Alternative A

The shrub steppe community management goals andactions focus on maintaining current conditions anduse. Restoration would occur on a case-by-case basis.This would not move the upland watershed vegetationcommunities toward potential natural condition. Thiswould have a risk of changing the rate and ability ofwatersheds to capture (infiltration rate), store (soil porespace), and release (plant use or water subsurfacemovement) water. This alternative would maintain theexisting upland watershed condition, including areas inpoor condition in the Sheep Rock and Paisley Desertareas.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goalsand actions focus on achieving proper functioningcondition on a minimum of 75 percent of the area.Restoration would be on a case-by-case basis. Properfunctioning condition would be the first step towardachieving the desired range of conditions. However, itwould not achieve the potential natural condition ordesired future condition. Maintenance of existing andconstruction of new spring developments wouldincrease the risk to watershed function by increasingwater consumption and compaction by domesticlivestock, wild horses, and wildlife. Modification ofspring developments to allow water to return to ripar-ian areas would improve watershed function. Con-struction and maintenance of water developments inintact playas and lakebeds would put these systems atrisk of negative impacts to water capture, storage, andrelease because of increased compaction, loss ofvegetation, and damage to the impermeable layer.

Western juniper woodlands management goals andactions focus primarily on meeting public demand forjuniper products. However, juniper removal or treat-ment could benefit many aspects of watershed health.Juniper sites have consistently low water infiltrationrates, indicating high surface runoff flows, high kineticenergies, and high erosion potentials (Buckhouse andGaither 1982). Sites with low interspace vegetationcover (mid-successional and old growth woodlandstages) have exponentially higher sediment and erosionpotentials than sites with greater ground cover frommore uniformly dispersed vegetation (Gaither andBuckhouse 1983). Juniper encroachment may impacthydrologic cycles (Wall et al. 2001). Juniper effec-tively intercept rain and snow before it hits the groundsurface (Young and Evans 1984; Larsen 1993). Inter-cepted snow is subject to sublimation. Within invaded

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM40


4 -41

aspen stands, this can result in less water retained inthe snowpack underneath the trees compared to theamount found under a pure aspen stand (Johnson1971). Conifers also use more water than aspen(Gifford et al. 1983, 1984; Jaynes 1978). WithoutBMP’s, there would be an increased risk of negativeeffects to watershed function (capture, storage, andrelease) due to changes in vegetation communities andincreased compaction.

The special status plant species management goals andactions focus on individual species. This managementwould not achieve ecological or watershed goals andthus would have risks for negative impacts on water-shed function.

The noxious weeds (and competing undesirablevegetation management) goals and actions focus onintegrated management. The populations of noxiousweeds would have increased negative effects onwatershed function by decreasing the amount of watercaptured and increasing the use of water onsite.

The water resources and watershed health managementgoals and actions focus on maintaining current condi-tions and use. This would put watershed function atrisk due to the use of minimum standards for roadbuilding and other management actions. Restorationwould be on a case-by-case basis without the use ofwatershed analysis. Because BMP’s are prescribed ona case-by-case basis without long-term effectivenessmonitoring, there would be a risk to watershed func-tion.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals andactions focus on instream and near stream conditionand use. Protection of fish habitat, riparian areas, andstreams would support a healthy watershed.

The wildlife and special status animal species manage-ment focuses on maintenance, restoration, or enhance-ment of habitat. This would support watershed func-tion by moving vegetation and soil conditions closer topotential natural community. However, managing for asingle species could put watershed function at riskbecause an ecological, holistic approach would not beused, and the interaction of watershed function andmultiple species needs to be addressed.

The livestock grazing management actions wouldcontinue to authorize 108,234 AUM’s for livestockgrazing. Temporary nonrenewable grazing use wouldalso be allowed. While this could be achieved with nonegative impacts to watershed function, there currentlyare areas with poor vegetation and soil conditions. In

these areas, there would continue to be negativeimpacts to watershed function.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus oncontinuation of horse use at existing levels within twoexisting herd management areas near Paisley and BeatyButte. Wild horses have negative impacts to watershedfunction by increased water consumption and compac-tion at water holes. Overuse could degrade vegetationand soil conditions. Currently, there are areas withinthe herd management areas with poor vegetation andsoil condition negatively impacting watershed function.Because the restoration of poor condition, unhealthyrangelands in the Paisley Desert would remain a lowpriority, negative effects would possibly get worse.

The SMA management goals and actions focus onmaintaining the current number of SMA's. Specialmanagement areas are at lower risk of damage towatershed function than areas under multiple usemanagement. There would be a risk for negativeimpacts to watershed function.

The fire management goals and actions focus onsuppression, rehabilitation, and fuels reduction treat-ments. Treatments would occur on 10,000 to 20,000acres annually. Negative impacts could occur with firesuppression and mechanical treatments due to in-creased compaction. There would be a risk for nega-tive impacts to watershed function.

The recreation management goals and actions focus onmaintaining current conditions and uses, with develop-ment in response to public demand. This alternativewould have a significant area open to OHV’s (Table 4-5). This use would increase the risk of compaction anddegraded vegetation or soil condition. This would havea risk for negative impacts to watershed function.

The energy and minerals management goals andactions focus on maintaining current conditions anduse. This use would increase the risk of compactionand degraded vegetation or soil condition. This wouldhave a risk for negative impacts to watershed function.

The lands and realty management goals and actionsfocus on maintaining current conditions and use. Landadjustments which acquire land in good watershedcondition would improve overall watershed function.Implementation of rights-of-way for new roads andutility corridors would increase the risk of compactionand degraded vegetation or soil condition. Theseactions would have a possibility of both improving anddegrading watershed function.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM41


4 - 42

The roads and transportation management goals andactions focus on maintaining current conditions anduse. Closing roads not needed or causing resourcedamage would be considered on a case-by-case basis.New road construction and road maintenance wouldincrease compaction and degrade vegetation within andnear the road bed. Current road density, by subbasin, isshown on Map R-4 of the Draft RMP/EIS. This wouldhave a risk for negative impacts to watershed function,but that risk would be decreased with the closure andobliteration of unneeded roads.

Alternative B

The shrub steppe community management goals andactions focus on improving forage for livestock graz-ing. The restoration goal would increase forage ondegraded landscapes. This would not move the uplandwatershed vegetation communities toward potentialnatural community. The desired range of condition forthe shrub steppe would be a range of vegetationcommunities, including those not in potential naturalcondition. This would have a risk of changing the rateand ability of the watershed to capture (infiltrationrate), store (soil pore space), and release (plant use orwater subsurface movement) water. This alternativewould maintain the upland watershed condition. Therewould be a risk to watershed functions because theamount of compaction and water use by plants hasbeen altered, negatively affecting watershed functions.The risk would be greater than under Alternative A.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goalsand actions focus on achieving proper functioningcondition. Restoration would occur on a case-by-casebasis but would not interfere with commodity produc-tion. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, thoughthe risk would be less than Alternative A.

The western juniper woodlands management goals andactions focus on maximizing allowable commercial andpublic harvest. There would be an increased risk ofnegative effects to watershed function due to increasedcompaction. Harvesting trees in a drainage would alsoincrease the risk of changing subsurface flow to surfaceflow, possibly increasing surface erosion. The riskwould be greater than under Alternative A.

The special status plant species management goals andactions focus on individual species and would notachieve ecological or watershed goals. Thus Alterna-tive B would have risks for negative impacts onwatershed function, but this risk would be similar toAlternative A.

The noxious weeds (and competing undesirablevegetation) management goals and actions focus onintegrated management, increased inventory, andeducation. Populations of noxious weeds and compet-ing undesirable vegetation could increase, thus causinga negative effect on watershed function. The riskwould be less than under Alternative A.

The water resources and watershed health managementgoals and actions focus on maintaining current condi-tions and protection of riparian conservation areas.This would put watershed function at risk due to usingminimum standards for road building and other man-agement actions. Restoration would be on a case-by-case basis without the use of watershed analysis.Because BMP’s would be used on a case-by-case basiswithout long-term effectiveness monitoring, therewould be a risk to watershed functions. The focus ofmanagement in the riparian conservation area wouldnot protect uplands, thus there would be a risk towatershed functions. The risk would be less thanAlternative A.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals andactions focus on instream and near stream conditionand use. Protection of fish habitat, riparian areas, andstreams would support a healthy watershed, but wouldnot protect uplands; thus there would be a risk towatershed functions. The risk would be greater thanAlternative A.

The wildlife and special status animal species manage-ment focuses on maintenance, restoration, or enhance-ment of habitat. This would support watershed func-tion by moving vegetation and soil conditions closer topotential natural community. Managing for a singlespecies could put watershed functions at risk becausethe interaction of watershed function and multiplespecies would still need to be addressed. The riskwould be the same as Alternative A.

The livestock grazing management actions wouldauthorize up to 119,057 AUM’s for livestock grazingand would optimize temporary nonrenewable grazinguse. The would increase the risk of negative impacts towatershed functions. The risk would be greater thanAlternative A.

The wild horse management goals and actions and riskof negative impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

The SMA goals and actions focus on increasing thenumber of SMA's by adding Connley Hills with anincrease in total acreage of SMA's. These areas wouldbe at lower risk of damage to watershed function than

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM42


4 -43

areas under multiple-use management. This alternativewould have a risk for negative impacts to watershedfunction, but it would be slightly less than AlternativeA.

The fire management goals and actions focus onsuppression, rehabilitation, and fuel reduction treat-ments. Treatments would occur on up to 64,000 acresannually. With the increase of fuel treatment, thereshould be a decrease in wildland fire suppression.There would be more impacts from mechanical treat-ments than prescribed fire. Negative impacts couldoccur with fire suppression and mechanical treatmentsdue to increased compaction. There would be a risk fornegative impacts to watershed function. The riskwould be greater than Alternative A.

The recreation management goals and actions focus onincreasing tourism and recreational use. The impactswould be similar to Alternative A (Table 4-5), thoughthe risk for negative impacts to watershed functionwould be greater than Alternative A.

The energy and minerals management goals andactions focus on maximizing the mineral explorationand development. This would increase the risk ofcompaction and degraded vegetation or soil condition.This alternative would have a risk for negative impactsto watershed function. Revoking the public waterreserve withdrawals would decrease the ability toprovide for public multiple use and would increasesingle private use. The area around Lake Abert,especially the north end, would be impacted by re-moval of lake-level and total dissolved solids stipula-tions on mineral leasing. Any development or extrac-tion of lakebed evaporites would negatively impactwater resources of Lake Abert by changing the watercycle of the lake and altering the water chemistry. Thisalternative would have a risk for negative impacts towatershed function. The risk would greater thanAlternative A.

The lands and realty management goals and actionsfocus on maintaining current conditions and increasingarea that could be used for other public purposes.Emphasizing land tenure and access acquisition forcommodity production could preclude acquisition ofhigh resource value property and result in missedopportunities to facilitate management of watershedhealth. New rights-of-way could have a negative effectdue to land disturbance from construction and increasesin compaction and impacts to vegetation condition.Expansion of powerline corridors to 2,000 feet couldhave substantial negative effects due to the increasedsize of the potential disturbance area. This alternative

would have a risk for negative impacts to watershedfunction. The risk would be greater than Alternative A.

The roads and transportation management goals andactions focus on maintaining current conditions anduse. New road construction and road maintenancewould increase compaction and degrade vegetationwithin and near the road bed. This alternative wouldhave a risk for negative impacts to watershed function.The risk would be greater than Alternative A. Closingroads would reduce areas of soil compaction andpotential erosion sources.

Alternative C

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focuson restoring and maintaining a diverse composition andstructure of vegetation. From a watershed perspective,restoring degraded conditions would move the uplandwatershed vegetation communities toward potentialnatural condition. Implementation of this alternativecould maintain and improve upland watershed condi-tion. Implementation of Alternative C has less riskthan Alternatives A or B.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goalsand actions focus on identification and development ofriparian management objectives. Restoration would beon a case-by-case basis. This would move watershedstoward achieving the desired range of conditions.Rehabilitation of developed springs would return flowsto channels that would improve watershed function.Determining feasibility of wetland restoration inlakebeds and playas could improve watershed function.Removing roads from riparian conservation areaswould allow full development of floodplains andreduce sediment loads, improving watershed condition.Implementation of Alternative C would have less riskthan Alternatives A or B.

The western juniper woodlands management goals andactions focus on protection of resource values. Thiswould move juniper ecosystems toward potentialnatural community. There would be a risk of negativeeffects to watershed function due to increased compac-tion. Harvesting trees in drainages would also increasethe risk of changing subsurface flow to surface flow,thereby increasing erosion. The risk would be less thanAlternatives A or B.

The special status plant species management goals andactions focus on restoration and enhancement andcreate new SMA's. This management would movetoward ecological or watershed goals and thus wouldhave a low risk for negative effects on watershed

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM43


4 - 44

function. The risk would be less than Alternatives A orB.

The noxious weeds (and competing undesirablevegetation) management goals and actions focus on azero tolerance for noxious weeds. The populations ofweeds would decrease, which would have a positiveeffect in restoring watershed function. The risk wouldbe less than Alternatives A or B.

The water resources and watershed health managementgoals and actions focus on reducing current impactsand maintaining good condition. This would restorewatershed function due to decreased road densities,grazing near streams, springs and wetlands, and uses indrainages where activities would adversely impactwatershed function. The risk would be less thanAlternatives A or B.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals andactions focus on instream and near stream conditionand use and connectivity. Protection of fish habitat,riparian condition, streams, and the watersheds thatsupport them would support healthy watershed func-tion. The risk would less than Alternatives A or B.

The wildlife and wildlife habitat management ofspecial status animal species focuses on maintenance,restoration, or enhancement of ecosystems. This wouldsupport watershed function by moving vegetation andsoil conditions closer to potential natural community.The risk would be less than Alternatives A or B.

The livestock grazing management actions wouldauthorize about 20 percent fewer AUM’s for livestockgrazing. While this could be achieved with no negativeimpacts to watershed function, there would be a risk ofnegative impacts to watershed functions. The riskwould be less than Alternatives A or B.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus oncontinuation of horses using rangelands near Paisleyand Beaty Butte. Wild horses would have negativeimpacts to watershed function by increased waterconsumption and compaction at waterholes, andoveruse, which could degrade vegetation and soilconditions. There would be a risk for negative impactsto watershed functions. The risk would be the same asAlternative B, but less than Alternative A.

The SMA's goals and actions would increase theacreage of areas under special management. Areas inspecial management would be at lower risk of damageto watershed function than areas under multiple-usemanagement. The amount of use allowed, such as

grazing or recreation, would increase the risk ofcompaction and degradation of vegetation or soilcondition. This alternative would have a decreased riskfor negative impacts to watershed function. The riskwould be less than Alternatives A or B.

The fire management goals and actions focus onlimited suppression, native seed rehabilitation, andfuels reduction up to 640,000 acres. With the increaseof fuel treatment, there should be a decrease in wild-land fire suppression over the long term. Fuels treat-ment would emphasize prescribed fire. Negativeimpacts could occur with fire suppression and me-chanical treatments due to increased compaction. Therisk would be less than Alternatives A or B.

The recreation management goals and actions focus onmaintaining and enhancing natural values. With noneof the resource area designated open to OHV use, thisalternative would begin to restore watershed function.The risk would be less than Alternatives A or B.

The energy and minerals management goals andactions decrease the amount of land open to mining.This would decrease the risk of compaction anddegradation of vegetation or soil condition but wouldnot entirely eliminate it. This alternative would have arisk for negative impacts to watershed function. Therisk would be less than Alternatives A or B.

The lands and realty management goals and actionsfocus on improving current resource conditions anduse. Land adjustments would acquire land in goodwatershed condition and improve overall watershedfunction. Implementation of rights-of-way for roadbuilding and utility corridors would increase the risk ofcompaction and degradation of vegetation or soilcondition. There would be an increase in areas whererights-of-way are excluded. This would have a greaterpossibility of improving rather than degrading water-shed function. The risk would be less than AlternativesA or B.

The roads and transportation management goals andactions focus on protecting resource values. Closingroads no longer needed or causing resource damagewould be considered on a case-by-case basis. BMP’swould be used for new road construction and mainte-nance. Roads would increase compaction and degrada-tion of vegetation within and near the road bed. Thisalternative would have a risk for negative impacts towatershed function, but this would decrease withprotection of resources. The risk would be less thanAlternatives A or B.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM44


4 -45

Alternative D

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focuson restoring and maintaining natural values whileproviding forage production. Restoration of degradedconditions would occur on a watershed level. Thiswould move upland watershed vegetation communitiestoward potential natural condition. This could main-tain and improve upland watershed condition. Imple-mentation would have a greater risk than Alternative C,but less risk than Alternatives A or B.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goalsand actions focus on identification and development ofriparian management objectives. Restoration would beon a case-by-case basis. This would move the water-shed toward achieving the desired range of conditions.Not allowing new water developments in intact playasand lakebeds would decrease the risk of negativeimpacts to watershed functions. Removing roads,which negatively impact streams within riparianconservation area, would allow full development offloodplains and reduce sediment loads improvingwatershed condition. Alternative D would have agreater risk than Alternative C but less risk thanAlternatives A or B.

The western juniper woodlands management goals andactions focus on protection of resource values. Thiswould move juniper ecosystems toward potentialnatural conditions. The implementation of harvestBMP’s would protect watershed functions. AlternativeD would have a greater risk than Alternative C but lessrisk than Alternatives A or B.

The special status plant species management goals andactions focus on restoration and enhancement andcreate new SMA's. This management would movetoward ecological or watershed goals and thus wouldhave a low risk for negative effects on watershedfunction. Alternative D would have the same risk asAlternative C but less risk than Alternatives A or B.

The noxious weed (and competing undesirable vegeta-tion) management goals and actions focus on anintegrated approach. The populations of weeds woulddecrease over time and have a positive effect onrestoring watershed function. Alternative D wouldhave a greater risk than Alternative C but less risk thanAlternatives A or B.

The water resources and watershed health managementgoals and actions focus on reducing current impactsand maintaining good condition. This would movetoward restoring watershed function due to implemen-

tation of BMP’s, minimum standards for uplandgrazing, and evaluation of near stream grazing. Alter-native D would have a greater risk than Alternative Cbut less risk than Alternatives A or B.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals andactions focus on protection and restoration of instreamand near stream condition. Protection of fish habitat,riparian condition, streams, and the watersheds thatsupport them would promote healthy watershed func-tion. Alternative D would have a greater risk thanAlternative C but less risk than Alternatives A or B.

The wildlife and management of special status animalspecies focuses on maintenance, restoration, or en-hancement of ecosystems. This would support water-shed function by moving vegetation and soil conditionscloser to potential natural community. Alternative Dwould have the same risk as Alternative C but less riskthan Alternatives A or B.

The livestock grazing management actions wouldauthorize 108,234 AUM’s for livestock grazing andallow temporary nonrenewable grazing use. While thiscould be achieved with no negative impacts, therewould be a risk of negative impacts to watershedfunctions. Alternative D would have a greater risk thanAlternative C but less risk than Alternatives A or B.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus onthe continuation of horses using rangeland near Paisleyand Beaty Butte. Wild horses would have negativeimpacts to watershed function by increasing waterconsumption and compaction at waterholes, andoveruse, which could degrade vegetation and soilconditions. There would be a risk for negative impactsto watershed functions. Alternative D would have agreater risk than Alternative A, which would be greaterthan Alternatives B and C.

The SMA goals and actions would increase the acreageof areas under special management. Areas in specialmanagement would be at a lower risk of damage towatershed function than areas under multiple usemanagement. The amount of use, such as grazing orrecreation, would increase the risk of compaction anddegradation of vegetation or soil condition. This wouldhave a decreased risk for negative impacts to watershedfunction. Alternative D would have a greater risk thanAlternative C but less risk than Alternatives A or B.

The fire management goals and actions focus onlimited suppression, native seed rehabilitation, andfuels reduction on up to 480,000 acres. With theincrease of fuel treatment there should be a decrease in

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM45


4 - 46

wildland fire suppression over the long term. Negativeimpacts could occur with fire suppression and me-chanical treatments due to increased compaction.Alternative D would have a greater risk than Alterna-tive C but less than Alternatives A or B.

The recreation management goals and actions focus onmaintaining and developing recreational uses. Thisalternative would have a large percentage of theplanning area open to OHV use (Table 4-5; Map R-7).This alternative would have a greater risk of negativelyimpacting watershed function than Alternative C butmuch less than Alternatives A or B.

The energy and minerals management goals andactions decrease the amount of land open to miningfrom the current level. This would decrease the risk ofcompaction and degradation of vegetation or soilcondition, but would not eliminate it entirely. Thisalternative would have a risk for negative impacts towatershed function greater than Alternative C but lessthan Alternatives A or B.

The lands and realty management goals and actionsfocus on maintaining current resource conditions anduse. Land adjustments would acquire land in goodwatershed condition and improve overall watershedfunction. New rights-of-way for road building andutility corridors would increase the risk of compactionand degradation of vegetation or soil condition. Therewould be an increase in areas where rights-of-way areexcluded. This alternative would have a greaterpossibility of improving rather than degrading water-shed function. Alternative D would have a greater riskthan Alternative C but less than Alternatives A or B.

The roads and transportation management goals andactions focus on protecting resource values. Closingroads no longer needed or causing resource damagewould be considered on a case-by-case basis. BMP’swould be used for new road construction and mainte-nance. Roads would increase compaction and degrada-tion of vegetation within and near the road bed. Thisalternative would have a risk for negative impacts towatershed function, but this would decrease withprotection of resources. Alternative D would have thesame risk as Alternative C but less than Alternatives Aor B.

Alternative E

The shrub steppe management goals and actions focuson natural restoration. This would move most uplandwatershed vegetation communities toward potentialnatural community. This alternative could maintain

and improve upland watershed condition. Somevegetation communities would not move towardsdesired range of condition. Alternative E would have agreater risk than Alternatives C and D but less risk thanAlternatives A or B.

The riparian and wetland vegetation management goalsand actions focus on natural restoration. This wouldmove watersheds toward achieving the desired range ofcondition. Alternative E would have less risk thanAlternative C, which would be less than Alternatives D,A, or B, respectively.

The western juniper woodlands management goals andactions focus on natural restoration. This would movewatersheds toward achieving the desired range ofconditions. Alternative E would have less risk thanAlternative C, which would be less than Alternatives D,A, or B, respectively.

The special status plant species management goals andactions focus on restoration and protection with no newSMA's. This would move toward ecological or water-shed goals and thus would have a low risk for negativeeffects on watershed function. Alternative E wouldhave a greater risk than Alternatives C and D but lessrisk than Alternatives A and B.

The noxious weed (and competing undesirable vegeta-tion) management goals and actions are limited.Populations of weeds would increase and have anegative effect on watershed function. Alternative Ewould have a greater risk than all other alternatives.

The water resources and watershed health managementgoals and actions focus on natural restoration. Thiswould move most upland watershed vegetation com-munities toward potential natural community. Thisalternative could maintain and improve the uplandwatershed condition. Some vegetation communitieswould not move toward desired condition. AlternativeE would have a greater risk than Alternative C but lessrisk than Alternatives A, B, or D.

The fish and aquatic habitat management goals andactions focus on natural restoration. Long-termrestoration of fish habitat, riparian condition, streams,and the watersheds that support them would promotehealthy watershed function. Alternative E would haveless risk than all other alternatives.

The wildlife and special status animal species manage-ment focuses on natural restoration. This wouldsupport watershed function by moving vegetation andsoil conditions closer to potential natural community.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM46


4 -47

Alternative E would have less risk than Alternatives Cand D, which would be less than Alternatives A and B.

There would be no permitted livestock grazing. Thiswould reduce the risk of negative impacts from live-stock grazing. Alternative E would have less risk thanAlternative C, which would be less than Alternatives D,A, or B, respectively.

The wild horse management goals and actions focus oncontinuation of horses using rangeland near Paisley andBeaty Butte. Wild horses would have negative impactsto watershed function by increased water consumptionand compaction at waterholes, and overuse, whichcould degrade vegetation and soil conditions. Therewould be a risk for negative impacts to watershedfunctions similar to Alternative D, which would have agreater risk than Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively.

There would be no SMA's or commodity use. The riskof damage to watershed function would be minimalbecause of the decrease in commodity uses. Alterna-tive E would have less risk than Alternative C, whichwould be less than Alternatives D, B, and A, respec-tively.

Fire management actions would focus primarily onsuppression and protecting life and property. As aresult, fire suppression activities would be reduced.Negative impacts could occur with fire suppression dueto increased compaction of soils from equipment.Alternative E would have less risk than Alternative C,which would be less than Alternatives A and D, whichwould be less than Alternative B.

The recreation management goals and actions focus onmaintaining or minimizing current use. This alterna-tive would have no acres designated open to OHV’s.This alternative would help restore watershed function.Alternative E would have less risk than Alternative C,which would be less than Alternatives D, A, and B,respectively.

The energy and minerals management goals andactions would withdraw the entire planning area frommining. This would significantly reduce the risk towatershed function. Alternative E would have less riskthan Alternative C, which would be less than Alterna-tives D, A, or B, respectively.

The lands and realty management goals and actionsfocus on maintaining current land status with a smallamount of disposal possible. The entire planning areawould be excluded from the location of new rights-of-way. This would reduce the risk to watershed function.

Alternative E would have less risk than Alternative C,which would be less than Alternatives D, A, or B,respectively.

The roads and transportation management goals andactions focus on maintaining existing road system.Closing roads no longer needed or causing resourcedamage would be considered on a case-by-case basis.BMP’s would be used for a very limited amount of newroad construction and maintenance. Roads wouldincrease compaction and degraded vegetation withinand near the road bed. This alternative would have arisk for negative impacts to watershed function, but thiswould decrease with protection of resources. Alterna-tive E would have a greater risk than Alternative C,which would be the same as Alternative D, but lessthan Alternatives A or B.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, water resources and watershedhealth could continue to improve, although recoveryrates and extent of recovery would be reduced to allowfor commodity uses, including livestock, transporta-tion, and recreation. Management would continue on acase-by-case, site-specific basis with less considerationfor watershed-scale effects. The management goals forwater resources and watershed health would be diffi-cult to achieve under this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative B would be similar to Alter-native A because of law and policy (“EndangeredSpecies Act,” CWA, etc.) setting a high minimumstandard. Because of the priority on commodityproduction, the risk of negative impacts would in-crease, as would the cost and effort of implementation.Minimally acceptable conditions would be required,and mitigation would occur on a case-by-case basisrather than on a watershed scale. While improvementscould occur, they would take longer and not be asextensive as under Alternative A. The managementgoal for water resources and watershed health would bemore difficult to achieve under this alternative thenAlternative A.

Impacts from Alternative C would be much less thanunder Alternative A. Recovery rates would be muchfaster and the final results would be better for waterresources and watershed health conditions. Watershedscale effects at the levels specified in Alternative Cwould result in more stable conditions. The manage-ment goal for water resources and watershed healthwould be achieved under this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative D would be less that under

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM47


4 - 48

Alternative A. Impacts of implementation of waterresources and watershed health guides would be similarto Alternative C, including BMP implementation, butwith less stringent direction to restore watershedfunction and processes. More consideration would begiven to watershed scale-effects than under currentmanagement. The management goal for water re-sources and watershed health could be achieved underthis alternative.

Impacts from Alternative E would be less than underAlternative A, except for noxious weeds. Withoutdisturbance from commodity production and permitteduses, water resources and watershed health would, inmost cases, quickly improve and progress to a latersuccessional plant community. However, some habitatswould need active restoration, such as headcut stabili-zation, or vegetation restoration to acheive recoverywithin the 15- to 20-year lifespan of this plan. Themanagement goal for water resources and watershedhealth could be achieved under this alternative.


Management which has or could affect the ability toachieve water resource and watershed health goalsinclude past, present, or future land-disturbing activi-ties in a given watershed. This would include activitieswhich take place on adjacent ownerships, such as pastgrazing, timber harvest, or road building. The complexsystem of water diversions, including dams, diversions,canals, and the draining and ditching of wetlands allhave had cumulative effects on BLM lands. Theseactivities would be considered when decisions aremade on BLM management. The cumulative effectswould be similar for all alternatives.

Since the late 1800s, the overall watershed health ofthe public lands has improved. The damage can still beobserved in streams as increased peak flows, decreasedbase flows, and increased sediment loads and loss offish habitat. The damage to upland vegetation and soilconditions is still occurring in systems that can notrecover without changes in current management,including active restoration.

Noxious weeds and competing undesirable vegetationis the one area that has not improved since the late1800s. This situation overshadows the desired condi-tions and changes the path of potential plant communi-ties in some areas. It also can prevent attainment ofdesired conditions if not controlled on adjacent lands.

Fish and Aquatic Habitat

Management Goal—Restore, maintain, or improvehabitat to provide for diverse and self-sustainingcommunities of wildlife, fish, and other aquaticorganisms.

Assumptions

• The analysis of effects on stream habitat wouldalso represent effects on lake or reservoir habitat.

• Management activities that improve vegetation inuplands and riparian areas are assumed to decreaseflood magnitude and frequency and to improve lateseason flows. Additionally, improvement inriparian/wetland vegetation would have a directimprovement on fish and aquatic habitat.

• Effects of water quality management plans or totalmaximum daily loads on fish habitat would bepositive under all alternatives.

• Implementation of the “Recovery Plan for theNative Fishes of the Warner Basin and AlkaliSubbasin” (USFWS 1998) would be beneficial forall native fish in the Warner Subbasin, as wouldcompliance with biological opinions for the Warnersucker.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Commercial forest management would have minimalimpacts to fish and aquatic habitats, due to the lowamount of commercial forestlands in the planning areaand their location compared to habitats. While someincrease in runoff and sediment could be expected, theycould be reduced by following mitigation and currentharvest standards. By improving ground cover, junipermanagement would benefit fish and aquatic habitats asrunoff and erosion were reduced. Juniper managementassociated with riparian/wetland habitats would have adirect beneficial effect and could increase flows atsprings (refer to Management Goal 2, Forest andWoodlands and the Water Resources/Watershed Healthsection of this chapter). The current prohibition ofjuniper management in Deep, Twentymile, andTwelvemile Creek Canyons would continue to allowdegradation of the uplands and associated streamconditions in this portion of the planning area.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM48


4 -49

Where special status plant habitats are associated withfish and aquatic habitats, considering the effects to thespecial status species would decrease impact to theassociated fish and aquatic habitat. However, empha-sizing management based on individual species insteadof habitats could limit the amount of possible improve-ment.

Weed control would have positive effects on fish andaquatic habitats by improving ground cover anddecreasing competition with more desirable riparian/wetland plant species.

Improving ecological conditions would benefit aquatichabitats by reducing flood frequency and flow, increas-ing infiltration, and extending flows later into theseason. Improving ecological conditions along streamsand other riparian habitats would have direct improve-ment to these habitats. The extent of impacts fromvegetation manipulation would be determined on acase-by-case basis, depending on the implementationmethod and location. While vegetation manipulationprojects could have short-term negative impacts asground is disturbed (such as by fire and disking), andrunoff and sedimentation increases, there should belong-term positive impacts as ground cover increases,thereby reducing runoff and sedimentation. Watershedcondition improvement is based on specific problemareas rather than by entire watersheds, so additionalwatershed-level effects from sediment production andflood events would be greater than potential. Limitingimprovement based on proper functioning conditionwould minimize the improvement potential of fish andaquatic habitats over what would be possible based onsite potential, especially if the improvement is focusedon the riparian/wetland site instead of the overallwatershed. As discussed in Chapter 2, proper function-ing condition would only be a beginning point, with thedesired range of condition usually being a much moreadvanced state. Setting objectives based on properfunctioning condition only could preclude developmentto the full site potential of the habitat.

Management designed to improve water quality and tomeet ODEQ standards would result in improvedwatershed, stream conditions, and water quality, as wellas improved fish and aquatic habitats. The goal ofreducing summer temperatures would result in lessstress to stream resident fish, thus improving survivalrates. Reduced sediment loads would improve spawn-ing gravels.

Fish and aquatic habitats associated with special statusanimal species habitats for listed, candidate, andBureau species would benefit from targeting the special

status species habitat for improvement, includingimplementation of conservation agreements andrecovery plans. Emphasizing individual speciesmanagement over habitat or watershed level manage-ment would reduce the extent and level of improve-ment. Emphasizing individual species could have theeffect of benefitting one species over another, whichcould alter the amount of improvement to fish andaquatic habitat.

Current exclosures and grazing systems have improvedmany riparian areas, and this improvement would bepredicted to continue. Limiting livestock use onbitterbrush to meet deer winter range needs could resultin lighter riparian use and would be beneficial to fishand aquatic habitats. Livestock exclosures havemaximized riparian improvement and recovery rates tothe extent possible without structural work, so mainte-nance of the exclosures would be beneficial.

Impacts to fish and aquatic habitats from livestockgrazing authorization are site-specific and closely tiedto impact on associated vegetation. Direct impact tobanks from trampling and hoof action, as well as watercontamination from livestock waste products, couldalso occur. Current livestock management has im-proved conditions on most aquatic habitats; however,on some springs and streams, the grazing authorizationcontinues to have an adverse impact. The sites that areadversely affected are usually small, isolated reachesmore often associated with private lands. Authoriza-tion of temporary nonrenewable grazing use prevents“excess” vegetation from being left for ground coverand litter development. This prevents enhancement ofwatershed conditions and fish and aquatic habitat.Limiting new livestock water developments in playaswould protect the habitats of the aquatic species thatdepend on the natural conditions.

There are no perennial fish habitats associated withwild horse herd management areas. Wild horses usethe herd management areas year-round and impactsome seasonal riparian/aquatic habitats negatively,especially the springs in the Beaty Butte Herd Manage-ment Area. Confining horses to herd managementareas would prevent damage to sites outside theseareas. Control of horse numbers would have somebeneficial effect, but because of concentration of useon the springs, the effect would be limited as damageoccurred from a minimal amount of season-long use,and any additional use by greater numbers would havelittle additional effect. Unless riparian sites wereaddressed specifically, restoration of poor condition,unhealthy rangelands in the Paisley Desert HerdManagement Area would have little effect. Mainte-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM49


4 - 50

nance and construction of water developments forhorses could be disruptive to aquatic habitats. Fenceconstruction to control wild horse use could be benefi-cial to aquatic habitats.

Current ACEC and RNA designations would have noeffect on fish and aquatic habitats. Interim protectionof outstandingly remarkable values for potential WSR’scould preclude some management actions beneficial tofish and aquatic habitats, such as instream structuresand watershed-level vegetation management, especiallyjuniper treatments.

Limiting land-disturbing activities within identifiedNative American religious sites or traditional culturalproperties could preclude some activities, such asvegetation manipulation, land exchange, or structuralimprovement, that would be beneficial to fish andaquatic habitats. Traditional uses may impact fish andaquatic habitats by vegetation removal.

The effect of making contracts for services and sale ofproducts available to local firms would be site-specific.However, if competition is limited, the cost of projectsto improve fish and aquatic habitats could be greater sofewer projects would be developed. Continuingcommodity production levels could result in excessiveuse in some areas and continued facility operation—especially some roads—could result in channel effectsand sedimentation.

Recreation activities in the Warner Wetlands SpecialRecreation Management Area could have some effecton fish and aquatic habitat, but the effects would belimited if current activity levels continue. Because usetends to concentrate around aquatic habitats, recreationactivities could have negative effects through channelalteration and vegetation removal. Effects from thedevelopment of recreation sites, tourism, and specialrecreation permits would be site-specific and could beminimized by design. Controlling public use withspecial recreation permits would be beneficial.

OHV use has site-specific impacts that could be severewhen associated with fish and aquatic habitats. Eventhough OHV control is limited, specific closures andlimitations in existing ACEC’s and WSA’s would bebeneficial. More diverse effects occur at the watershedscale and could result in increased sediment produc-tion. No specific areas have been identified as havingimpacts from OHV’s, but there are numerous areas ofuse scattered across planning area. Some of these areasare on two-track trails not in the transportation plan,and others are on open areas and hillsides.

Managing VRM Class I areas (primarily WSA’s) couldpreclude some management actions beneficial to fishand aquatic habitats, such as instream structures andwatershed-level vegetation management, especiallyjuniper treatment.

Impacts from locatable mineral development andexploration would depend entirely on the location ofthe work. Prospecting would have little impact.Exploration could result in surface disturbance, includ-ing road construction. Increased sediment productioncould be expected. Mine development could result inincreased runoff, sediment, and water contamination.The extent of impact would depend on the location ofthe mine in proximity to aquatic habitats. Existingdevelopments at Tucker Hill, Sunstone Area, andChristmas Valley diatomite operations would have littleeffect on fish and aquatic habitats. Instream suctiondredging could increase sediment production, alterwidth/depth and other channel characteristics, anddisturb or remove shoreline vegetation.

Because of the ability to adjust site development toavoid fish and aquatic habitats, oil and gas leasingshould have little impact unless the access roads to thesites or cross-country travel and exploration occur inthese habitats. In these cases, sediment could beincreased and vegetation disturbed. Geothermalexploration and development would have similarimpacts as oil and gas, but an additional concern wouldbe the effects development could have on groundwateraquifers that supply springs. Effects could occur bothto temperature and flow of springs, thus altering theassociated aquatic habitat. Foskett Spring is of specialconcern.

Exploration for sodium salts could have impacts to theaquatic habitats associated with the development ofdrill pads and roads, especially around Abert Lake.Development of a sodium mine would impact a muchlarger area and would lower lake levels, altering thewater availability for shoreline vegetation. The springsnear the lake, including XL Spring, could be impactedby lowered water tables and plant construction andoperation. While minimum lake levels are prescribedby the current plan (USDI-BLM 1996d), lowering thelake to these levels in 1 year could result in even lowerlevels in following years because of low input due todrought or increased irrigation demand. Wells devel-oped to support mine operations could have a directimpact to shoreline springs. Impacts would depend onthe location of the plant and the direction and locationof access and shipping routes.

Impacts from salable mineral development would

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM50


4 -51

depend on the location of the development but shouldbe minimal, based on the ability to modify location ofthe site. Reclamation of sites would improve groundcover, reducing erosion and runoff potential, and couldbe beneficial to fish and aquatic habitats.

Land tenure adjustments could improve fish andaquatic habitats. The acquisition of parcels alongTwelvemile Creek would allow instream improvementsto benefit fish and aquatic habitats. Right-of-waydevelopment could have negative effects with in-creased sediment production and vegetation removaland disturbance. Depending on the location and typeof right-of-way, mitigation could minimize effects. Forexample, rights-of-way involving roads would havegreater impacts than small power lines. Access acqui-sition could be beneficial if it facilitated access formanagement of fish and aquatic habitats; however,increased sediment and runoff could result.

Minimum standards for roads and other constructionactivities would provide minimal protection for fishand aquatic habitat from degradation due to erosionand sedimentation. Closing selected roads would havelocalized positive effects, if doing so reduced runoffand erosion. The road closures and rehabilitation couldrestore flood plain functioning and reduce directchannel impingement.

Alternative B

The effects resulting from public and commercial useof juniper would depend on harvest criteria and restric-tions/BMP’s placed on harvest.

This alternative introduces the concept of riparianconservation areas management that would be benefi-cial to fish and aquatic habitat. Setting a desired rangeof conditions would be beneficial by recognizing thepotential of the site. Improving ecological conditionsalong streams and other riparian habitats would havedirect improvement to these habitats, but the improve-ment would be restricted by the emphasis on commod-ity production. Prohibiting water right acquisitioncould preclude opportunities for fish habitat improve-ment.

Optimizing forage production implies more extensiveuse would result in less ground cover and increasedimpacts to aquatic habitats. Impacts from livestockgrazing would be site-specific and closely tied toimpacts to associated vegetation. If additional foragefrom adjustment of appropriate management levels isallocated to livestock, the improvement to aquatichabitats (associated primarily with springs) would be

reduced over nonallocation. However, livestock couldbe managed to provide seasonal rest or deferment, sosome improvement could be expected. Emphasizingproject construction over grazing management actionscould reduce the rate and extent of potential improve-ments. Construction of additional water developmentscould have a direct negative impact to aquatic habitats.Allowing new livestock water developments in playascould have negative impacts to the aquatic habitatsassociated with intact lakes. Spring function improve-ment would occur but would be limited because of theemphasis on commodity production. Corridor fencingof streams would increase maintenance and cost, butwould result in substantial improvement to currentlygrazed streams.

Optimizing the authorization of temporary nonrenew-able grazing use would preclude excess vegetationfrom being left for ground cover and litter developmentand further enhancement of watershed conditions andfish and aquatic habitat.

Emergency fire rehabilitation should be beneficial byreducing soil loss and sediment production by fire linerehabilitation and increased ground cover; however, theallocation of additional forage to livestock wouldreduce benefits. Prescribed fire impacts would besimilar to, but of greater magnitude than, Alternative A.

Recreation and OHV impacts would be similar toAlternative A; however, maximizing OHV events couldincrease impacts to fish and aquatic habitats fromadditional erosion and sedimentation, resulting in a lossof clean gravel spawning sites.

The springs near Lake Abert, including XL Spring,could be impacted by lowered water tables and directlyimpacted by the plant construction and operationassociated with mineral leasing, especially sincecurrent restrictions for minimum lake level would belifted. Wells developed to support mine operationscould have a direct impact to the shoreline springs.Impacts would depend on the location of the plant anddirection and location of access and shipping routes.The lack of restrictions on mining and mineral leasingcould result in negative effects to fish and aquatichabitats, should development occur on undisturbedlands.

Emphasizing land tenure adjustments for commodityproduction could result in lost opportunity to acquirevaluable aquatic habitats through exchange. Construc-tion of new and expansion of existing powerlinecorridors to 2,000 feet could have substantial negativeeffects due to the increased size of the potential distur-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM51


4 - 52

bance area.

Road closures could improve fish and aquatic habitatsif they reduce runoff and erosion, but limiting closuresto those that would not impact commodity resourcescould limit the improvement. Implementing BMP’sduring new road construction and maintenance wouldminimize impacts to these habitats.

Alternative C

Juniper management would benefit fish and aquatichabitats, improving ground cover and reducing runoffand erosion. Juniper management in riparian/wetlandhabitats would have a direct beneficial effect and couldincrease flows at springs; from a watershed level, itwould provide increased and longer-lasting streamflows. (Refer also to the Water Resources/WatershedHealth section of this chapter.) Limiting stand treat-ment to 10 percent by wood cutting could reducebenefits. Limiting treatment to 50 percent of standswith fire would reduce benefits. Some areas wouldneed treatment other than by fire to be effective.

Managing special status plant habitats based on adesired range of conditions and considering landscape-level effects would stabilize improvement trends andallow for better long-term conditions compared tomanagement emphasizing individual species.

Increased emphasis on weed control would benefitaquatic and fish habitat through improvement in overallwatershed conditions.

Setting standards for watershed and soil conditionswould allow determination of progress toward meetingthose standards. Managing for improvement on awatershed scale would result in more stable conditionsand improved fish and aquatic habitats. Allowing onlyuses that promote progress toward attainment ofinstream processes would have direct beneficial effects,especially on the watershed scale. Acquisition of waterrights for conversion to instream flows would havesubstantial benefits by stabilizing flows and maximiz-ing riparian conditions. Designation and managementof riparian conservation areas would be beneficial tofish and aquatic habitat.

Considering nongame species could result in additionalpositive effects to fish and aquatic habitats overconcentrating on game species only. Many wildlifespecies in the Great Basin are dependent on riparianhabitat for all or part of their life cycle needs. Improv-ing conditions for all wildlife species should relatedirectly to fish and aquatic habitat improvements.

Minimizing forage production and range improvementscould improve fish habitat by reducing direct impactsfrom grazing, especially effects from water develop-ments. Following BMP’s for grazing or eliminatingthis use from areas not meeting objectives wouldimprove fish and aquatic habitats. Impacts fromlivestock grazing would be site-specific and closelytied to impacts to associated vegetation. Beneficialeffects to fish and aquatic habitats would occur fromgrazing systems that maximize improved riparianconditions.

Allowing excess forage (that could have been autho-rized under temporary nonrenewable grazing use) toremain ungrazed would increase ground cover andlitter development, reduce overland flow of water andresulting erosion, and have a beneficial effect onwatershed conditions and fish and aquatic habitat.

Rehabilitation of developed springs would return flowsto channels that would create additional habitats foraquatic species. One example of this is the develop-ment at Falls Spring, where most flow is diverted to atrough, but spring snails are located in the naturaloutflow channel left with the remaining water. Return-ing more flow to the channel would create a moresecure and better habitat. Determining feasibility ofwetland restoration in lakebeds and playas could leadto improved aquatic habitats.

Wild horse impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Recreation impacts would be similar to Alternative A.Restricting OHV use to existing roads and trails couldbenefit some fish aquatic habitat or prevent problemsfrom occurring in the future. At Twelvemile Creek,OHV’s have eroded a hillside, which is creating adirect sediment input to the stream. Preventing OHVuse would allow the site to heal and would stop furthererosion and site degradation.

Managing VRM Class I (WSA’s) and Class II (WSR’s)areas could constrain some management actionsbeneficial to fish and aquatic habitats, such as instreamstructures and watershed level vegetation management,especially juniper treatment.

Effects from restricting mineral development (Tables 3-7 and 4-6) would depend on the location of the restric-tion, but the effect could be very beneficial.

Limiting rights-of-way to designated corridors wouldminimize additional impacts to fish and aquatic habitat.Acquisition of high resource value lands, includingriparian/wetland habitat, would be beneficial.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM52


4 -53

Access acquisition could be beneficial if it facilitatedmanagement of fish and aquatic habitats; however, ifnew roads are constructed to complete access, in-creased sediment and runoff could result. The use ofBMP’s would minimize these effects.

Closing roads would reduce sedimentation and improveaquatic habitats. With few exceptions, impacts to fishhabitats from roads (that could be moved) are not greatin the planning area. Removing roads from riparianconservation areas would allow full development offlood plains and reduce sediment loads, improving fishand aquatic habitats.

Alternative D

Juniper management would improve ground cover andbenefit fish and aquatic habitats as runoff and erosionwere reduced. Juniper management associated withriparian/wetland habitats would have a direct beneficialeffect and could increase spring flows. (Refer also tothe Water Resources/Watershed Health section of thischapter.)

Managing special status plant habitats based on desiredrange of conditions and landscape-level effects wouldstabilize improvement trends and allow for better long-term conditions overemphasizing management basedon individual species.

Management designed to restore water quality wouldresult in improved watershed, stream conditions, andwater quality, and would improve fish and aquatichabitats. Acquisition of water rights for conversion toinstream flows would have substantial benefits bystabilizing flows, maintaining water in habitats, andmaximizing riparian conditions. Setting objectivesbased on site potential would be beneficial. Designa-tion and management of riparian conservation areasand establishing a desired range of conditions would bebeneficial to fish and aquatic habitat. Consideringwatershed-level effects and setting objectives based ondesired range of condition would be beneficial.

Considering nongame species across most areas couldresult in additional positive effects to fish and aquatichabitats over concentrating on game species only.Many wildlife species in the Great Basin are dependenton riparian habitats for all or part of their life cycleneeds. Improving conditions for all wildlife shouldrelate directly to fish and aquatic habitat improve-ments.

Livestock grazing would have impacts similar toAlternative A. However, following BMP’s for grazing

or eliminating this use from areas not meeting objec-tives would improve fish and aquatic habitats. Existingexclosures have maximized riparian improvement andrecovery rates, so maintenance of the exclosure wouldbe beneficial. Spring function improvement wouldoccur but would be limited because of the requirementto supply livestock water. Determining feasibility ofwetland restoration in lakebeds and playas could leadto improved aquatic habitats. Limiting new livestockwater developments in playas would protect thehabitats of the aquatic species that depend on thenatural conditions.

Wild horse numbers would increase compared to otheralternatives, but because of the concentration of use onthe springs, this effect would be limited, as damageoccurs from a minimal amount of season-long use andthe additional use by greater numbers would have littleadded impact. Increasing horse numbers in the PaisleyDesert Herd Management Area would result in littlechange in impact to aquatic habitats. Maintenance andconstruction of water developments for horses could bedisruptive to aquatic habitats. By controlling use onaquatic habitats, fences could be beneficial. Seeding orerosion control could provide some benefit to aquatichabitats.

Recreation impacts would be similar to Alternative A.Restricting OHV use in portions of the planning area(Table 4-5; Map R-7) could benefit some fish aquatichabitat or prevent problems from occurring in thefuture. This benefit would be greater than AlternativesA or B but less than C.

Managing VRM Class I (WSA’s) and Class II(Twelvemile Creek WSR) areas could constrain somemanagement actions beneficial to fish and aquatichabitats, such as instream structures and watershedlevel vegetation management, especially junipertreatments.

Impacts from energy and mineral resource developmentwould be similar to Alternative C (Tables 3-7 and 4-6;Map M-8, -9, and -10).

Limiting rights-of-way to designated corridors wouldminimize additional impacts to fish and aquatic habi-tats. Access acquisition could be beneficial if itfacilitated management of fish and aquatic habitats;however, if new roads are constructed, increasedsediment and runoff could result. Use of BMP’s wouldminimize these effects. Acquisition of high valueresource lands, including riparian/wetland habitat,would be a positive impact.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM53


4 - 54

Additional road closures could improve fish andaquatic habitats if they reduce runoff and erosion. Theclosures and rehabilitation could restore flood plainfunctioning and reduce direct channel impingement.

Alternative E

Allowing only natural processes to restore watershedand ecological conditions would allow recovery tooccur, but at a slower rate than using active restorationtechniques, especially in pool and spawning graveldevelopments. Reduction of soil erosion and associ-ated siltation of spawning areas could be reduced.

Lack of juniper management would result in decreasedground cover as the juniper canopy closed. Sedimentproduction would increase and quaking aspen standconversions would continue. Some springs and theirassociated aquatic habitat would decline as juniperdewatered the springs. The effects of juniper encroach-ment would occur at a watershed scale. (Refer also tothe Water Resources/Watershed Health section of thischapter.)

Allowing only natural processes to define vegetationcomposition would allow the spread of weeds thatcould reduce ground cover and replace more desirableriparian vegetation. Sites that would respond to activewoody vegetation plantings would be delayed inrecovery.

Elimination of livestock use would allow full develop-ment of riparian vegetation at a faster rate. Increasedwillow and other woody vegetation cover wouldstabilize banks and provide increased shading andcover.

Wild horse impacts would be similar to Alternative A.Maintenance and construction of water developmentsfor horses could be disruptive to aquatic habitats.Removing interior fencing in herd management areascould result in additional use and degradation of fishand aquatic habitats.

Lack of spring development maintenance wouldeventually lead to the failure of the development, thereturn to a natural spring function and, in many cases,increased riparian habitat.

No active rehabilitation after wildland fire couldreduce ground cover and increase sediment production.Water quality and fish habitat would be negativelyimpacted by increased sedimentation and water tem-peratures.

Recreation impacts would be similar to Alternative A.Restricting OHV use to existing roads and trailsthroughout most of the planning area (Table 4-5) couldbenefit some fish aquatic habitat or prevent problemsfrom occurring in the future. This benefit would besimilar to Alternative C.

Elimination of mineral entry, energy and mineralleasing, and mineral material disposal would precludeany impacts to fish and aquatic habitat from suchactivities.

No option is provided for acquiring new habitats, sosites that could be better protected under Federalownership could be lost and habitat degradation couldoccur. Right-of-way exclusion would preclude anyimpacts to fish and aquatic habitat. Loss of accessrights and not developing new access roads wouldpreclude any impacts to fish and aquatic habitat.

Minimum road maintenance or closures would result insubstantial increases in sediment production andsubsequent siltation of spawning beds in the short term.Over time, sediment production would decrease orstop, and there would be an overall decrease in silt-ation. Construction of only those new roads requiredby law would be beneficial by reducing sedimentproduction and promoting full flood plain develop-ment.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, fish and aquatic habitats wouldcontinue to improve, although recovery rates and extentof recovery would be reduced by commodity uses,including livestock grazing, roads, and recreation.Management would continue on a case-by-case basison a site-specific level with less consideration forwatershed-scale effects. The management goal for fishand aquatic habitats could be achieved under thisalternative.

Impacts from Alternative B would be similar to Alter-native A. Because of law and policy (“EndangeredSpecies Act,” CWA, etc.) providing minimum protec-tion standards, the difference in effects betweenAlternatives A and B would be minimal, even thoughcommodity uses would be emphasized. Generally,minimally acceptable conditions would be required,and mitigation would occur on a case-by-case basisrather than on a watershed scale. While improvementswould occur, they would take longer and not be asextensive as would occur under Alternative A. Themanagement goal for fish and aquatic habitats could beachieved under this alternative, although at a much

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM54


4 -55

slower rate.

Impacts from Alternative C would be much less thanAlternative A. Recovery rates would be much fasterand would result in better fish and aquatic habitatconditions. Giving consideration to watershed-scaleeffects would result in more stable conditions. Themanagement goal for fish and aquatic habitats wouldbe achieved sooner and would be the most desirable forthese resource values compared to all other alterna-tives.

Alternative D, impacts of water resources and water-shed health guidance, would be similar to AlternativeC, including BMP implementation, but with lessstringent direction to restore watershed function andprocesses. There would be less improvement to fishand aquatic habitat than Alternative C. More consider-ation would be given to watershed-scale effects thanunder Alternatives A or B. The management goal forfish and aquatic habitats could be achieved under thisalternative, the results would not be as fast, norprogress as far as under Alternative C, but it would befaster than Alternatives A or B.

Alternative E would have mixed effects. Withoutdisturbance from commodity uses, fish and aquatichabitats would, in most cases, quickly improve andprogress to a later successional plant community.However, some degraded habitats would need sometype of active restoration, such as head cut stabiliza-tion, to prevent loss of habitat or recovery within thelife of the plan. Watershed scale effects would also bemixed, with natural recovery of uplands progressingwell but increased juniper encroachment continuing todegrade watershed conditions and impact fish andaquatic habitats. The management goal for fish andaquatic habitats could be achieved under this alterna-tive. This alternative would achieve goals at a rate andend point similar to Alternative C, except on areasneeding active restoration.


Actions that have a cumulative effect on watershedfunction, especially in relation to the watershed’sability to capture, store, and slowly release water,would ultimately impact fish and aquatic habitat. Onmost forested watersheds in the planning area, the “. . .equivalent clear cut acres cumulative watershed effects. . .” model evaluations indicate that timber harvest androad construction, along with channel incision andchannelization, have resulted in increase flood flows,increased frequency of floods, and floods that occurearlier in the season. The Deep Creek, Silver Creek,

and Chewaucan Watershed assessments/analyses(USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1998b; USDA-FS 1997b;1999) have demonstrated these changes to some degreein these watersheds. The change in the hydrograph hasimpacted channel form and thereby, fish and aquatichabitat. The cumulative effects that led to currentwatershed conditions are now being reversed as foresthealth improvements are implemented. The cumulativeeffect of these projects would build over time to returnto better fish and aquatic habitat conditions.

Irrigation development has impacted both habitat andfish directly. Water withdrawal increases water tem-perature and may at times dewater streams removingany fish habitat available. Past diversion structures andchannelization have fragmented habitats by preventingfish access to some stream habitats or by preventingaccess to more secure water in times of drought. Forinstance, the connection between Honey Creek andHart Lake is blocked by several diversions that do notallow adequate fish passage, and the diversions are notscreened to prevent fish from moving into irrigationchannels and subsequently being stranded in fields.Major modifications to Deep and Twentymile Creekshave resulted in the loss of connectivity between thesestreams and Crump Lake. Most of the diversionstructures could be modified to improve connectivityand still provide for irrigation.

Lack of fire has impacted vegetative communities byincreased sagebrush and conifer (mainly westernjuniper) invasion. As canopy cover closes, groundcover from grasses and forbs is reduced, decreasinginfiltration and reducing late-season flows. Increasederosion and sediment loads may impact spawning sites.Grazing has added to this process by removing finefuels, reducing fire size and frequency, and by reducingcompetition, enabling better establishment of sagebrushand conifers.

The introduction of predatory game fish to the planningarea has affected the ability of native fish to thrive and,in some cases, survive. Crappie, bass, and bullhead inWarner Valley have reduced the ability of native troutand suckers to thrive in area lakes. Higher in thewatershed, brook trout compete directly with nativeredband trout.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM55


4 - 56

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Management Goal 1—Facilitate the maintenance,restoration, and enhancement of big game (muledeer, elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep) populationsand habitat on public land. Pursue management inaccordance with Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW) big game species managementplans in a manner consistent with the principles ofmultiple use management.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirablevegetation communities would be beneficial to biggame habitat. Management of vegetation withinbighorn sheep habitat to provide for diverse, self-sustaining wildlife communities would have positiveimpacts to bighorn sheep.

Reduction and exclusion of natural (wildland) firesacross the landscape has led to a dramatic increase ofwestern juniper in many wildlife habitats. Historically,periodic wildland fires removed invasive juniper andsagebrush, and renewed big game forage grasses andforbs. If invasive western juniper continue to increase,many habitats would be adversely affected. The biggame forage base would decrease and predator hidingcover would increase. Though juniper managementprojects could be implemented in some areas, undercurrent management plans, no specific direction existsfor the removal of juniper in bighorn sheep habitat. Aswestern juniper cover increases, bighorn sheep usewould be concentrated in areas with less westernjuniper cover.

Noxious weeds are a significant threat to almost allwildlife habitats. Continued efforts to control noxiousweeds would be beneficial to big game. Some limiteddisturbance for short periods would occur during weedcontrol activities, but over the long term, these activi-ties would be beneficial.

Current forage production on nonnative ranges haveboth positive and negative impacts to big game species.Some desirable nonnative seedings, like crestedwheatgrass, provide habitat for pronghorn and muledeer at some times of the year. Depending on thegrazing season and duration of use, these seedingscould have both positive and negative impacts to thesespecies. If large seedings overlap with mule deerwinter range, negative impacts for deer will occur.

Limiting livestock use on winter browse would benefitmule deer and pronghorn.

The ODFW has set management objectives for mostpopulations of game species that occur within theplanning area. Current livestock numbers and forageallocations are not considered to be a limiting factor formost big game species. Some negative impacts occur,but most could be minimized by adjustments in thetiming, duration, and location of livestock grazingduring critical times of the year when these wildlifespecies are present.

Current livestock and wild horse management practiceswould have minimal impacts to bighorn sheep popula-tions and habitat. This is mostly due to differences inhabitat use. Overlap does exist between livestock/horses and bighorn sheep, especially during droughtconditions when bighorn sheep are more likely toventure farther away from rimrock areas in search ofwater. Current livestock or wild horse numbers andforage allocations are not considered to be limitingfactors on bighorn sheep populations. If this was tochange in the future, livestock/wild horse allocations ornumbers would be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.

Range improvement projects would have both negativeand positive impacts, depending on the location andtype of project proposed. Range improvements toincrease forage could benefit big game species, butwould probably not occur in the steep, rocky areastypical of bighorn sheep habitat and would haveminimal impacts on bighorn sheep. Maintenance andimprovements in existing wildlife water developmentswould benefit wildlife. Maintaining a buffer of at least9 miles between occupied bighorn sheep habitat anddomestic sheep and goats would help to ensure thatbighorn sheep do not contract diseases from theseanimals.

Current recreation activities would have minimaleffects on big game and their habitat. Recreationalviewing and hunting does occur throughout the plan-ning area. Hunting serves as one important manage-ment tool for controlling herd populations at levels setby the ODFW. These impacts would continue to beminimal and are not expected to dramatically increaseover time.

Adverse impacts from exploration and development oflocatable and salable minerals could impact big gamehabitats. Loss or destruction of habitat could occurthrough surface-disturbing operations. Leasablemineral development could impact big game habitat,but the impacts could be mitigated more effectively

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM56


4 -57

(Appendix N3). After mine closure and reclamation,these species would reoccupy these areas (providedmining activities did not result in invasions of undes-ired vegetation or noxious weeds). If the DevilsGarden WSA is not designated wilderness, disposal ofmineral material, decorative stone, and cinder in thearea would negatively impact bighorn sheep habitat.

Impacts from land acquisitions and disposals would beminimized by retaining land with quality bighorn sheephabitat and mule deer winter range. Impacts fromauthorizations of rights-of-way for large-scalepowerlines, fiberoptic cables, and pipelines could besignificant, depending on how much habitat wasimpacted and by using appropriate mitigation andBMP’s.

Continuing seasonal road closures in the Cabin Lake/Silver Lake Deer Winter Range Cooperative ClosureArea and permanent road closures in the Devils GardenWSA/ACEC and Cougar Mountain (Table 4-4) wouldreduce harassment of mule deer and bighorn sheep.

Alternative B

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirablevegetation communities would be beneficial to biggame habitat, provided that forage enhancementactivities for livestock did not overlap with mule deeror pronghorn winter range.

Reduction and exclusion of natural fires across thelandscape has led to a dramatic increase of westernjuniper in many habitats. Historically, periodic firesremoved invasive juniper and renewed forage. Thetreatment of 18,000 to 30,000 acres of invasive juniperon bighorn sheep range in the Devils Garden, EastLava Field (Squaw Ridge), Fish Creek Rim (LynchRim), South Warner Rim, Coleman Rim, South AbertRim, and Hadley Butte herd ranges and 10,000 to25,000 acres in mule deer winter range using a combi-nation of prescribed fire and mechanical methodswould benefit big game. After treatment, the foragebase would increase and predator hiding cover woulddecrease, thereby having positive impacts.

Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper inbighorn sheep habitat would occur on Lynch Rim andwould have positive impacts to bighorn sheep. Withinthis area, removal of western juniper would provide theincreased forage and better landscape structure thatbighorn sheep prefer.

Noxious weeds are a significant threat to almost allwildlife habitats. If efforts are shifted from controlling

weeds in big game habitats to control in other commod-ity-driven areas, then big game habitats would suffernegative impacts. These impacts would probably beminor, unless major disturbances occurred and theresulting conditions were more suitable for noxiousweeds.

By placing an emphasis on specific habitat needs forindividual species, including big game species, man-agement of vegetation within big game habitats provid-ing diverse, self-sustaining communities of wildlifewould have positive impacts to big game species.Improvements in onsite wildlife water developments insome areas would also have beneficial impacts towildlife.

Increased emphasis on forage production and increasednumbers of livestock could cause increased negativeimpacts to big game species. Direct competitionbetween big game species and livestock for foragewould remain minor due to dietary differences betweenlivestock and most species. Adjustments in timing,duration, and location of livestock grazing wouldminimize other impacts to big game species. Livestockand wild horse management practices would haveminimal impacts to bighorn sheep populations andhabitat, mostly due to differences in habitat use.Overlap does exist between livestock, horses, andbighorn sheep, especially during drought conditionswhen bighorn sheep are more likely to venture furtheraway from rimrock areas in search of water. Currentlivestock or wild horse numbers are not considered tobe limiting factors on bighorn sheep populations. Ifthis changed within the life of the plan, changes inlivestock allocations or wild horse numbers would beaddressed on a case-by-case basis and adjustmentswould be made accordingly.

Increased fire response and full suppression in com-modity areas would have both positive and negativeimpacts to big game habitats. Fires would have posi-tive long-term benefits to big game by removal ofinvasive western juniper. Fires would also havenegative, short-term impacts if forage and coverspecies were removed.

The impacts of recreational viewing and hunting of biggame would be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration anddevelopment in big game habitats would be similar toAlternative A. Loss or destruction of habitat couldoccur in the case of some surface operations. Aftermine closure and or reclamation, these species wouldreoccupy these areas, providing the activities do not

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM57


4 - 58

result in invasions of undesired vegetation or noxiousweeds. Negative impacts to bighorn sheep wouldresult from increased human activity in the areas of theDevils Garden, Squaw Ridge, and Four Craters lavaflows. Removal of cinders and decorative stone wouldcause bighorn sheep displacement and possible aban-donment of habitats where repeated disturbance fromhumans occurs. Increased activity in the north end ofLake Abert ACEC could also cause increased negativeimpacts compared to Alternative A.

Maintaining existing seasonal/permanent road closureimpacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C

The increased emphasis on restoration and ecosystemhealth and decreased emphasis on commodity produc-tion would provide increased forage for big gamespecies, including areas of nonnative seedings. Thesepositive impacts would occur where the desirablevegetation was compatible with the type of forage thatbig game prefer.

Invasive western juniper would be actively treated insome areas for wildlife habitat restoration purposes.Reduction and exclusion of natural fires across thelandscape has led to a dramatic increase of westernjuniper in many habitats. Historically, periodic firesremoved invasive juniper and renewed forage. Thetreatment of 18,000 to 30,000 acres of invasive juniperon bighorn sheep range in the Devils Garden, EastLava Field (Squaw Ridge), Fish Creek Rim (LynchRim), South Warner Rim, Coleman Rim, South AbertRim, and Hadley Butte herd ranges and 10,000 to25,000 acres in mule deer winter range using a combi-nation of prescribed fire and mechanical methodswould benefit big game. This would have beneficialimpacts to big game species if patches of adequatesecurity cover are left after treatment. After treatment,the forage base would increase and predator hidingcover would decrease, thereby having positive impacts.

Increased control of noxious weeds would have posi-tive benefits to big game. Currently, noxious weedsoccur in a few areas. At this time, many of theseinfestations are minor, but given the right conditions,have potential to increase. Increased weed controlwould not dramatically increase big game populationsbut would provide better quality habitat.

Big game habitat would improve as a result of in-creased watershed function and improved watershedcondition.

Allocation of an additional 9,138 AUM’s of wildlifeforage would benefit big game populations. Directcompetition between big game species and livestockfor forage would decrease and remain minor due todietary differences between livestock and most gamespecies. Adjustments in timing, duration, and locationof livestock grazing would minimize other impacts tobig game species. Limiting livestock use on winterbrowse would benefit deer and pronghorn. Allowingno domestic sheep grazing in the planning area unlessit can be demonstrated that it would not negativelyimpact established or proposed bighorn sheep augmen-tation sites would minimize conflicts between bighornand domestic sheep.

The impacts of recreational viewing and hunting of biggame would be similar to Alternative A.

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails acrossthe planning area would result in less disturbance to biggame. Disturbance from OHV’s does occur in someareas and is higher in the early spring and fall. Re-duced disturbance from OHV’s will result in positiveimpacts to big game.

Impacts from fire suppression activities would besimilar to those in Alternative B. In extreme cases,wildland fire would alter big game habitats enough tohave negative impacts. Repeated fire could negativelyimpact habitat by changing from perennial species toannual exotic grasslands, such as cheatgrass. As aresult of fuels reduction projects, potential wildlandfire frequency, size, and severity would decline overthe life of the plan. This would have positive impactsto many big game habitats.

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration and landacquisitions would be similar to those in Alternative A.Adverse impacts could result from loss or destructionof habitat during some operations, but impacts areexpected to be kept to a minimum by avoiding impor-tant habitats. Expanding seasonal/permanent roadclosures would benefit mule deer and bighorn sheepmore than Alternative or B (Table 4-4).

Closing roads that are not needed would benefit biggame. Road closures would reduce access and thereby,reduce human disturbance, increasing the quality of thehabitat.

Alternative D

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirablevegetation communities would be beneficial to biggame habitat. Increased emphasis on restoration and

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM58


4 -59

habitat diversity in nonnative seedings would havepositive impacts to game species. These positiveimpacts to game species would occur where increasedemphasis on desirable vegetation was compatible withforage that game species would utilize.

Invasive western juniper would be treated in someareas for restoration of wildlife habitat. The impactswould be similar to Alternative C.

Noxious weeds are a significant threat to almost allwildlife habitats. Continued efforts to control noxiousweeds would be beneficial to big game habitat. Somelimited disturbance for short periods would occur inbig game habitat during weed control activities, butwould be beneficial over the long term.

By placing equal emphasis on habitat needs for indi-vidual species, communities, game, and nongamespecies, management of vegetation within big gamehabitats to provide for diverse, self-sustaining commu-nities would have positive impacts to big game. Allow-ing no new domestic sheep grazing in the planning areaunless it can be demonstrated that it would not nega-tively impact established or proposed bighorn sheepaugmentation sites would minimize bighorn sheep/domestic sheep conflicts. Improvements in onsitewildlife water developments would also have beneficialimpacts to wildlife in some areas.

Current forage production on nonnative ranges wouldhave both positive and negative impacts to big gamespecies. Some desirable nonnative seedings, likecrested wheatgrass, provide habitat for pronghorn andmule deer at given times of the year. Depending ongrazing season use and duration of use, these seedingscould have both positive and negative impacts to thesespecies. If large seedings overlap with deer winterrange, negative impacts would occur. Some negativeimpacts could be minimized by adjustments in thetiming, duration, and location of livestock grazingduring critical times of the year when these wildlifespecies are present. Allocation of an additional 9,138AUM’s of wildlife forage would benefit big gamepopulations. Limiting livestock use on winter browsewould benefit deer and pronghorn.

Livestock and wild horse management practices haveminimal impacts to bighorn sheep populations andhabitat, mostly due to differences in habitat use.Overlap does exist between livestock, horses, andbighorn sheep, especially during drought conditionswhen bighorn sheep are more likely to venture furtheraway from rimrock areas in search of water. Livestockor increased wild horse numbers would not limit

bighorn sheep populations. If this changes within thelife of the plan, changes in livestock allocations or wildhorse numbers would be addressed on a case-by-casebasis and adjustments would be made accordingly.

Range improvements to increase forage would prob-ably not occur in bighorn sheep habitat and would haveminimal impacts to bighorn sheep. Range improve-ment projects in other big game habitats would haveboth negative and positive impacts, depending on thelocation and type of project proposed.

Impacts of recreation viewing and hunting would besimilar to Alternative A.

Impacts from OHV use would be reduced on thenorthern one-third of the planning area, due to limitingvehicles to existing or designated roads and trails (MapR-7). This would lead to greater security and habitatquality for big game species within this area.

Adverse impacts from exploration and development ofminerals could occur on big game habitats. Loss ordestruction of habitat could occur in the case of somesurface operations. After mine closure and reclama-tion, these species could reoccupy these areas, provid-ing that reclamation activities did not result in inva-sions of undesired vegetation or noxious weeds. If theDevils Garden WSA is not designated as wilderness,disposal of mineral material, building stone, andcinders in that area would negatively impact bighornsheep habitat.

Impacts from land acquisitions and disposals would beminimized by retaining land with quality bighorn sheephabitat and mule deer winter range. Impacts fromauthorizations of rights-of-way and permits for large-scale powerlines, fiberoptic cables, and pipelines couldbe significant if large areas of significant habitat wereimpacted. It is expected that these impacts would beavoided through the use of right-of-way avoidance andexclusion areas (Map L-8).

Expanding seasonal/permanent road closures (Table 4-4) would benefit mule deer and bighorn sheep morethan Alternatives A and B, but less than Alternative C(Map SMA-24).

Alternative E

No active restoration of big game habitats would occur.Habitat quality and condition would be determined bynatural processes.

Impacts from noxious weeds would increase due to

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM59


4 - 60

lack of control and increased spread rates after fires.With lack of noxious weed control and no activerestoration after wildland fires, quality of big gamehabitat would decrease over the life of the plan.

No livestock grazing would be authorized across theplanning area; therefore, no forage allocation would benecessary. Maximum forage would be available forwildlife uses. No major negative impacts from man-agement of forage production would occur to wildlife.Wildlife populations would be expected to slightlyincrease over the life of the plan, except that impactsfrom fire or other natural processes would change thehabitat.

Impacts from wild horses would remain the same asAlternative A. Some negative impacts to wildlifewould be expected to occur, but these could be kept toa minimum by close monitoring of wild horse numberswithin herd management areas and by gathering excesshorses on a regular basis.

Wildland fire would be the major factor shapingwildlife habitats on the landscape. In most areas of thesagebrush steppe, there would be no threats to humanlife or manmade structures, and therefore, wildlandfires would not be suppressed. In dry years, largewildland fires would sweep over the landscape chang-ing the structure of most wildlife habitat from sage-brush steppe to grassland. Sagebrush steppe thatcurrently has a viable understory of native and nonna-tive perennial grasses and forbs would probablycontinue to have these perennial species after recoveryfrom fire. Sagebrush steppe that currently has anunderstory of exotic annual grasses or no perennialgrasses would most likely be converted to annualgrasslands, which would require several years withoutfire to allow shrub reestablishment. It is doubtful thatshrubs could be reestablished on many of these siteswithout active restoration or rehabilitation. Wildlandfires would not receive active rehabilitation.

Positive impacts from fire would occur from westernjuniper removal in some habitats. Western juniperstands with a significant shrub understory remaining orwith closed canopies would be removed by wildlandfire. Western juniper stands without a sufficient shrubunderstory or closed canopies would remain on thelandscape.

Impacts of recreation viewing and hunting would besimilar to Alternative A.

Use of OHV’s would be limited to existing or desig-nated roads and trails across the planning area. This

would provide positive impacts to big game species.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, big game habitat would continueto improve slowly over time. Continued emphasis onsingle species management and on game species wouldensure that habitats for game species are maintained.Active management of invasive western juniper, winterrange, and noxious weeds would be the key to success.These activities would be considered through site-specific analysis on a case-by-case basis for each areaand would not be considered for big game habitats as awhole across the planning area. The management goalwould be met over the life of the plan.

Impacts for Alternative B would be similar to Alterna-tive A, except that more human disturbance wouldoccur in bighorn sheep habitat from rock collectors. Ifthis disturbance was significant, displacement ofbighorn sheep from these habitats would occur. Thisalternative also takes a more active approach to manag-ing western juniper. If displacement of bighorn sheepoccurs under this alternative, the management goal forbighorn sheep would not be met within these areas.The management goal would be met in areas whereincreased human activity did not take place.

Under Alternatives C and D, habitats for big gamespecies would also be maintained. Emphasis would beplaced on communities, game, and nongame species.Both alternatives take a more holistic approach towestern juniper management, outlining where manage-ment activities would be expected to occur over the lifeof the plan. Both alternatives focus on active restora-tion of degraded habitats, but Alternative C wouldachieve the management goals faster than AlternativeD. Neither of these alternatives would be effectivewithout increased funding for restoration. The man-agement goal would be met under both alternatives, butthe timeframe would be directly associated with theamount of funds that are available for restoration.

Under Alternative E, wildland fires would not besuppressed except to protect human life and property,and would likely burn more habitats than under theother alternatives. The lack of active restoration wouldhave negative impacts to big game habitat if noxiousweeds or exotic annual grasses became major prob-lems. This management goal would likely not beachieved completely under this alternative. The degreeof achievement would rely solely on natural processesand could vary greatly.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM60


4 -61


Under Alternative E, indirect impacts from naturalprocesses would occur. Wildland fire would remove alarge proportion of shrub habitats from the planningarea. No active restoration would occur on landsburned by wildland fire. This would have dramaticnegative impacts to many big game species. If thishappens, many sites with low ecological integrity andinvasive annual grasses would develop into annualgrasslands, decreasing the value of these lands forwildlife.

Historic cumulative impacts to big game habitat werefrom overgrazing at the turn of the century and intro-duction of domestic sheep diseases. Degraded rangeconditions allowed for invasion by cheatgrass andnoxious weeds. Decades of fire suppression have alsoallowed western juniper invasion in some areas.Without major new disturbances in noxious weedareas, the spread of these weeds would eventuallystabilize, but disturbances in this landscape are inevi-table. Alternatives that support noxious weed control,removal of western juniper in a natural mosaic pattern,and active restoration of big game habitats wouldreduce or eliminate these cumulative impacts.

Management Goal 2—Manage upland habitats,including shrub steppe, forest, and woodlands, so thatthe forage, water, cover, structure, and securitynecessary for wildlife are available on public land.

Analysis of Impacts


Following the interim greater sage-grouse managementguidelines (Sage-Grouse Planning Team 2000) wouldprotect and enhance greater sage-grouse habitat (sage-brush connectivity and grass/forb availability) until amore comprehensive, long-term strategy for greatersage-grouse and other sagebrush steppe-dependentwildlife species is completed. The degree to whichthese interim guidelines are implemented does varysomewhat by alternative; most notably between Alter-natives C and D. Once completed, the long-termstrategy would supercede the greater sage-grousedirection contained in this RMP, to the further benefitof greater sage-grouse and their habitat.

Alternative A

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirablenative upland vegetation communities would bebeneficial to upland wildlife species, including sage-

brush-dependent species by increasing the quality ofhabitat.

Maintaining large nonnative seedings and not allowingsagebrush to naturally reestablish in these areas wouldhave negative impacts to some wildlife species, espe-cially sagebrush-dependent species. Large seedingscould act as a barrier thereby reducing dispersal andmovements from one habitat area to another.

Restoring degraded or decadent shrublands would havea positive impact on sagebrush-dependent wildlife. Asactive management and restoration of these areasoccurs, better-quality habitat would be available forsagebrush-dependent wildlife.

Management of commercial forestlands would only beconsidered for forest or ecosystem health issues. Thesetypes of activities would have beneficial impacts toforest/forest fringe wildlife species.

Juniper woodland management would continue tooccur on a limited scale. Reducing the amount ofinvasive western juniper in some areas where it hasinvaded sagebrush stands would have positive impactsto upland wildlife, particularly sagebrush-dependentwildlife (Miller 1999; Reinkensmeyer et al. 2000),provided the area is not subsequently invaded byundesirable plant species or noxious weeds. Whenwestern juniper begins invading sagebrush, the diver-sity of wildlife species, mostly small birds and mam-mals, initially increases. As juniper density continuesto increase, the density of shrubs decreases, as doesdiversity of species using these sites. Eventually,shrubs are outcompeted and disappear from the site,thereby changing wildlife species composition to favortree and cavity nesters (Miller 1999; Reinkensmeyer etal. 2000). Managing these sites to provide a diversityof habitat would provide positive benefits for a greatnumber of upland wildlife species.

Riparian areas are very important to many uplandspecies because most of them also spend a portion oftheir time in this habitat. Activities that restore orimprove riparian vegetation and function would havepositive impacts to upland species. The degree of theseimpacts would be directly related to the degree ofimprovement in riparian vegetation and function.

Noxious weeds are a serious threat to all uplandwildlife species, but especially to sagebrush-dependentspecies. When noxious weeds invade high qualitywildlife habitat, forage, cover, and structure of habitatsare negatively impacted. Efforts to control and eradi-cate noxious weeds would have positive impacts to

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM61


4 - 62

upland wildlife, including sagebrush-dependent wild-life. The degree of these impacts would be directlyrelated to the degree of decrease in noxious weeds andthe degree of restoration that occurs after weed eradica-tion.

Negative impacts to migratory upland birds wouldoccur on a case-by-case basis. Fragmentation ofhabitats would still occur, but would improve slowlyover time. Limited restoration projects would havepositive impacts to migratory landbirds, but conserva-tion of habitats would not be done on a landscape scale.Habitats for migratory upland birds would be expectedto remain the same over time.

Current livestock and wild horse management practicescould have some negative impacts to upland wildlife,including sagebrush-dependent species, by direct orindirect alteration of forage, cover, and/or habitatstructure. Excessive utilization in some areas wouldremove desirable grass and forb cover that somespecies require. These negative impacts could beminimized by adjustments in timing and duration oflivestock use and by close monitoring of wild horseherds within the herd management areas.

The habitat protection resulting from management ofexisting ACEC/RNA’s would continue to have positivebenefits to upland and sagebrush-dependent wildlifespecies. Management of these areas has resulted inslight increases in the habitat quality and populationsof these species.

Current and historic fire suppression activities havehad a dramatic impact on sagebrush-dependent wild-life. This, along with other factors, has contributed toan increase in the density of sagebrush stands and adecrease in the grass and forb component within thosestands. This has had a negative impact on many uplandspecies, including sagebrush-dependent species. Ifcurrent management trends continue without activesagebrush stand restoration, populations of manysagebrush-dependent species would continue to de-cline. At the landscape level, these dense stands ofsagebrush would likely burn more intensively andacross larger areas than under historical conditions. Asa result, most sagebrush types in the planning areawould likely not reestablish for decades.

Prescribed fires can have dramatic positive and nega-tive impacts to wildlife habitat. These impacts dependgreatly on the wildlife species being considered and onthe intensity, duration, and timing of the fire activity.Impacts from prescribed fire would be considered on acase-by-case basis.

OHV use would continue to impact upland and sage-brush-dependent species throughout much of theplanning area. Most negative impacts to these specieswould be related to direct disturbance and wouldtypically occur during nesting season. Some habitatmodification could also take place, but this would belimited to a few areas.

Energy and mineral exploration and development andnew rights-of-way or utility corridors would have somenegative impacts on upland wildlife habitat withinlocalized areas. New mineral developments in sage-brush habitats could be mitigated by avoiding impor-tant areas, limiting surface disturbance, and limitingtravel off existing roads. However, most impactswould require a long time to recover and a loss ofhabitat would result in the short term. New rights-of-way or utility corridors located in native sagebrushhabitat would have negative impacts on sagebrush-dependent wildlife. New construction located neargreater sage-grouse lek sites would cause habitatdisturbance and create raptor perches. This couldcause major negative effects and, over time, causeabandonment of the lek site due to increased predation,or habitat changes.

Alternative B

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A, with thefollowing differences:

Restoring degraded and decadent shrublands wouldhave a positive impact on sagebrush-dependent wild-life. However, Alternative B would emphasize restora-tion that optimizes forage production rather than nativewildlife habitat. If an increase in forage allocationoccurred on decadent or degraded native rangeland, theresulting decrease in grasses and forbs and increase insagebrush density would have negative impacts ongreater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependentwildlife species.

Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper insome areas would have similar impacts as AlternativeA, but less emphasis would be placed on nongamewildlife species where increased commodity produc-tion could be attained.

Livestock management would be similar to AlternativeA, but would have increased negative impacts onwildlife habitat due to the increased emphasis oncommodity production.

Impacts from prescribed and wildland fire would be thesame as Alternative A. However, increased treatments

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM62


4 -63

of quaking aspen stands with prescribed fire wouldremove invasive western juniper, stimulate new aspengrowth, and would have positive impacts to associatedwildlife species.

Increased energy and mineral exploration and develop-ment on the north end of Abert Lake would havesignificant negative impacts to wildlife. If sodiumsettling ponds were built within the guidelines of themineral development scenarios (Appendix N2), wild-life would be displaced from 30 to 50 percent of theplaya habitat on the north end of the lake. Geothermalenergy development would have similar impacts.Supporting facilities, such as a processing plant,powerlines, and pipelines, would also cause increasednegative impacts to wildlife through modification ofhabitat.

Alternative C

Protection, restoration, and enhancement of desirablevegetation communities would be beneficial to uplandwildlife species, including sagebrush-dependentspecies. Increased emphasis on native plant speciesand on reestablishing species diversity and structure innonnative seedings would increase both the quality andquantity of habitat available for these species. Ifsignificant protection and restoration were to occuracross the landscape, then populations of these wildlifespecies would increase.

Management of large blocks of sagebrush steppe wouldhave positive impacts to migratory landbirds. A focuson existing shrub steppe in high ecological conditionand a “no net loss” of these habitats would havepositive impacts to these species. Positive impactswould also occur through a reduction in fragmentationfrom restoration of degraded rangelands and changes inmanagement activities. Habitats for many species oflandbirds would be expected to increase over time.

Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper insome areas would have similar impacts as AlternativeA, but increased emphasis would be placed on non-game wildlife species. Reducing the amount of youngwestern juniper in areas where it has invaded sagebrushstands would have a positive impact to sagebrush-dependent wildlife (Miller 1999; Reinkensmeyer et al.2000), provided the area is not subsequently invadedby undesirable plant species or noxious weeds. Man-aging these sites to provide a diversity of habitatswould provide positive impacts for a great number ofwildlife species.

Management for zero tolerance for noxious weeds

would benefit most wildlife species. Aggressivenoxious weed management would increase habitatquantity and quality for upland and sagebrush-depen-dent wildlife species.

Increased emphasis on landscape management andecosystem health and decreased emphasis on commod-ity use would have positive impacts on wildlife speciesby increasing the quality of available habitat. Reduc-tions in livestock forage allocations, adjustments intiming and duration of livestock use, and close moni-toring of wild horse herds within the herd managementareas would minimize negative impacts.

The habitat protection resulting from management ofexisting and new ACEC/RNA’s would have positivebenefits to upland and sagebrush-dependent wildlifespecies. This would result in slight increases inhabitat quality and populations of these species.

Wildland fire management activities under this alterna-tive would shift to aggressive fire suppression insagebrush habitats with high ecological integrity toprotect remaining habitats important to sagebrushdependant species. Without aggressive suppression,declines in sagebrush-dependant species would acceler-ate. The increased emphasis on the use of prescribedfire for restoration of degraded habitats could havenegative impacts to sagebrush-dependent wildlifespecies if key habitats are burned. Treating habitatsthat are key to the survival of these species would beavoided if significant negative impacts are suspected.Increased treatments of quaking aspen stands withprescribed fire would remove invasive western juniper,stimulate aspen growth, and would have positiveimpacts to associated wildlife species.

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails acrossthe planning area would result in much less disturbanceand greater security for upland wildlife species com-pared to Alternatives A or B. Reduced disturbancefrom OHV’s would result in slight increases to thesespecies.

New rights-of-way or utility corridors, if located innative sagebrush habitat, could have negative impactson some sagebrush-dependent wildlife. However, thelocation of new rights-of-way would be avoided ingreater sage-grouse habitat (Map L-4 of the DraftRMP/EIS and Map W-1).

Impacts from energy and mineral exploration would bethe same as those listed in Alternative A.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM63


4 - 64

Alternative D

Restoring degraded and decadent shrublands wouldhave a positive impact on sagebrush-dependent wild-life. As active management and restoration of theseareas occurred, better quality habitat would be madeavailable. Protection, restoration, and enhancement ofother desirable upland vegetation communities wouldbenefit wildlife by increasing the quality of habitat.Maintaining large nonnative seedings and not allowingsagebrush to naturally reestablish these areas wouldhave negative impacts to sagebrush-dependent species.Large seedings could act as a barrier to some species,thereby reducing movement from one habitat area toanother.

Management of large blocks of sagebrush steppe wouldhave positive impacts to migratory landbirds. A focuson existing shrub steppe in high ecological conditionand a “no net loss” of these habitats would havepositive impacts to these species. Positive impactswould also occur through a reduction in fragmentationfrom restoration of degraded rangelands and changes inmanagement activities. Habitats for many species oflandbirds would be expected to increase over time.

Riparian areas are very important to many uplandwildlife species because most of them also spend aportion of their time in this habitat. Activities thatrestore or improve riparian vegetation and functionwould have positive impacts. The degree of theseimpacts would be directly related to the degree ofimprovement in riparian vegetation and function.

Management of commercial forestlands would only beconsidered for forest health or wildlife issues. Thesetypes of activities would have beneficial impacts toforest/forest fringe wildlife species.

Reducing the amount of invasive western juniper insome areas where it has invaded sagebrush would havepositive impacts to wildlife (Miller 1999;Reinkensmeyer et al. 2000), provided the area is notsubsequently invaded by undesirable plant species ornoxious weeds. When western juniper begins invadingsagebrush, the diversity of wildlife species, mostlysmall birds and mammals, initially increases. Asjuniper density continues to increase, the density ofshrubs decreases, as does the diversity of wildlifespecies using these sites. Eventually, shrub coverwould disappear from the site, thereby decreasingspecies diversity (Miller 1999; Reinkensmeyer et al.2000). Managing these sites to provide a diversity ofhabitat would provide positive impacts for a greatnumber of wildlife species. Reducing the amount of

invasive western juniper in bighorn sheep habitatwould have positive impacts to bighorn sheep. Withinthese areas, removal of western juniper would providethe increased forage and better landscape structure.

Noxious weeds are a serious threat to all uplandwildlife species. When noxious weeds invade qualitywildlife habitat, forage, cover, and structure of habitatsare negatively impacted. Efforts to control and eradi-cate noxious weeds would have positive impacts towildlife. The degree of these impacts would be directlyrelated to the degree of decrease in noxious weeds andthe degree of restoration that occurs after weed eradica-tion.

Livestock and wild horse management practices couldhave some negative impacts to upland wildlife speciesby altering forage, cover, and/or structure of habitatsdirectly or indirectly. Excessive utilization in someareas can remove desirable grass and forb cover thatsome species require. These negative impacts can beminimized by adjustments in timing and duration oflivestock use and by close monitoring of wild horseherds within the herd management areas for appropri-ate management levels.

The impacts of existing and new ACEC/RNA manage-ment and fire management would be similar to Alterna-tive C.

Current and historic suppression of wildland fires,along with other factors, has contributed to an increasein the density of sagebrush stands and a decrease in thegrass and forb component within those stands. Thishas had a negative impact on many wildlife species.This trend would be countered by increased prescribedfire and wildland fire use. Fire can have dramaticpositive and negative impacts to wildlife habitat.These impacts depend greatly on the wildlife speciesbeing considered and on the intensity, duration, andtiming of the fire activity.

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails in thenorthern end of the planning area (Map R-7; Table 4-5)would decrease impacts to upland wildlife species.Reduced disturbance from OHV’s could result in slightpopulation increases of these species.

Energy and mineral exploration and new rights-of-wayor utility corridors would have some negative impactson upland wildlife habitat within localized areas. Newmining activities in sagebrush vegetation could bemitigated by avoiding areas, limiting surface distur-bance, and limiting travel off existing roads. However,most impacts would require a long time to recover, and

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM64


4 -65

a loss of habitat would result in the short term. Newrights-of-way or utility corridors, if located away fromexisting corridors and in native sagebrush habitat,would have negative impacts on sagebrush-dependentwildlife. The location of new rights-of-ways would beavoided near greater sage-grouse lek sites and breedinghabitat (Map L-8 and W-1).

Alternative E

Natural processes would be the driving force shapingthe quality, connectivity, and diversity of uplandwildlife habitats.

Impacts from noxious weeds would increase due to thelack of control and increased spread rates after wild-fires. With lack of noxious weed control and no activerestoration after wildland fires, wildlife habitat qualitywould decrease.

No livestock grazing would be authorized across theplanning area. All existing forage would be availablefor wildlife use. Increased residual grasses and forbswould benefit sagebrush-dependent wildlife species.Upland wildlife populations could increase, except thatimpacts from fire or other natural processes wouldchange habitats.

Impacts from wild horses would be similar to Alterna-tive A. Some negative impacts to wildlife would beexpected, but these could be kept to a minimum byclose monitoring of wild horse herds within the herdmanagement areas and by gathering excess horses on aregular basis.

Wildland fire would be the major factor shapingwildlife habitats on the landscape. In most areas of thesagebrush steppe, there would be no threats to humanlife or manmade structures and therefore, wildland fireswould not be suppressed. In dry years, large wildlandfires would sweep over the landscape, changing thestructure of most wildlife habitat from sagebrushsteppe to grassland. Sagebrush steppe that currentlyhas a viable understory of native and nonnative peren-nial grasses and forbs would probably continue to havethese perennial species present following fire. Sage-brush steppe that currently has an understory of exoticannual grasses or no perennial grasses would mostlikely be converted to annual grasslands, which wouldrequire several years without fire to allow shrubreestablishment. It is doubtful that shrubs could bereestablished on many of these sites without activerestoration or rehabilitation. Wildland fires would notreceive active rehabilitation.

Wildland fires would open understories in ponderosapine stands, maintaining them in open conditions. Nomajor negative impacts to wildlife would be expectedto occur unless stand replacement fires removed largeportions of forest. Western juniper stands with asignificant shrub understory remaining or with closedcanopies would be removed by wildland fire. Westernjuniper stands without a sufficient shrub understory orclosed canopies would remain on the landscape.

Impacts to upland wildlife from wildland fire wouldvary widely from species to species.

Wildlife diversity in juniper woodlands would de-crease. Areas with the most wildlife diversity (mid-sucessional stands) would be the ones most likelyconsumed by wildfire due to the presence of shrubs inthese stands. Negative impacts to sagebrush-dependentwildlife would be significant. Without active rehabili-tation, many burned habitats would likely be convertedto semi-permanent annual grasslands. Available habitatand populations of sagebrush-dependent wildlife woulddecline over the long term. Increases in nonnativegrasses and conversion of sagebrush steppe to grass-lands would have negative impacts to migratorylandbirds. It is expected that habitats for many speciesof landbirds would be expected to decrease greatly overtime. Other wildlife species that prefer open grasslandswould benefit from wildland fire and their populationswould be expected to increase.

Use of OHV’s would be limited to existing roads andtrails across the planning area. Impacts would besimilar to Alternative C.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, habitats for most upland wildlifewould remain relatively static over time. Some habi-tats such as Wyoming big sagebrush will continue todecline, but others, such as open grasslands, would becreated. Habitat for sagebrush-dependent specieswould continue to decline slowly over time. Identifica-tion, conservation, and fire suppression activitieswithin the remaining blocks of sagebrush steppe whereecological integrity is still high would offset thisdecline. Some restoration of degraded sagebrushsteppe would occur, but this would not be a priority.Maintaining nonnative seedings to promote forageproduction would support the declining trend insagebrush-dependent species. There would be mixedresults for other wildlife species, depending on thespecies. For the most part, under this alternative,restoration and management of wildlife habitats wouldonly be considered on a case-by-case basis, not at the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM65


4 - 66

landscape level. The management goal would be metover the life of the plan, although no significantincreases or decreases would be expected to occurwhen considering wildlife as a whole.

Impacts from Alternative B would be similar to Alter-native A, except that increased emphasis would beplaced on commodity production. Restoration wouldalso be focused in commodity production areas.Commodity production areas would receive firesuppression priorities over other resource values. Withincreased emphasis on commodity production, somewildlife habitats would continue to decline. Themanagement goal for most upland wildlife specieswould be met within the life of the plan, but at a slowerrate than under Alternative A. Sagebrush-dependentspecies would continue to decline and this managementgoal would most likely not be met within the life of theplan.

Under Alternative C, remaining habitats that areimportant to priority wildlife species would be aprimary area of focus. The remaining blocks ofsagebrush steppe where ecological integrity is highwould be closely monitored and conserved. Restora-tion priorities would be given to those areas withimportant wildlife habitats, such as sagebrush steppethat is in moderate to low ecological condition wherenatives grasses and forbs could disappear from the site.Active restoration would move these areas back towardhigher ecological integrity and reverse the decreasingtrend. Close monitoring of grazing activities to allowfor enough residual grasses to remain onsite would alsobenefit wildlife habitats. Sagebrush-dependent specieswould increase over the life of the plan at a moderaterate. Alternative C would meet the management goalfaster than all other alternatives.

Alternative D would have impacts similar to Alterna-tives A and C. Habitats that are important to prioritywildlife species (sagebrush steppe) would still getpriority, but would be achieved at a slower rate thanAlternative C and at a faster rate than Alternatives Aand B. The management goal would be met under thisalternative, but the timeframe for meeting the manage-ment goal would be directly associated to the amountof funds that are available for restoration.

Alternative E would impact sagebrush-dependentspecies the most. Wildland fire would remove a largeproportion of the sagebrush habitats over time. Norestoration would occur on lands burned by wildlandfire. This would have dramatic negative impacts tothese species. It would take decades for most of thesehabitats to recover. Any sites with low ecological

integrity and invasive annual grasses would requiremuch longer to recover. This management goal wouldnot be met under this alternative, and sagebrush-dependent species would decline

Alternative E would negatively impact upland wildlifespecies the most. Wildland fire would remove a largeproportion of sagebrush habitats over time. No restora-tion would occur on lands burned by wildland fire.This will have dramatic negative impacts to manypriority wildlife species. It would take decades formost of these habitats to recover. Any sites with lowecological integrity and invasive annual grasses wouldrequire much longer to recover. The management goalwill not be met under this alternative and many uplandand sagebrush-dependent wildlife species woulddecline at much greater rates than under Alternative A.


Historic, cumulative impacts to sagebrush steppehabitats occurred from overgrazing at the turn of thecentury and decades of fire suppression. Coupled withthe invasion of exotic species, such as cheatgrass, thishas led to a reduction in understory grasses and forbsand has left much of the remaining sagebrush habitatsin moderate to low ecological condition. Activities thatallow noxious weeds and invasive exotic plant specieslike cheatgrass to increase would cause cumulativeimpacts to wildlife habitats. At any given moment intime, these impacts would not be significant, until sometype of large disturbance, like wildland fire, reducescompetition with other species, allowing invasivespecies to increase. Without major investments inrestoration, these cumulative impacts would continueto keep most sagebrush habitats in poor condition.Alternatives that support active management andrestoration would increase habitat for sagebrush-dependent species.

Special Status Animal Species

Management Goal—Manage public land to main-tain, restore, or enhance populations and habitats ofspecial status animal species. Priority for the applica-tion of management actions would be : (1) Federalendangered species, (2) Federal threatened species,(3) Federal proposed species, (4) Federal candidatespecies, (5) State listed species, (6) BLM sensitivespecies, (7) BLM assessment species, and (8) BLMtracking species. Manage in order to conserve or leadto the recovery of threatened or endangered species.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM66


4 -67

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Actions that maintain/improve watershed conditions,improve ecological condition, improve vegetationcover and condition, manage nonnative seedings,manage forest and woodland areas, and managelivestock grazing would benefit special status animalspecies by increasing vegetative cover. Impacts wouldbe minimal because improvement from these actionswould be slow and incremental on a variety of sitesscattered throughout the planning area. Some specialstatus species could be negatively impacted by anincrease in vegetative cover.

Managing sagebrush cover in seedings and on nativerangeland to meet the life history requirements ofsagebrush-dependent wildlife species could have apositive effect on special status species, utilizingsagebrush habitat by maintaining or improving water-shed conditions in the uplands.

Managing for proper functioning riparian/wetlandcondition only could limit further improvement towardsite potential in riparian/wetland special status animalspecies habitat. Management to promote or maintainproper functioning condition on a minimum of 75percent of the riparian/wetland areas would limitfurther improvements toward site potential in specialstatus animal species habitat. Implementation ofspecific restoration habitat projects in areas whereconditions are not recovering naturally would benefitspecial status animal species. Managing for riparian/wetland conditions that consider structure, forage, andother riparian habitat elements important to game andnongame wildlife species could have positive effects tospecial status species and their habitat. Riparian/wetland foraging, nesting, and parturition habitatwould improve.

Forest management, in the form of commercial andprecommercial thinning, partial cut, sanitation andsalvage sales, and prescribed burning and wildland firecould have negative impacts to some special statusanimal species habitat. However, by improving foresthealth, watershed conditions could be improved, thushaving a beneficial effect on special status animalspecies dependent upon riparian, wetland, or aquatichabitat. All forest health projects would comply withspecial conservation plans or biological evaluations forpotentially affected species.

Juniper management could have positive effects onspecial status animal species habitat. By improving

ground cover, watershed conditions could be improved,thus having a beneficial effect special status animalspecies habitat. Juniper removal and prescribed burnprojects would have a positive effect on maintainingand enhancing quaking aspen stands with riparianspecial status animal species. Juniper-dependentspecial status species could be negatively affected overthe short term by stand management.

Control of noxious weeds would improve or maintainwatershed conditions, which would result in a positiveeffect on special status species habitat.

Maintaining or improving watershed conditions wouldhave a beneficial impact on all special status animalspecies and their habitat. Aquatic species wouldbenefit directly from increased water yield. Increasedsummer flows would result in better fish survival.Satisfactory soil conditions would result in improvedcover, reduced erosion potential, and improved spawn-ing sediments by providing cleaner and better aeratedgravels. Maintaining or improving water quality,implementing the CWA, and complying with waterquality standards established by ODEQ would have adirect benefit to aquatic special status species. Coolerwater temperatures would result in less stress to streamresident fish, thereby improving survival rates, espe-cially for larger fish. Reduced sediment loads wouldimprove spawning gravels.

There have not been any systematic inventories orhabitat monitoring of populations and distributions ofspecial status animal species within the planning area,with the exception of the Warner sucker. Impacts tospecial status species would be minimal. Site-specificenvironmental analysis and mitigation would be usedto minimize or eliminate loss of Warner sucker criticalspawning habitat, raptor nesting or roosting sites, orparturition areas. The only current recovery plans forspecial status species are for bald eagles, peregrinefalcons, the Warner sucker, and associated threatenedand rare native fishes of the Warner Basin. Implemen-tation of these plans positively affect other specialstatus species.

Existing grazing systems and exclosures on streams,springs, and riparian/wetland areas would continue toimprove special status animal species habitat, and theoption would be available to further adjust systems andmodify or construct new exclosures to meet newspecial status species objectives. However, currentobjectives would be defined primarily by properfunctioning condition, so the level of improvementwould be limited compared to setting objectives basedon site potential or individual species habitat require-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM67


4 - 68

ments. Within the range of Warner suckers, the grazingprogram has been covered by biological evaluations,and where effects may occur, they have been coveredby a biological opinion. Effects on other species wouldneed to be covered on a case-by-case basis, accountingfor individual species needs.

Authorization of temporary nonrenewable grazing usewould preclude excess vegetation providing additionalground cover, litter development, further enhancementof watershed conditions, or nesting cover for ground-nesting special status wildlife species.

Wild horses use the herd management areas year-roundand impact these areas negatively (especially thesprings in the Beaty Butte area). Confining horses toherd management areas and keeping their populationswithin appropriate management levels would reducedamage to sites outside these areas. Keeping horsesinside the herd management areas could cause negativeimpacts to special status species within these areas;however, this would indirectly benefit sensitive speciesoccurring outside these areas.

Effects on special status species due to water develop-ment project implementation would need to be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis, but generally newdevelopments would concentrate livestock and wildhorse use and could have a negative effect on specialstatus species. Fences and other management struc-tures could have a beneficial effect by controlling useaway from critical sensitive species use areas or have anegative effect by concentrating use within criticalareas. Maintenance of spring developments could havepositive effects on terrestrial special status animalspecies habitat by distributing livestock use away fromthese areas and providing a semi-permanent watersupply to these animals, as well as vegetative habitat.Maintenance of spring developments would continue torestrict riparian site development on several springsand would cause a loss of functioning of the springsystem. Potential aquatic special status species, suchas spring snails, could be negatively affected bycontinued maintenance. Limiting playa and lakebeddevelopment would maintain the current properfunctioning condition of wetland special status specieshabitat. Some of the current lakebed developmentshave changed water and vegetative conditions onsite orhave broken the water-holding seal, allowing water totravel underground or offsite. This has had a negativeeffect on special status species, as well as other wildlifepopulations by reducing the distribution, abundance,and diversity of forbs, an important food source foundon the lakebed.

Implementation and maintenance of the Warner Wet-lands and Abert Lake ACEC plans (USDI-BLM 1989c,1996d) would maintain or enhance the current level ofproper functioning condition in these two areas andallow the few areas not currently in proper functioningcondition to approach this condition. This wouldmaintain or enhance riparian/wetland special statusspecies habitat. Protection of existing ACEC’s withspecial status species habitat values would havebeneficial impacts. Retaining existing WSA’s couldhave a positive effect on protecting special statusspecies and their habitat; however, the “Interim Man-agement Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review”(USDI-BLM 1995b) could preclude some managementactions, such as vegetation manipulation or structuralproject work, that would be beneficial.

Managing public lands to provide social and economicbenefits (such as commodity production) to localresidents, businesses, visitors, and future generationscould have potential future impacts to special statusspecies and their habitat and would need to be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis.

The long-term effects of wildland fires could bepositive or negative on special status animal specieshabitat. If the fire results in increased perennial groundcover and better watershed conditions, it would havepositive effects. If the fire results in more annual orreduced ground cover, it would have negative effects.All wildland fires would have a negative short-termimpact on special status animal species habitat as aresult of the removal of vegetation cover. Short-termeffects within special status animal species habitat thatare in proper functioning condition would be lessadverse and functionally would respond quicker torevegetation and rehabilitation efforts. Special stipula-tions in the “Bald Eagle Management Area Plan”(USDA-FS 1994) focus on protection of bald eaglehabitat through wildland fire suppression and pre-scribed burning projects to reduce fuel loading and therisk of catastrophic stand-replacement fires.

Ground-disturbing wildland fire control activities,including line construction, aerial retardant application,and engine access, could have negative impacts tospecial status species habitat. Effects would need to bedetermined on a case-by-case basis and mitigated,where possible, through the fire management planningprocess.

Rehabilitating burned areas to mitigate the adverseeffects of wildland fire on soil and vegetation, and tominimize the invasion of weeds, would have a positiveeffect on special status animal species habitat. How-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM68


4 -69

ever, benefits would be limited, since emergency firerehabilitation activities are implemented on a case-by-case basis.

Prescribed fire could be an effective tool at increasingground cover and releasing quaking aspen stands fromcompetition with invasive species and would bebeneficial to special status animal species. At thecurrent level of prescribed fire activity, impacts tospecial status species would be minimal and short term.This level, however, may be inadequate to meet theupland vegetation requirements to return to a naturalfire cycle. Some sites would continue to decline inground cover with or without prescribed fire and couldrequire revegetation.

Current management of the Warner Wetlands SpecialRecreation Management Area and the remaining publicland as an extensive recreation management area couldcause negative impacts to special status species andtheir habitat. Effects would occur on a site-specificbasis. Increased public use could have a negativeeffect, while controlling public use could have apositive effect. Current recreation developments areminimal and would have minimal impacts to specialstatus species. Expansion of existing or developmentof new recreation sites could have a negative effect onspecial status species habitat. Project design or avoid-ance could minimize or eliminate impacts.

Continuing the Cabin Lake/Silver Lake Deer WinterRange Cooperative Seasonal Vehicle Closure couldhave a positive effect on special status species habitatby limiting off-road travel during a period when soilsare saturated and the potential for erosion is greatest.Managing motorized vehicles in most of the planningarea in the open OHV designation (Map R-2 of theDraft RMP/EIS) would continue to cause negativeeffects on special status species and their habitat on asite-specific basis, since OHV’s could travel cross-country, off existing roads in open areas.

Managing public land actions and activities in amanner consistent with VRM class objectives couldminimally impact special status species/habitat bylimiting restoration opportunities.

The impacts of energy and mineral exploration anddevelopment on special status species and their habitatcould vary from minimal with small-scale effects, tomajor if the activity requires road development anddisturbance in special status animal species habitats.Although all practical measures to maintain or restorespecial status species habitat would be required of allmining operations, impacts to these resources would

continue to occur in the form of localized surfacedisturbance over the short term. The effects would besimilar for oil and gas leasing, geothermal energy, andsolid mineral material sales. Laws, regulations,policies, and special stipulations (Appendix N3) wouldminimize these negative effects.

Land tenure adjustments would have the potential toresult in a wide range of positive and negative impactsto special status species and their habitat. Specialstatus species habitat is considered to be of high publicvalue and would be of high priority for retention andacquisition. Riparian/wetland acquisition wouldbenefit riparian/wetland-dependent sensitive species.Once under public ownership, special status specieshabitat would generally receive higher priority forenhancement, resulting in better vegetation conditions.Law prohibits disposal of special status species habitatthat may jeopardize the existence of or lead to actionsto further list the species, so impacts from disposalactions would be minimal.

Right-of-way development around or through specialstatus animal species habitat could have a negativeimpact on the functioning of these sites. Level ofmitigation or avoidance would determine the level ofeffect. Most negative impacts would have limited ortemporary impacts to the immediate vegetation.Rehabilitation following surface disturbance shouldrestore this habitat to its functional state before distur-bance. Acquiring access could cause minimal effectsto special status species and their habitat; however, itcould cause negative impacts due to increased visita-tion and disturbance during critical nesting and birthingperiods.

New road construction would have potential forimpacting watershed health and therefore, could have anegative impact on special status species and theirhabitat. The level of effect could be minimized byfollowing road construction and rehabilitation stan-dards. Road maintenance in special status animalspecies habitat could have a negative impact to thespecies, which could be mitigated by design modifica-tion or relocating the road out of the area.

Alternative B

Maintenance and improvement of watershed andassociated ecological condition, soil condition, waterquality, vegetative cover and condition, nonnativeseedings, forest and woodland areas, riparian/wetlandareas (proper functioning condition), spring develop-ments, and visual resources would have the sameimpacts as Alternative A.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM69


4 - 70

Implementation of riparian/wetland restoration projectswould benefit riparian/wetland vegetation and specialstatus species and their habitat. Modification of springdevelopments to allow improved riparian functionwould benefit special status animal species and habitat.Limiting playa and lakebed development would havethe same effects as Alternative A. Mitigative measureson BLM-authorized projects would eliminate or reduceimpacts to special status species utilizing riparian/wetland habitats.

Juniper management would have more positive andnegative effects on special status species and theirhabitat than Alternative A, since up to 75 percent ofearly- to mid-successional stands of juniper would betreated. The negative effects of this aggressive junipermanagement would probably be short term and couldbe mitigated.

Quaking aspen stand management direction wouldgreatly improve stand condition and maintain thosestands that are currently functioning. There could beminimal, short-term impacts to riparian-dependentspecial status and other species; however, the long-termbenefits of stand health would outweigh the short-termimpacts. Quaking aspen management would bedesigned to protect known sensitive species nesting andparturition sites.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,cover, structure, and security necessary for mostwildlife are available on public land would benefitsome special status animal species.

Continued adjustment of livestock management inthose riparian/wetland habitats used by special statusspecies would be beneficial (limited by the goals andobjectives of the management action and associatedbiological evaluation or conservation plan). Increasingdomestic livestock grazing authorization by 11,657AUM’s could impact special status species and theirhabitat, depending on where the increased use wouldoccur. Reinstatement of suspended nonuse and in-creases to full licensed preference in areas currentlybelow active preference could directly impact specialstatus animal species. Maximizing authorization oftemporary nonrenewable grazing use could furtherpreclude opportunities to sensitive animal specialhabitat, as described in Alternative A.

Wild horse management impacts would be similar toAlternative A but could cumulatively impact specialstatus species and their habitat more if the increase ofdomestic livestock grazing authorization use (describedabove) occurs in the same area as wild horse use.

Social and economic uses would be similar to Alterna-tive A; however, impacts to sensitive species could beintensified with emphasis on commodity productionand public uses.

The impacts of wildand fire and rehabilitation wouldbe similar to Alternative A. Prescribed fire impactscould increase with the threefold increase of prescribedfire activity proposed, thereby impacting special statusspecies and their habitat even more.

Impacts from optimizing the management of theWarner Wetlands Special Recreation ManagementArea, designating the North Lake Special RecreationManagement Area, and expanding management ofexisting developed and undeveloped recreation siteswould be greater than Alternative A due to increasedvisitor use.

OHV impacts would be similar to Alternative A;however, maximizing opportunities for organized OHVevents could cause more negative impacts to specialstatus species and their habitat than Alternative A.

The effects from the energy and mineral programwould be greatest under this alternative due to theemphasis on commodity production. Although allpractical measures to maintain or restore special statusspecies habitat would be required of all mining opera-tions, short-term impacts to these resources wouldcontinue to occur in the form of localized surfacedisturbance.

Land tenure adjustments, right-of-way development,and acquisition of public access would have the sameimpacts as Alternative A.

New road construction would have the greatest poten-tial for impacting watershed health compared to theother alternatives and therefore, would have a negativeimpact on special status species and their habitat. Thelevel of effect could be minimized by following roadconstruction and rehabilitation standards (Appendix B).

Road maintenance impacts would be similar to Alterna-tive A. However, it is anticipated that more roadmaintenance affecting sensitive species and theirhabitat would be completed under this alternative thanany other alternative.

Alternative C

Maintenance or improvement of watershed and associ-ated soil conditions, water quality, riparian/wetlandareas (proper functioning condition), special status

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM70


4 -71

plant species management, SMA management, andwild horse management would benefit special statusanimal species.

Managing sagebrush cover in seedings and on nativerangeland to meet the life history requirements ofsagebrush-dependent wildlife species would benefitspecial status animal species. Restoration of nonnativeseedings to diversify structure and composition wouldhave beneficial impacts on shrub-dependent specialstatus species and their habitat.

Exclusion of livestock in riparian/wetland habitatswould be beneficial to special status animal speciesusing these habitats. Rehabilitation of spring develop-ments would have positive effects on special statusanimal species by returning all flow to the originalchannel as long as livestock were excluded from theseareas. Eliminating new playa and lakebed developmentand rehabilitating non-functioning sites would benefitspecial status species and their habitats and return thesites to proper functioning condition. Mitigativemeasures on BLM-authorized projects would eliminateor reduce impacts to special status species utilizingriparian/wetland habitats.

Western juniper, old growth, and snag managementwould have the same impacts to special status speciesas Alternative B.

Quaking aspen stand management would have the sameeffects on special status species and their habitat asAlternative B.

Noxious weed management would have the greatestbeneficial impacts to special status species and theirhabitats by eradication of all weeds within the planningarea.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,cover, structure, and security necessary for game andnongame wildlife species would positively benefitspecial status animal species. Bighorn sheep manage-ment would have the same effects on special statusspecies as Alternative B. Managing forage productionto support the increase of 9,138 additional wildlifeAUM’s identified by ODFW would have a minimalimpact on special status wildlife species and theirhabitat; however, this alternative would highlight theneed to consider the importance of all wildlife species.There would be the potential for future impacts fromexpansion of the Lake County elk herd, but this wouldbe on a site-specific basis.

Grazing use authorization would be reduced to 86,587

AUM’s while emphasizing other resource values.Reducing domestic livestock grazing authorizationcould benefit special status species and their habitat,depending on where the decreases occurs. Livestockgrazing impacts would be less than Alternative A.Eliminating authorization of temporary nonrenewablegrazing use and abandonment and rehabilitation ofrangeland projects could also benefit special statusspecies if adequate water is available for use.

The impacts of social and economic uses would be lessthan Alternative A.

Impacts from wildland fires could be greater under thisalternative than Alternative A. Reduced livestockgrazing would increase the buildup of fine fuels andpossibly lead to higher fire frequencies and the loss ofmore acres of sagebrush, which could have a negativeimpact on sagebrush-dependent special status speciesover the short term. With the increased limit of640,000 acres burned annually and the possible desig-nation of areas for wildland fire use, there is potentialfor the loss of more special status species habitatdepending on where the fires occur. Prescribed firescould be designed to mitigate or eliminate losses, andcrucial habitat could be identified prior to the designa-tion of new wildland fire use areas. Most special statusspecies habitat loss would occur naturally from wild-land fire and would be short term.

Impacts to special status animal species from dust andsmoke created from construction or prescribed burnprojects would be the same as Alternative A, eventhough the acre limit for prescribed fires and wildlandfires would increase. Improving ecological conditionsand restoration in the uplands after a prescribed orwildland fire would have the same beneficial impactsas Alternative A by maximizing vegetative productionand protecting upland function, thereby contributing tothe continued health of special status animal specieshabitat. Minimum standards for ecosystem healthwould be followed, and rehabilitation seed mixeswould be limited to native species only.

Managing the Warner Wetlands Special RecreationManagement Area and emphasizing undeveloped,dispersed recreation opportunities in the North LakeSpecial Recreation Management Area would benefitspecial status species and their habitat.

Managing off-road vehicles by limiting OHV use toexisting or designated roads and trails would benefitspecial status species and their habitat.

Managing public land actions and activities in a

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM71


4 - 72

manner consistent with VRM class objectives wouldhave the same impacts as Alternative A.

The effects from the energy and mineral programwould be less than Alternatives A, B, or D, since itemphasizes protection of natural values and restrictsmineral development.

Land tenure adjustments, rights-of-way development,and acquisition of public access would have the sameimpacts as Alternative A. Impacts from disposal ofpublic land would be less than Alternatives A or B,since substantially fewer acres would be available fordisposal.

New road construction would have less potential forimpacting watershed health and therefore, would haveminimal impacts. The level of effect could be mini-mized by following road construction and rehabilitationstandards (Appendix B). The removal of all roadswithin riparian/wetland areas and all other roads withinthe planning area not required by law would positivelyimpact special status species and reduce the need toperform future maintenance.

Alternative D

Maintenance or improvement of watershed and associ-ated soil conditions, water quality, riparian/wetlandareas (proper functioning condition), special statusplant species management, SMA management, andwild horse management would benefit special statusanimal species.

Managing sagebrush cover in seedings and on nativerangeland to meet the life history requirements ofsagebrush-dependent wildlife species would benefitspecial status animal species. Restoration of nonnativeseedings to diversify structure and composition wouldhave beneficial impacts on shrub-dependent specialstatus species and their habitat.

Implementation of riparian/wetland restoration projectswould benefit special status species and their habitat.Modification of spring developments to allow im-proved riparian function would benefit special statusanimal species and their habitat. Eliminating newplaya and lakebed development and rehabilitatingnonfunctioning sites would benefit special statusspecies and their habitat and would return the sites toproper functioning condition. Mitigative measures onBLM-authorized projects would eliminate or reduceimpacts to special status species utilizing riparian/wetland habitats.

Juniper management would have more positive andnegative effects than Alternative A, since up to 50percent of early- to mid-successional stands of juniperwould be treated. The negative effects of this aggres-sive juniper management would probably be short termand could be mitigated.

Quaking aspen stand management direction wouldgreatly improve quaking aspen stand condition andmaintain those stands that are currently functioning.There could be minimal short-term impacts to riparian-dependent special status species; however, the long-term benefits of stand health would outweigh the short-term impacts. Quaking aspen management would bedesigned to protect known sensitive species nesting andparturition sites.

Noxious weed management would benefit specialstatus species and their habitats by increasing emphasison habitat restoration.

Maintenance and restoration of fish and aquatic habitatwould benefit special status aquatic animal species andtheir habitat.

Managing upland habitats so that the forage, water,cover, structure, and security necessary for game andnongame wildlife species would positively benefitspecial status animal species. Managing forage pro-duction to support an increase of about 9,138 addi-tional wildlife AUM’s identified by ODFW would havea minimal impact on special status wildlife species andtheir habitat; however, this alternative would highlightthe need to consider the importance of all wildlifespecies. There would be a potential for future impactsfrom the expansion of the Lake County elk herd, butthis would be site-specific.

Continuing the current livestock grazing authorizationof 108,234 AUM’s would have minimal negativeimpacts on special status species and their habitat, aslong as minimum standards for ecosystem health weremet. Temporary nonrenewable grazing use and con-struction of rangeland projects would not be authorizedif there were negative impacts to special status species.

Deferment of livestock grazing for a minimum of twogrowing seasons after wildland fire or prescribed firewould have positive effects. Implementation andmaintenance of livestock grazing systems in riparian/wetland habitats would be beneficial to special statusanimal species using these habitats by promoting therecovery or maintenance of riparian systems to desiredrange of conditions based on site potential.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM72


4 -73

Managing public lands to provide social and economicbenefits (such as commodity production) to localresidents, businesses, visitors, and future generationscould have potential future impacts to special statusspecies and their habitat, and would need to be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis.

Potential impacts from suppression of wildland firescould be greater under this alternative than AlternativeA. With the increased limit of up to 480,000 acresburned annually with prescribed and wildland fire andthe possible designation of areas for wildland fire use,there would be a potential for loss of more specialstatus species habitat, depending on where the firesoccur. Prescribed fires could be designed to mitigatelosses, and crucial habitat could be identified prior tothe designation of new wildland fire use areas. Mosthabitat loss would occur naturally from wildland fireand would be a short-term impact. Emergency firerehabilitation would continue to occur to meet resourceobjectives. Improving ecological conditions andrestoration in the uplands after a prescribed or wildlandfire would benefit special status animal species habitatby maximizing vegetative production and protectingupland function, thereby contributing to the continuedhealth of special status animal species habitat. Mini-mum standards for ecosystem health would be fol-lowed; however, nonnative perennial species could beused for fire rehabilitation.

Current recreation developments are minimal and haveminimal impact to special status species. Optimizingthe management of the Warner Wetlands SpecialRecreation Management Area and North Lake SpecialRecreation Management Area would benefit specialstatus species and their habitat.

Enlarging the Cabin Lake/Silver Lake Deer WinterRange Cooperative Seasonal Vehicle Closure wouldbenefit special status species and their habitat bylimiting off-road travel during a period when soils aresaturated and the potential for erosion is greatest.Managing motorized vehicles with an emphasis on thelimited OHV use designation in the northern portion ofthe planning area (Map R-7) and authorizing organizedOHV events on existing roads and trails would mini-mally impact special status species and their habitat.Off-road vehicle use would still occur in open OHVuse designations and would cause negative effects on asite-specific basis.

Managing public land actions and activities in amanner consistent with VRM class objectives couldminimally impact special status species and theirhabitat by limiting restoration opportunities.

Effects of energy and mineral exploration and develop-ment could vary from minimal with small-scale effects,to major if the activity requires road development anddisturbance in critical special status species habitats.Although all practical measures to maintain or restorespecial status species habitat are required of all miningoperations (Appendix N3), impacts to these resourceswould continue to occur in the form of localizedsurface disturbance over the short term. The effectswould be similar for oil and gas leasing, geothermalenergy, and solid mineral material sales. Laws, regula-tions, policies, and special stipulations (Appendix N3)would minimize the negative effects from mineralactivity.

Land tenure adjustments would have the potential toresult in a wide range of positive and negative impacts.Special status species habitat would be considered ofhigh public value and would be a priority for futureacquisition. Once under public ownership, specialstatus species habitat would receive generally higherpriority for enhancement, resulting in better vegetationconditions. Law prohibits disposal of special statusspecies habitat that could jeopardize the existence of orlead to actions to further list the species, so impactsfrom disposal actions would be minimal.

Right-of-way development around or through specialstatus animal species habitat could have a negativeimpact on the functioning of these sites. The level ofmitigation or avoidance would determine the level ofeffect. Most negative impacts would have limited ortemporary impacts to the immediate vegetation.Rehabilitation following surface disturbance shouldrestore this habitat to its functional state before distur-bance. Acquiring access could cause minimal effectsto special status species and their habitat; however, itcould cause negative impacts due to increased visita-tion and disturbance during critical nesting and birthingperiods.

New road construction would have less potential forimpacting watershed health under this alternative andtherefore, would have minimal impacts. The level ofeffect could be minimized by following road construc-tion and rehabilitation standards (Appendix B). Theremoval of any roads within riparian conservation areaswould positively impact special status species andwould reduce the need to perform future maintenance.

Alternative E

Natural processes would be allowed to define vegeta-tion composition in existing vegetation communities.Nonnative seedings and site rehabilitation would not be

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM73


4 - 74

conducted under this alternative. The lack of diversity,structure, and composition would have negativeimpacts on shrub-dependent special status species andtheir habitat.

Spring developments would be removed as needed forwildlife or wild horses. Springs could be maintained orrehabilitated if critical to special status animal species.Overall, the impacts to special status species would beminimal from spring restoration. Restoration of playaand lakebed habitats would not occur, negativelyaffecting nonfunctioning riparian/wetland areas usedby special status species.

There could be some negative effects to forest-depen-dent special status species without active forest man-agement, especially forest health projects. Habitatscould be lost from fir and juniper encroachment orbecome unusable to certain special status species.Natural processes would regulate western juniper, oldgrowth, and snags. Juniper expansion would continuecausing negative impacts to special status species andtheir habitat. Natural processes would also regulatequaking aspen stands. Juniper would replace aspenstands and negatively affect aspen-dependent specialstatus species.

Special status plant species would not be managedunder this alternative except for Federally listedspecies, as specified in recovery plans. This actionwould have a minimal effect on special status animalspecies.

Noxious weed management would focus only on highpriority areas to protect adjacent private property andcould have negative impacts on special status specieshabitats currently infested or occupied in the future.

Maintenance and restoration would not occur in fishand aquatic habitat and could cause negative impacts toriparian, wetland, or aquatic special status species.

There would be no active management of uplandhabitats to provide forage, water, cover, structure, andsecurity necessary for game and nongame wildlifespecies, which could cause negative effects on specialstatus species due to concentrated wildlife use. Big-horn sheep would be allowed to disburse naturally andcould cause negative effects on other special statusspecies if concentration occurs.

There would be minimal effects on special statusspecies from grazing management. Species dependentupon grazing or some other form of disturbance couldbe negatively impacted. The lack of grazing would

allow the buildup of fine fuels and increase the risk oflarge catastrophic wildland fires, which would have anegative impact over the short term. The abandonmentof all rangeland projects could negatively impactspecial status species by concentrating wildlife use oreliminating available water. Mitigative measureswould be used on all BLM-authorized projects toeliminate or reduce impacts to special status specieshabitat; however, projects would be limited to onlythose required by law and wild horse survival.

Wild horses could cause negative impacts if horseconcentration occurs in special status animal habitat.

Full implementation and maintenance of the WarnerWetlands and Abert Lake ACEC plans would not occurand would cause negative impacts to riparian/wetland-dependent special status species from erosion andflooding. SMA designation would not continue andcould cause negative impacts to special status species.

Social and economic uses would cause the least impactto special status species, since no commodity produc-tion would be allowed from public land.

The impacts from wildland fire would have the greatestnegative impact on special status species and theirhabitat under this alternative. The appropriate manage-ment response would emphasize initial attack, fullsuppression only to protect human life or property.Large tracts of special status species habitat could burnand become unusable for the life of this plan. Noemergency fire rehabilitation would be completedfollowing a wildland fire. Natural processes woulddefine future conditions of special status specieshabitat across the landscape. No restoration would beconducted.

Limiting vehicle use within the entire planning area toexisting roads and trails and not authorizing organizedOHV events would have a positive impact on specialstatus species.

Managing public land actions and activities in amanner consistent with VRM class objectives wouldhave the same impacts on special status species asAlternative A.

The effects from the energy and mineral programwould be least under this alternative.

No riparian or wetland acquisition or disposal wouldoccur and would negatively effect the potential for anincrease of riparian/wetland-dependent special statusspecies habitat in public ownership.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM74


4 -75

New road construction would have the least potentialfor impacting special status species habitat under thisalternative. Only roads required by law would beconstructed. The level of effect could be minimizedfurther by following road construction and rehabilita-tion standards, BMP’s (Appendix B), and recovery/conservation plans. Minimal road maintenance wouldoccur under this alternative. Those roads negativelyaffecting special status species habitat would continueto cause impacts, and other roads within the area wouldhave the potential for causing negative effects in thefuture without regular maintenance.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, special status animal specieshabitat would continue to improve, although recoveryrates and extent of recovery would be reduced to allowfor commodity uses, including livestock, transporta-tion, and recreation. Management actions wouldcontinue on a case-by-case basis with less consider-ation for watershed-scale effects. The major impacts tospecial status species would be from wildland fire(short-term impact) and the lack of an aggressivejuniper/quaking aspen and weed management program(long-term impact). The management goal for specialstatus species and their habitat could be achieved underthis alternative, with the exception of quaking aspenmanagement and the continuing encroachment ofjuniper into these stands. Without immediate treat-ment, some quaking aspen stands could be lost forever,negatively affecting quaking aspen-dependent specialstatus species. Wetland areas could also be taken overwith noxious weeds if more effective chemicals are notdeveloped and approved. This could have a seriouseffect on wetland-dependent special status wildlifespecies.

Impacts from Alternative B would be similar to Alter-native A. Because of current law and policy (“Endan-gered Species Act,” CWA, etc.) setting minimummanagement standards, the difference in effects is notthat great, despite the emphasis on commodity produc-tion. Minimally-acceptable conditions would berequired, and mitigation would occur on a case-by-casebasis rather than on a watershed scale. While improve-ments would occur, they would take longer and not beas extensive as would occur under Alternative A. Themanagement goal for special status wildlife speciescould be achieved, although at a much slower rate(longer than the life of this plan), due to the emphasison commodity production and public uses. Juniper andquaking aspen management would be more aggressivethan Alternative A and would have a beneficial impacton those species dependent on quaking aspen and

potential negative impacts to species dependent onjuniper habitats. Quaking aspen and juniper projectswould be designed to minimize or eliminate impacts tospecial status wildlife species. Noxious weed manage-ment would emphasize protection of commodityresources, as opposed to watershed resources, andcould have a negative effect on special status wildlifespecies and their habitat.

Impacts from Alternative C would be much less thanunder Alternatives A or B. Recovery rates would bemuch faster, resulting in better special status wildlifespecies habitat conditions. Considering watershed-scale effects would result in more stable conditions.With emphasis on protection and restoration of naturalvalues, the management goal for special status wildlifespecies could be achieved under this alternative. Thisalternative has the most aggressive weed, juniper, andquaking aspen management strategies of any of thealternatives. Alternative C also has the most aggressiveprescribed burning and wildland fire use managementprogram, which could cause greater short-term impactsto special status wildlife species and their habitat.With an aggressive emergency fire rehabilitationprogram, the long-term impacts from prescribed andwildland fire activities could restore marginal specialstatus species habitat.

Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alter-native C; however, recovery rates for special statuswildlife species habitat would require more time.Slower recovery rates would be caused by less strin-gent direction to restore watershed function andprocesses, so there would be less improvement tospecific special status wildlife species habitat. Moreconsideration would be given to watershed-scaleeffects than under Alternatives A and B. The manage-ment goal for special status wildlife species and theirhabitat could be achieved under this alternative.

Impacts from Alternative E would be similar to Alter-native D; however, without disturbance from permittedactivities and active restoration, marginal special statuswildlife species habitats may never reach their fullpotential and currently occupied habitats could becomeunusable. Watershed-scale effects would progresstoward natural recovery of uplands, but increasedjuniper encroachment would continue to degraderiparian/wetland habitat. By allowing natural processesto determine the outcome of habitat conditions forspecial status wildlife species, the management goal forspecial status wildlife species and their associatedhabitat may never be achieved under this alternative.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM75


4 - 76


The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impactsto special status wildlife species would be habitat loss,destruction, conversion to less marginal habitat, andloss of connectivity. The impacts from activitiesimplemented on adjacent USFS- and USFWS-adminis-tered lands, as well as private and state lands, wouldcreate cumulative impacts to those associated directlywith BLM-authorized actions.

For instance, Hart Mountain National Antelope Refugeutilizes prescribed burning and juniper cutting to meetthe management objectives in their comprehensivemanagement plan. Private landowners and the USFSare also treating juniper and sagebrush habitats,although at a reduced amount. The cumulative effectsof treating juniper and sagebrush habitats, in combina-tion with the BLM’s proposed alternatives, could havemajor impacts to special status species utilizing thesehabitats. Future treatments would have to be closelycoordinated with other Federal and state agencies, andwith private landowners to provide optimal habitat andconnectivity for sensitive wildlife species. Coordina-tion would also be required with other Federal andstate agencies in fire planning to highlight and protectcrucial sensitive wildlife species habitats and corridors.All future BLM-authorized juniper and sagebrushmanipulation projects would be designed to minimizeor eliminate impacts to special status wildlife speciesand consider the cumulative impacts from other non-BLM projects that may affect special status wildlifespecies and their habitat.

Timber management on adjacent national forests wouldhave minimal cumulative effect on special statusspecies if the “Bald Eagle Management Area Plan”(USDA-FS 1994) is followed.

Livestock Grazing Manage-ment

Management Goal—Provide for a sustainable levelof livestock grazing consistent with other resourceobjectives and public land-use allocations.

Assumptions

Livestock grazing has an impact on the vigor andreproduction of key plant species. Actions whichenhance plant species vigor and reproduction cause anincrease in the number and size of that species in aplant community. Conversely, if the action adversely

affects a plant’s vigor and reproduction, the specieswould decrease in number and size in a plant commu-nity. Any change in the size or number of a specieswould be known as a change in composition. For thepurpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all availablenutrients and water are fully utilized by the existingvegetation. Therefore, any change in the amount ofone species would result in an opposite change in theamount of some other herbaceous species. Significantchanges in species composition reflect changes in othervegetative characteristics, such as production, rangecondition and trend, ground cover, and threatened orendangered plants.

The three components of livestock grazing that impactvegetation are vegetation allocation, grazing systems,and range improvements. The vegetation allocation foreach allotment was initially determined in the “Range-land Program Summary Record of Decision, LakeviewEIS Area” and associated land use plans (USDI-BLM1982b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c) using 50 percent utiliza-tion as the standard, except in the crested wheatgrassseedings. The vegetation allocation for each allotmentcan be adjusted based on subsequent monitoring,allotment evaluation, plan amendments (USDI-BLM1989c, 1996d; USDI-USFWS and USDI-BLM 1998a,1998b), allotment management plans, and rangelandhealth assessments. The vegetation allocation is set sothe impacts from utilization are similar across allot-ments. However, the time and duration of the utiliza-tion, which is determined by the grazing system and therange improvements, have a significant impact on thevegetation in each allotment.

Table 4-1 shows how key species composition wouldbe impacted by each grazing system under each alterna-tive. The key species composition is also an indicatorof plant cover, plant production, plant vigor, reproduc-tion, and litter cover. The grazing systems are de-scribed in detail in Appendix E2 of the Draft RMP/EIS,which also contains a detailed description of grazingimpacts on vegetation communities.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Existing management of plant communities wouldlikely maintain or increase the quality and quantity offorage available to livestock. Rehabilitated areaswould be excluded from grazing for a minimum of twogrowing seasons after the project. This forage losswould be short term. Rehabilitation projects wouldlikely increase the quantity and quality of forageavailable in the long term. Changes in grazing systems

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM76


4 -77

and seasons of use could be used to promote or main-tain upland and riparian proper functioning condition.

Current noxious weed management would maintainforage production in some areas, would have thepotential to increase forage production in other areas,and may not be effective in some areas, resulting in aloss of forage production.

Special status plant species management could result inchanges in grazing systems to protect plant sites orminor decreases in livestock forage due to constructionof protective exclosures.

Most management actions for wildlife, wildlife habitat,and special status animal species would have littleimpact to the current livestock grazing program. Thepotential for changes in grazing systems and seasons ofuse would remain. However, most necessary changesto livestock management have already been imple-mented and no major future actions would be antici-pated.

Maintenance and improvement of watershed functionand the continuation of existing grazing systems andexclosures would have several impacts to livestockgrazing. Providing widely-distributed water sourcesfor livestock would have the potential for long-lasting,negative impacts near the water source, but would havethe positive effect of distributing livestock more evenlyacross the landscape. Forage in existing exclosureswould remain unavailable to livestock and decreaselivestock distribution somewhat. This would result inslight forage quantity and quality decreases. Impactsfrom the management of fish and aquatic habitat(primarily related to exclosures) would be similar tothose stated above.

The current permitted use level of 164,128 AUM’scould be authorized annually. However, it is morelikely that the average authorized use level (108,234AUM’s) of permitted use would continue. The fullpermitted use level for each allotment would continueto be evaluated by allotment through rangeland healthassessments, allotment evaluations, allotment manage-ment plans, watershed analyses, plan amendments, andimplementation of biological opinions. Changes inforage allocation would be made, where needed, on anallotment-specific basis.

Based on existing land use plans, there would be thepotential to construct an additional 62 miles of pipe-line, 37 reservoirs, and 32 waterholes. Approximately10,000 acres that were proposed to be treated andseeded have not been completed to date. If imple-

mented, these rangeland improvement projects, inaddition to temporary nonrenewable grazing use, wouldmake additional forage available to livestock.

Management of wild horses would reduce the amountof forage and water available for livestock.

The management of existing ACEC’s, WSA’s, WSR-eligible streams, and significant caves would cause aloss of available forage through changes in grazingsystems and seasons to protect other resource values.Most major changes to livestock grazing managementhave already been implemented.

The use of prescribed fire and rehabilitation of wild-land fires could result in a long-term increase in foragequality and quantity after these sites recover. Firewould cause a decrease in forage available for livestockuse in the short term, requiring changes in livestockgrazing use. Short-term impacts of emergency firerehabilitation include grazing exclusion following therehabilitation.

At the current level of recreational use, there would beno impact to livestock grazing. Areas designated opento OHV use would have the potential to decreaseforage availability. There would be a potential for aloss in animal condition if OHV use occurred in thevicinity of livestock and caused stress to the animals.

Mineral exploration and development could impactforage production in localized areas. The extent ofthese impacts would likely be minimal but woulddepend on the location and size of disturbance, alongwith the success of site reclamation following miningactivity.

Historically, land exchanges and acquisitions have nothad an impact on the forage available to livestock.However, any future acquisition or exchange of landswould have the potential to increase or decrease theforage available to livestock. Approximately 42,500acres of land would be made available for disposal(Zone 3 shown on Map L-1 of the Draft RMP/EIS).These lands include seven allotments and make up asubstantial part of six allotments. Two of these sixallotments would have the potential of being com-pletely disposed, resulting in a loss of availability ofabout 1,485 AUM’s of forage. Land acquisition couldinclude lands that would have forage available forlivestock. This would have the potential to increaseforage available for livestock grazing by an unknownamount.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM77


4 - 78

Alternative B

Management of plant communities would likelyincrease the available forage to livestock. Forageproduction would be increased through restoration ofexisting nonnative seedings and decadent, disturbed,and degraded sites. Allowing grazing in rehabilitatedareas prior to two growing seasons, if consistent withmanagement objectives, could increase forage avail-ability.

Springs and water developments would be managed toallow riparian function while providing livestock withwatering access, increasing potential distribution andavailable forage. Restoration of riparian/wetland areaswould be done in a manner that did not impact live-stock grazing.

Impacts to livestock grazing from the management ofspecial status plant species would be similar to Alterna-tive A.

Increased inventory and detection of noxious weeds toprotect commodity resources and increase publiceducation would likely increase or maintain currentlevels of forage available to livestock.

If management for water resources, water quality, andfish and aquatic habitat is implemented, impacts tolivestock grazing would be similar to Alterative A.Corridor fencing of all streams would decrease theavailable forage to livestock. This would occurthrough a direct loss of forage and a decrease in thepotential distribution of animals.

Most management actions for wildlife, wildlife habitat,and special status animal species would have impactssimilar to Alternative A. Reestablishment of bigsagebrush in seedings could decrease the forageavailable to livestock.

The permitted use would be increased to 180,541AUM’s, a 10 percent increase above the currentpermitted use level. The utilization level would beincreased to 60 percent to provide for the additionalAUM’s. Changes in allotment management plans andother activity plans would be required. The fullpermitted use level for each allotment would continueto be evaluated by allotment through rangeland healthassessments, allotment evaluations, allotment manage-ment plans, watershed analyses, plan amendments, andimplementation of biological opinions. Changes inforage allocation would be made, where needed, on anallotment-specific basis. These additional AUM’s,combined with temporary nonrenewable grazing use

authorized in years of favorable growing conditionsand the use of range improvement projects to meetresource objectives, would result in an increase inforage available to livestock grazing.

Wild horse management would have impacts similar toAlternative A.

ACEC, WSA, and significant cave management wouldhave impacts similar to Alternative A.

Up to 64,000 acres of prescribed burn treatments andwildland fires would be allowed annually. The compli-ance with air quality standards would result in noimpact to livestock grazing. Fire would cause adecrease in forage available for livestock use in theshort term, requiring changes in livestock grazing use.Short-term impacts of emergency fire rehabilitationwould include grazing exclusion following rehabilita-tion. Use of prescribed fire and rehabilitation ofwildfire areas to optimize the forage base would resultin an increase in forage quality and quantity availableto livestock over the long term.

Development of recreational opportunities and OHVuse could decrease forage available to livestock. Thepotential for loss in animal condition due to OHV usecausing stress to the animals would be similar toAlternative A.

Mineral exploration and development could impactforage production in localized areas similar to Alterna-tive A. However, the extent of these impacts would begreatest of all the alternatives.

Future acquisition or exchange of lands would have thepotential to increase or decrease the forage available tolivestock. Land that would facilitate commodityproduction would be emphasized for acquisition. Thiswould have the potential to increase the forage avail-able to livestock grazing. Disposal would include landwithin 14 allotments (Zone 3 shown on Map L-3 of theDraft RMP/EIS). One of these allotments would losemost of its land mass and result in the unavailability of1,970 AUM’s to livestock.

Alternative C

Permanent closure of an additional 50,497 acres(compared to Alternatives A, B, and D) to grazing inorder to emphasize natural values in plant communitieswould directly decrease the availability of forage forlivestock. Indirectly, a decrease in the development ofrange improvements would likely result in decreasedlivestock distribution and a loss of forage available to

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM78


4 -79

livestock. The reestablishment of native species inareas where nonnative species of high forage valuecurrently exist, as well as the permanent or temporaryclosures associated with these projects, could result ina decrease of forage available to livestock. If the areasthat would be rehabilitated to native species currentlycontain species of little or no value to livestock, and theareas would eventually be reopened to grazing, therecould be an increase in forage available to livestock.Native seeding would still result in more forageavailable to livestock than if no rehabilitation wasconducted. There could be an increase in the amountof time an area is excluded from grazing followingrehabilitation; however, this impact would be shortterm and would not ultimately affect available forage.

Depending on the type of treatment within quakingaspen stands, changes in livestock grazing use could berequired. Increased amount and quality of forage couldbe available for livestock use after treatments havebeen applied.

By increasing the inventory and detection of weeds anderadicating and restoring all existing sites, there wouldbe an increase in available forage. Expanding publiceducation efforts would be beneficial to livestockthrough a decrease in weed spread and introduction.This increased forage availability could potentially leadto more allocation of forage to livestock, or an increasein forage quality, allowing better condition and healthof the animals.

The impacts to livestock grazing in regard to specialstatus plant species would be applicable to a broaderarea than in either Alternatives A or B. The decrease inavailable forage would likely be greater due to thelength of time areas could be closed to grazing and thesize of areas closed to grazing. This would also be truefor five of the areas that are proposed to be designatedas ACEC/RNA’s that contain special status plantspecies. Grazing would be excluded from these areas,resulting in a decrease in forage available to livestock.

The protection and restoration of watershed functionand processes, and meeting the surface and groundwa-ter water quality standards, would impact livestockgrazing in several ways. Initially, management effortsto attain these goals could require changes in thefrequency, intensity, and season of livestock use.Animals could have limited access to water, decreasinglivestock distribution and indirectly decreasing forageavailability. The long-term impacts could includeimproved animal health due to improved range condi-tion, the opportunity to increase livestock numbers inrehabilitated areas, continued changes in forage

available to livestock, and increases in water availabil-ity due to improved watershed health. Exclusion ofgrazing from all streams, springs, riparian areas,wetlands and their associated riparian conservationarea would result in a direct decrease to forage avail-able for livestock. Indirectly, loss of access to watersources could limit distribution in areas where grazingcan continue and ultimately decrease forage availabil-ity. The exclusion of livestock from all riparian areaswould directly decrease the quantity and quality offorage available by making the forage in those areasinaccessible to the animals. This loss could be moresignificant in quality of forage than quantity.

Providing for aquatic habitat may result in adjustmentsto livestock grazing use and potentially require changesin frequency, intensity, and season of use. Grazingsystems and livestock exclusion necessary to managefor instream processes and habitat diversity, state waterquality standards for fish or other aquatic beneficialuses, proper functioning condition, riparian potential,and riparian management objectives would potentiallyresult in one or a combination of the following:changes in frequency, intensity, and season of livestockuse; decreased or increased forage availability forlivestock; and/or increased water availability forlivestock. Grazing closures would result in a perma-nent loss of forage available to livestock. If streamhabitat goals and objectives are not being met, live-stock grazing use could be adjusted. ImplementingBMP’s to limit sediment loading in streams wouldimprove water quality and water availability to live-stock. If future acquired wetlands are a continuation ofwetlands and riparian areas present in adjacent BLMland, water availability to livestock would have thepotential to increase and persist. There would be nopotential to increase available forage if there is nodevelopment of new water sources. This could alsoimpact the quality and quantity of current availableforage by limiting the opportunity to increase livestockdistribution in an area.

The impacts from wildlife management would result inbroader impacts to livestock grazing than those fromAlternatives A and B because of the emphasis onlandscape scale resolution. The allocation of additionalforage for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep, and the read-justment of total AUM’s in allotments with mule deerand pronghorn habitat, would have no effect on thecurrent AUM’s allocated to livestock grazing. Reestab-lishment of native big sagebrush wildlife habitat coulddecrease the available forage for livestock grazing onnative rangeland or seedings, depending on currentconditions. Grazing systems and livestock exclusionnecessary to manage for desired future habitat condi-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM79


4 - 80

tions could potentially result in one or a combination ofthe following changes in frequency, intensity, andseason of livestock use or changes in forage availabilityfor livestock. Depending on the desired condition,forage available to livestock could increase or de-crease. Adjustments to livestock grazing use in 46allotments containing pronghorn winter forage and 81allotments containing mule deer winter forage couldoccur. If management includes exclusion of grazing,there could be a loss of forage availability. Ultimately,a loss in forage for livestock during specific seasonswould occur, most likely a decrease in fall use. Thiswould have minimal impact as there are few permitscurrently issued for fall grazing. There would be noauthorization of domestic sheep grazing, resulting in acomplete loss of forage availability for that species.This would not impact the current forage available tolivestock grazing as all current permits are for cattle.

Livestock grazing management would incorporate theneeds of special status animal species and correspond-ing habitats and the “Recovery Plan for the NativeFishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin”(USDI-USFWS 1998). Potential impacts could includechanges to current livestock grazing intensity, fre-quency, and season of use.

Permitted use would be decreased to 86,587 AUM’s, a48 percent reduction from the current level of permit-ted use. The full permitted use level for each allotmentwould continue to be evaluated by allotment throughrangeland health assessments, allotment evaluations,allotment management plans, watershed analyses, planamendments, and implementation of biological opin-ions. Changes in forage allocation would be made,where needed, on an allotment-specific basis. By notauthorizing temporary nonrenewable grazing use, therewould be no additional AUM’s available for livestockabove those licensed. Indirectly, the abandonment ofrange projects would decrease the available forage forlivestock by decreasing the ability to distribute live-stock, as necessary, to utilize forage available inspecific areas.

Restoration activities in plant communities in thePaisley Desert wild horse herd management area wouldincrease forage available for livestock grazing; how-ever, the forage allocated for livestock would probablyreflect the current allocation. Any additional waterdevelopments constructed for horses would aid in thedistribution of livestock, depending on placement. Theabandonment of established water developments andother projects that do not emphasize natural valueswould reduce the water available to livestock and wildhorses, along with decreasing distribution opportunities

and available forage.

A total of nine existing or proposed ACEC’s would beclosed to grazing, creating a loss of 11,011 AUM’s offorage available to livestock on about 96,171 acres.The Devils Garden Allotment would no longer beavailable for emergency livestock grazing. Closure ofthe Arrow Gap Allotment to grazing would result in aloss of 160 AUM’s to livestock. In order to incorporatethe management of three eligible WSR corridors,livestock grazing use could require changes in fre-quency, intensity, and season of use. Grazing is alreadyexcluded from all three of these stream corridors,resulting in a loss of forage available to livestock.

Limiting land-disturbing activities within identifiedNative American religious sites or traditional culturalproperties could include closure of areas to grazing.This would decrease the forage available to livestock,potentially resulting in a reduction of AUM’s. Man-agement of cultural plants would potentially requirechanges in frequency, intensity, and season of use oflivestock grazing, also resulting in reduced availableforage and AUM’s. There would also be a potential fordecreasing the quality of forage available to livestock.

Reduction in commodity use to increase the level ofprotection for natural values would likely have a directimpact to livestock in the form of reduced forageavailability. By establishing reduced commodity uselevels meant to establish stability to the local livestockindustry, there would be an initial loss in forageavailability that could result in higher probability ofavailable forage in the future.

The amount of acres treated by prescribed and wildlandfires and the subsequent rehabilitation of these areaswould result in the greatest potential increase in foragequality and quantity available to livestock (in areas notexcluded to grazing). Fire would decrease availableforage in the short term, requiring changes in livestockgrazing use. Short-term impacts of emergency firerehabilitation include grazing exclusion following therehabilitation. The length of time an area would beclosed to grazing could be increased, depending onindividual site conditions found during monitoring. Inthe long term, vegetation could return with improvedspecies diversity and increased forage quantity andquality. The emphasis on natural landscapes andprocesses could potentially provide less forage avail-able to livestock than the practice of using nonnativeand native/nonnative seed mixtures, as outlined inAlternatives A, B, and D. However, this would be site-dependent, and ultimately, any rehabilitation wouldincrease favorable site conditions following a fire and

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM80


4 -81

could provide more forage than is currently available indegraded and senescent plant communities.

Any expansion or development of recreation sites thatexist within grazing allotments would have the poten-tial to decrease the forage available for livestock use.Limiting most OHV use to existing roads and trailswould prevent the potential decrease in forage avail-ability and would decrease the probability of animalcondition loss due to stress that could occur underother alternatives.

Mineral exploration and development would impactforage production in localized areas, but less so thanAlternatives A or B.

The acquisition of lands with emphasis on land withhigh public resource values could increase or decreasethe forage available for livestock grazing, depending onthe public values at the time. A number of allotmentsinclude land that have been identified for disposal(Zone 3 shown on Map L-4 of the Draft RMP/EIS).Significant forage loss is unlikely, due to the fact thatthe total amount of land that could be disposed isminimal in each allotment.

Alternative D

Changes in grazing management to attain a trendtoward the desired range of conditions in upland nativeshrub steppe communities could decrease the forageavailable to livestock in the short term. These manage-ment changes should benefit livestock grazing in areasthat currently contain invasive and undesirable plantspecies. Although the management of nonnativeseeding to maintain seeding production, improvestructural and species diversity, and maintain forageproduction may not change the current quantity ofavailable forage, it could make the current amount ofavailable forage persist for a longer period of time.These efforts would result in short-term forage loss dueto changes in grazing management immediately afterproject implementation. The long-term impact ofrehabilitation efforts in areas that include annual,weedy, invasive woody, and decadent species would bean increase in available forage. Using a mixture ofnative and nonnative seeds for rehabilitation wouldresult in more forage available to livestock than if noseeding was done. However, the amount of increasewould depend on the success of the rehabilitationeffort.

Riparian and wetland vegetation management couldinclude management actions that exclude grazing orchange the grazing system and season of use, both

short and long term, to promote the recovery of ripariansystems.

Continuing the current integrated management ofnoxious weed species while expanding efforts toinventory and detect new infestations, would benefitlivestock by decreasing the opportunity for undesirablespecies to displace quality forage.

Special status plant species management impacts wouldbe similar to Alternative C.

Water resource/watershed health management impactswould be similar to Alternative C. Exceptions includesix allotments that currently have stream reachesdetermined to be functioning-at-risk or nonfunctioning.These allotments would be impacted in the short termby excluding grazing for up to 5 years, decreasing thequality and quantity of forage available to livestock. If,through the rangeland health assessment process, theexisting grazing system is determined to be a contribut-ing factor to the undesirable condition, changes wouldbe incorporated into the grazing system to promoteriparian recovery. The long-term impacts could includeimproved animal health due to improved range condi-tion, the opportunity to increase livestock numbers inrehabilitated areas, continued changes in forageavailable to livestock, decreases in forage availabilitydepending on the grazing system changes, and in-creases in water availability due to improved watershedhealth.

Management for fish and aquatic habitat could requirefuture changes in grazing management, includingdecreases in the quantity and quality of forage avail-able to livestock grazing due to changes in grazingsystems, including exclosures.

Bighorn sheep management and the allocation of anadditional 8,390 AUM’s to wildlife would not have animpact on livestock forage availability. These addi-tional AUM’s are currently unalloted for any specificuse. Management of upland habitat would haveimpacts similar to Alternative C. Current livestockgrazing management would potentially require changesin frequency, intensity, and season of use to incorporatemanagement of upland wildlife habitat. Resultingimpacts could include a decrease in forage available tolivestock and the exclusion of grazing in specific areas.Adjustment to livestock grazing use in 46 allotmentscontaining pronghorn winter forage and 81 allotmentscontaining mule deer winter forage could occur. A lossin forage for livestock during specific seasons wouldoccur, most likely a decrease in fall use. This would beminimal, as there currently is not a large amount of fall

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM81


4 - 82

livestock use.

Management would emphasize landscape-level resolu-tion rather than single special status animal speciesmanagement, resulting in impacts similar to AlternativeC. These would be greater than those from Alterna-tives A and B because of the emphasis on landscape-scale resolution.

The average authorized use level (108,234 AUM’s)would continue; however, the current permitted uselevel of 164,128 AUM’s could be authorized annually.The full permitted use level for each allotment wouldcontinue to be evaluated by allotment through range-land health assessments, allotment evaluations, allot-ment management plans, watershed analyses, planamendments, and implementation of biological opin-ions. Changes in forage allocation would be made,where needed, on an allotment-specific basis. Admin-istrative solutions to meet resource management needswould not affect the quantity of forage available tolivestock. Although temporary nonrenewable grazinguse could be authorized, there may not be as muchforage available to livestock as in Alternative A.Additional herbaceous production could be retained forvalues other than forage production.

Increasing the gather cycle for wild horses and thesubsequent increases of the appropriate managementlevel by 40 horses (Paisley Desert Herd ManagementArea) could affect forage available to livestock in theSheeprock and Christmas Lake Allotments. Horsenumbers have exceeded this appropriate managementlevel in the recent past, and any impact to livestockgrazing through this increase would be minimal.

The Devils Garden Allotment would no longer beavailable for emergency livestock grazing, slightlyreducing AUM’s available to livestock. Closure of theArrow Gap Allotment to grazing would result in a lossof 160 livestock AUM’s. Impacts from the designationand management of SMA's would be greater thanAlternative A, but less than those in Alternative C.WSA and cave management would have the sameimpacts as Alternative A.

Impacts to livestock grazing by proposed cultural andpaleontological resource management under would besimilar to Alternative C.

Reduction in commodity use to increase the level ofprotection for natural values would likely have a directimpact to livestock in the form of reduced forageavailability. By establishing new commodity uselevels, meant to establish stability to the local livestock

industry, there could be an initial loss in forage avail-ability that could result in an increase in availableforage in the future.

In areas not excluded from grazing, wildland andprescribed fires, followed by rehabilitation, wouldresult in an increase in available forage. Short-termimpacts of emergency fire rehabilitation could includegrazing exclusion following the rehabilitation. In thelong term, vegetation may return with improved speciesdiversity and increased forage available for livestockgrazing. Prescribed fire treatment areas would have adecrease in forage available for livestock use in theshort term, requiring changes in livestock grazing use.In the long term, these same fire treatment areas wouldhave an increase in quantity and quality of forageavailable for livestock use.

Any expansion or development of recreation siteswithin grazing allotments would have the potential toslightly decrease the available forage. Livestockgrazing use would potentially require changes infrequency, intensity, and season of use, and could belimited in these recreation areas. Although there wouldbe no organized OHV events off of existing or desig-nated roads and trails, there would be a large area(Tables 3-5 and 4-5) designated open to OHV use (MapR-7), creating a high potential to decrease availableforage and animal condition due to stress.

Mineral exploration and development would impactforage production in localized areas similar to Alterna-tive A.

Impacts of land disposal (Zone 3 shown in Map L-5)and acquisition would be similar to Alternative C.

Alternative E

There would be a complete loss of forage available tolivestock as grazing permits authorizing an average108,234 AUM’s annually would be canceled. Norangeland projects in support of livestock grazingwould be planned or implemented. Rangeland projectsthat support livestock grazing only and are not neededfor other purposes would be abandoned and rehabili-tated.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative A would allow the management goal forlivestock grazing to be met. Management practicesoutlined under this alternative would support therangeland health standards and guidelines. If livestockare determined to be the causative agent in the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM82


4 -83

nonattainment of a standard, then corrective actionswould be taken. Management actions that could resultin reductions in forage available to livestock and lossof management flexibility, as well as managementactions that could increase forage and retain manage-ment flexibility, are present under this alternative. Theactions proposed would generally allow for grazingmanagement flexibility. Permitted AUM’s wouldremain the same as currently permitted under thepresent management. Impacts to livestock grazingwould be minimal, with the potential to slightly in-crease or decrease forage availability.

Alternative B would allow the management goal forlivestock grazing to be met. Management practicesoutlined under this alternative would support therangeland health standards and guidelines. If livestockare determined to be the causative agent in thenonattainment of a standard, corrective actions wouldbe taken. Management actions that could result inreductions in forage available to livestock and loss ofmanagement flexibility, as well as management actionsthat could increase forage and retain managementflexibility, are present under this alternative. Theactions proposed would generally allow for grazingmanagement flexibility. Permitted AUM’s wouldreflect a 10 percent increase from those permittedunder the present management. Livestock grazingwould be benefit under Alternative B, with the poten-tial to increase forage availability due to the emphasison commodity production and an increase to a 60percent forage utilization level.

Alternative C would allow the management goal forlivestock grazing to be met. Management practicesoutlined under this alternative would support therangeland health standards and guidelines. If livestockare determined to be the causative agent in thenonattainment of a standard, then corrective actionswould be taken. Management actions that could resultin reductions in forage available to livestock and lossof management flexibility, as well as managementactions that could increase forage and retain manage-ment flexibility, would occur. The actions proposedwould generally allow for grazing management flex-ibility. Permitted AUM’s would reflect a 48 percentdecrease from those currently permitted. Impacts tolivestock grazing would likely be more apparent andlonger-lasting than the impacts from Alternatives A andB. This is due to the actions under Alternative Cemphasizing natural values and processes over com-modity production. Although this emphasis could beachieved with grazing, there would be more constraintson this use and a loss of forage available to livestock.

Alternative D would allow the management goal forlivestock grazing to be met. Management practicesoutlined under this alternative would support therangeland health standards and guidelines. If livestockare determined to be the causative agent in thenonattainment of a standard, then corrective actionswould be taken. Management actions that could resultin reductions in forage available to livestock and lossof management flexibility, as well as managementactions that could increase forage and retain manage-ment flexibility, would occur. The actions proposedwould generally allow for grazing management flex-ibility. Impacts to livestock grazing would likely bemore apparent and longer-lasting than the impacts fromAlternatives A and B, but not as drastic as those inAlternatives C or E. This is due to the actions underAlternative D protecting and improving natural valueswhile providing commodity production.

Implementation of Alternative E would eliminatelivestock grazing on public lands in the planning area,and thus would have the most detrimental impact tolivestock grazing of all the alternatives. The manage-ment goal for livestock grazing would not be met.

Cumulative, Indirect, and Secondary Impacts

Although impacts to livestock grazing from anyindividual management action under Alternative A arenegligible, there would be potential for actions to havea greater impact when considered cumulatively. It isanticipated that the recreational use of public landswould continue to increase. There would be potentialfor impacts to livestock grazing, as well as loss offorage, if individual users have conflicts with thelivestock or resource damage increases with therecreational use. Livestock grazing in areas with heavyrecreational use may need to be modified. Presently,management of elk and bighorn sheep does not impactlivestock grazing. Future management of greater sage-grouse habitat could include actions that impactlivestock grazing. Any changes to the management ofwildlife species recommended by ODFW may result inthe need to change grazing systems and seasons of use.When combined, management of OHV use, mineraldevelopment, cultural, paleontological, and landdisposal may decrease the available forage for live-stock if multiple actions occurred in the same allot-ment.

Under Alternative B, impacts to livestock grazingwould generally increase the forage available tolivestock. Increased opportunity for prescribed fire tooptimize the forage base and rehabilitation using highforage value species would increase the forage avail-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM83


4 - 84

able to livestock. These efforts, combined with range-land improvements, would promote the use of currentlyunavailable or undesirable areas. Commodity produc-tion would include actions that impact livestockgrazing in situations where other commodities areemphasized. Where other commodity-based resourcesare present, cumulative impacts could result in a loss offorage. Presently, management of elk and bighornsheep does not impact livestock grazing. Any changesto the management of wildlife species recommended byODFW could result in the need to change grazingsystems and seasons of use. Future management ofgreater sage-grouse habitat could include actions thatimpact livestock grazing. When combined, manage-ment of recreation, OHV use, mineral development,cultural, paleontological, and land disposal coulddecrease the available forage for livestock if multipleactions occurred in the same allotment.

The cumulative impacts to grazing under Alternative Ccould be significant. Allotments that have the mostpotential of being impacted would be those wheregrazing is the causative agent in nonattainment ofrangeland health or other standards. These areas maycontain special status plants and wildlife, aquatichabitat, wildlife habitat, streams, riparian areas, andrecreational opportunities in need of rehabilitation.Impacts would be greater if management activitiesrequired complete livestock exclusion and/or loss ofpresent forage base. Closure of an area to recreationuse could increase recreation use in other areas. Thiscould result in decreased forage availability and useconflicts.

Under Alternative D, impacts to livestock grazingwould generally not affect the total AUM’s available tolivestock. In a case-by-case basis, there could becumulative impacts to the forage selection and qualityof forage. Management actions that include wildlife,such as greater sage-grouse, elk, and bighorn sheep,combined with other resource issues in an area, coulddecrease the forage available to livestock. Any closureto recreation in one area may not directly impactlivestock grazing. Indirectly, use in other areas couldincrease and impact forage availability for livestock.

Under Alternative E, livestock grazing would beeliminated from the planning area. There would be nosecondary, indirect, or cumulative impacts to theprogram.

Wild Horses

Management Goal—Maintain and manage wildhorse herds in established herd management areas atappropriate management levels to ensure a thrivingnatural ecological balance between wild horse popu-lations, wildlife, livestock, vegetation resources, andother resource values.

Assumptions

All wild horses removed from the herds would beplaced in the BLM’s adoption program or otherwiseplaced for long-term care. Under Alternative B,increases in livestock grazing would not result inimproper rangeland management. Therefore, moreintensive grazing systems and range improvementprojects would be required under this alternative.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Management of nonnative seedings within herd man-agement areas benefit wild horses by providing a stableforage base and reducing competition with domesticlivestock for nonnative forage.

Special status plant species occur in both the PaisleyDesert and Beaty Butte Herd Management Areas.Management designed to benefit special status plantspecies could limit opportunities to enhance wildhorses and conflict with the needs of wild horses,especially if protective fencing is used.

Weed management actions could limit the spread ofnoxious weeds, reducing impacts on forage productionin the herd management areas.

The watershed health goals would benefit wild horsesby providing stable or increased forage production andavailability. Existing grazing systems and exclosureson streams, springs, and riparian/wetland areas wouldbenefit wild horses in the long term, as improved healthof streams, springs, and riparian/wetlands provide alonger time period of water availability and improvedforage production and availability.

Forage needs of wildlife, livestock, and wild horses aremet under current management strategies. Bighornsheep occur in both herd management areas. In mostinstances, the habitats of bighorn sheep, livestock, andwild horses do not overlap. An exception would benear waterholes where animals concentrate. If manage-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM84


4 -85

ment objectives for wildlife and livestock are notachieved, adjustments in appropriate managementlevels may be necessary to meet other resource objec-tives. Current livestock levels could be maintainedwithout reductions in appropriate management levels.When wild horse numbers increase above appropriatemanagement levels with no corresponding reduction inlivestock numbers, key areas become overgrazed andforage production and availability decrease. Impacts toresources are compounded during periods of drought,resulting in decreased health of wild horses.

Grazing systems and range improvements designed toimprove ecological condition would increase forageproduction and provide a stable environment for wildhorses, as long as increased forage production is notentirely consumed by livestock. Under these condi-tions, appropriate management levels could be main-tained and overall health of the herds would improve.When livestock use is balanced with forage production,horses would have adequate forage during the summerand prior to winter. Adequate forage would helpmaintain the health of the herds and assist in maintain-ing viability. Livestock grazing would continue to bemanaged under a rest/rotation system in both herdmanagement areas. Based on previous studies, rest/rotation grazing results in significantly better condi-tions than all other systems. Vegetation changes wouldbenefit wild horses as herbaceous vegetation increases.Most change would occur on rangelands in mid-seralcondition in both herd management areas.

Viable herds of wild horses would be maintained inbalance with the forage and other resources. Herdcharacteristics described in Table 2-32 would bemaintained. Horses from outside the herd managementareas could be introduced to maintain genetic diversity.Genetic diversity would improve the health of theherds. Returning only the highest quality horses aftergathering ensures that the herds would be highlyreproductive and would be one of the most significantfactors influencing the viability of the herds.

The current appropriate management level and forageallocation for horses would remain as shown in Table2-29. The present forage allocation underestimates theneeds of wild horses at the middle to upper end of theappropriate management level. Forage is currentlyallocated for the original number of horses in the herdmanagement areas (85 in the Paisley Herd ManagementArea and 200 in the Beaty Butte Herd ManagementArea). After horses increase above these levels, theywould be over the forage allocation.

Construction of new boundary fences or strengthening

existing fences would encourage horses to stay insideherd management areas. Therefore, all impacts fromwild horse use would be confined within the herdmanagement areas.

New fencing designed for watershed restoration, firerehabilitation, range improvement, livestock manage-ment, or protection of special status species wouldtemporarily restrict movement of wild horses until theybecame accustomed to the change. During droughtyears, fences could prevent horses from reaching watersources, and actions such as leaving gates open andwater hauling may be necessary to maintain the herds.Fencing affects the entire Paisley Desert Herd Manage-ment Area, which has approximately 46 miles ofinterior fencing. Grazing allotments within the bound-aries of the herd management area include Allotments418, 419, 428, and 10103. Fencing would be less of animpact to the Beaty Butte Herd Management Area,which has only 9 miles of interior fencing in oneallotment (600). The fencing in the Beaty Butte HerdManagement Area is constructed so that horses maymove around the fence on the east side. No furtherinterior fencing would occur in either herd manage-ment area.

Water developments benefit wild horses as well aslivestock, because water is more limiting than forage inthe herd management areas. Livestock operators wouldcontinue to maintain water developments used by wildhorses. No further water developments would berecommended in the Paisley Desert Herd ManagementArea. As many as nine water projects would berecommended for the Beaty Butte Herd ManagementArea. Water development could allow for better healthof animals during periods of drought and could in-crease the area used by horses.

Aggressive initial attack and full suppression ofwildland fires would minimize short-term impacts tohorses, such as loss of forage. Prescribed fire wouldreduce availability of forage on up to 9,000 acres in theBeaty Butte Herd Management Area in the short termuntil vegetation recovered from fire impacts. In thelong term, vegetative productivity of herbaceousspecies and diversity of plant species may be main-tained or increased with prescribed fire. An increase inherbaceous vegetation would benefit wild horses byincreasing the available forage. Prescribed fire orwildland fire in the Paisley Desert Herd ManagementArea could reduce the amount of forage available inboth the short and long term due to the risk of invasionfrom cheatgrass and noxious weeds.

Vegetation management designed for rehabilitation and

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM85


4 - 86

restoration of disturbed lands including seedings,sagebrush control, and prescribed or wildland fire,would reduce forage availability and habitat on ap-proximately 20,000 acres in the short term, pendingvegetative recovery from the initial disturbance. In thelong term, vegetative productivity and diversity wouldbe maintained or improved, and the viability and healthof the herds would be maintained.

Mineral exploration and development would have alow probability of occurrence within herd managementareas; therefore, minimal impacts would be expected.However, these activities could potentially occuranywhere in the planning area. A diatomite mine existsin the Paisley Desert Herd Management Area. Poten-tial impacts from mineral activity include displacementof horses, loss of forage, interruption of normal move-ments, and change in normal areas of use.

Alternative B

Vegetation treatments would benefit livestock morethan wild horses. More available forage would beallocated to livestock, possibly increasing competitionwith wild horses. Downward adjustments in appropri-ate management levels could become necessary, asmore emphasis is placed on livestock use of the forage.

Noxious weed treatment, watershed health, wildlandfire and prescribed fire, recreation and OHV use, andenergy and mineral exploration and development wouldhave the same impacts as Alternative A. Managementfor special status species would have the same impactsas Alternative A. The need to fence special statusplants could be greater; therefore, the impacts de-scribed in Alternative A are more likely to occur.

Temporary nonrenewable grazing use would benefitlivestock rather than horses, but would not negativelyimpact horses.

Viable herds of horses would be maintained in bothherd management areas.

Alternative C

Impacts from most resource management actions wouldbe similar to Alternative A, except the majority ofnegative impacts would be reduced. A significantpositive effect to horses would result. Emphasis onnatural values would limit the opportunities to enhancewild horse populations because appropriate manage-ment levels would not be maximized.

The impact from short-term forage loss as a result of

proposed vegetation and restoration projects wouldhave less of an impact than Alternative A because lessemphasis would be placed on livestock use of forage.

Conflicts with livestock for available forage and waterwould be reduced. Grazing systems and range im-provements, designed to improve ecological condition,would have impacts similar to Alternative A. Protec-tion of springs in the Beaty Butte Herd ManagementArea may result in loss of water for wild horses. Thiscould be offset by water developments elsewhere in theherd management area. Maintaining utilization levelsin the light range on uplands would assure adequateforage availability for horses. Slight long-term in-creases in birth rates could be expected, along withincreased winter forage, decreased winter deaths, and ageneral improvement in herd health. Herd characteris-tics would be maintained.

There would less potential for project development andless impacts to horses from project development.

Fencing would have the same impacts as Alternative A,although the amount of fence necessary for livestockmanagement could be reduced.

Road closures may limit the time during which gather-ing could be scheduled and the placement of trap sitesused in gathering. The potential for wild horse andhuman interactions would be reduced to benefit wildhorses.

Alternative D

Most impacts would be the same as Alternative A,except that forage allocation for wild horses andlivestock would be proportional. Grazing systems andrange improvements, designed to improve ecologicalcondition, would have similar impacts as Alternative Abut would benefit wild horses as well as livestock.

The viability of wild horse herds would be maintainedconsistent with other uses. Established appropriatemanagement levels would be increased initially andthen maintained. Slight long-term increases in birthrates could be expected, along with increased winterforage, decreased winter deaths, and a general improve-ment in herd health. Herd characteristics would bemaintained.

Alternative E

Competition between livestock and wild horses foravailable forage would be eliminated. Wild horseswould be managed within the existing boundaries of

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM86


4 -87

herd management areas and within the capabilities ofthe resources. Appropriate management levels couldbe revised until a level of “thriving ecological balance”is determined. Resource deterioration from overgraz-ing would not be allowed. Fencing within herd man-agement areas would be removed, maximizing the areain which horses could roam freely. Healthy, viableherds would be maintained.

Gathers of excess horses would continue, but the timeperiod between gathers could potentially be increased.

Minimal new project construction would occur. Exist-ing water holes would be maintained. New waterdevelopments would be considered only if survival ofthe horses depended on the water.

The potential for long-term loss of habitat from wild-land fire would be highest under this alternative.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, the objectives would be met withviable populations of wild horses maintained in bothherd management areas. Appropriate managementlevels would remain constant in both herd managementareas. In some instances, conflicts with livestockproduction and special status species could occur.

Under Alternative B, wild horse herds would beimpacted more than in Alternative A, because foragewould be allocated to livestock before wild horses.Periodic downward adjustments of appropriate man-agement levels may be necessary to ensure that wildhorses are managed consistent with meeting othermanagement objectives. Gathering excess horseswould likely occur more often than in the past in orderto meet objectives commodity production. Increasedgathering would increase stress on the herds.

Under Alternative C, the objectives for wild horseswould be met and viable populations of wild horseswould be maintained. Conflicts could occur on a site-specific basis. Herd health would be improved. Theappropriate management levels would remain constantor could potentially increase. The appropriate manage-ment levels would remain the same as Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, the overall impacts to wild horseswould be slight and positive. The objectives for wildhorses would be met and viable populations of wildhorses would be maintained. Conflicts may occur on asite-specific basis. Herd health would be improved asvegetation improves and forage is increased.

Under Alternative E, wild horse appropriate manage-ment levels could be maximized because there wouldbe no competition from livestock grazing. Viablehealthy herds of horses would be maintained. Fewconflicts would occur. The highest threat would beloss of habitat from wildland fire.

Implementation of Alternatives A, C, and D, withconstraints on livestock management, limited addi-tional fence construction, management of wildland fire,and range improvement projects, would best meetmanagement objectives to maintain and manage viableherds of horses in established herd management areas,considering other multiple-use objectives. The pro-posed emphasis on livestock production, recreationaluse, and other commodity values in Alternative B,would increase disturbance of wild horses. Forage,habitat, and water sources for horses could be re-stricted. Wild horse herds could be maximized underAlternative E consistent with maintaining their habitatand forage resources to support viable, healthy herds ofhorses in the long term.


Indirect impacts to horses generally occur after a stressevent, such as gathering. Indirect impacts may includespontaneous abortions, increased social displacementof band members, and conflicts such as brief skir-mishes between studs.

Cumulative impacts under all alternatives would resultin an annual average increase in horse numbers of 20percent. Horses would be expected to adapt to changessuch as increased vehicle use over time. Horses wouldadapt to changes in availability and distribution ofcritical habitat components of food, shelter, water, andspace. Since the horses would be monitored andgathered periodically under all alternatives, they shouldbe able to remain healthy within their existing herdareas. Increases in livestock numbers above thatdescribed in Alternative B could impact wild horsenumbers in the long term and require downwardadjustments in appropriate management level num-bers—otherwise horses would remain at currentappropriate management levels.

Wild horses could cause cumulative impacts to un-fenced private land in the Beaty Butte Herd Manage-ment Area. Approximately 9 percent of the herdmanagement area is private land, characterized asrangeland similar to that described for BLM land.Many of the springs in the herd management area occuron private land. Private lands provide a good foragebase for horses, but grazing competition is at a high

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM87


4 - 88

level.

Cumulative impacts may occur as horses move to andfrom the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Eventhough fencing along Highway 140 isolates most bandsof horses from the Sheldon National Wildlife Refugesouth of the highway, some interchange between herdsdoes occur. If bands from the refuge mix with those inthe Beaty Butte Herd Management Area, population-wide impacts, such as modification of age and sexratios and separation of members of individual bands,may occur. Feral horses may be removed from therefuge in the future. Wild horses from the Beaty ButteHerd Management Area may continue to move onto therefuge.

Special Management Areas

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and

Research Natural Areas

Management Goal—Retain existing and designatenew areas of critical environmental concern(ACEC’s) and research natural areas (RNA’s) whererelevance and importance criteria are met and specialmanagement is required to protect the identifiedvalues.

Impacts Common to Several Alternatives

Wildland fires would not be expected to have signifi-cant, long-term impacts to ACEC/RNA values, due tothe fact that the plant communities found in these areasare generally adapted to fire and are in good condition.However, fire suppression actions could cause signifi-cant impacts. Using heavy equipment to suppresswildland fires in existing and proposed ACEC/RNA’swould require line officer approval. This restrictionwould help to protect the relevant and importantresource values in ACEC/RNA’s. Any rehabilitation ofwildland fires would be done using native seed. Theuse of prescribed fires in ACEC/RNA’s would promotenaturalness by reintroducing fire into the ecosystem.

Under Alternatives A, B, and D, livestock use wouldcontinue based on existing permit stipulations andapproved allotment management plans and would havelittle or no impact on relevant or important values.Plant community cells and other important resourceswould be monitored over time to determine if there areany impacts from grazing. The adaptive managementprocess would be used to identify mitigation forgrazing impacts. Any proposed future changes in

grazing, including time and intensity of use, would beevaluated for impacts on the relevant and importantvalues and would be permitted if the values would bemaintained or enhanced. Existing livestock use wouldbe adjusted where adverse impacts are identified usinga variety of methods, including but not limited tofencing, reduction in livestock numbers, changes ingrazing season, or exclusion. Proposed projects wouldbe evaluated for impacts and permitted where relevantand important values would be maintained or en-hanced. Under Alternatives C (Map G-2 of DraftRMP/EIS) and E, livestock grazing would be removedfrom most existing and proposed ACEC/RNA’s and theassociated impacts would not occur. This would be asignificant benefit to the existing plant communities ashealthy representations of natural systems would havea better chance of surviving over the long term, pro-moting biodiversity.

Under Alternatives C and D, Tribal people would havebetter access to traditional resources and use areas ineight of the ACEC’s established, in part, for culturalresources and plants. This would ensure thesustainability of these resources so that they will beavailable for traditional and ceremonial practices in thefuture.

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, ACEC/RNA’s wouldbe managed as land tenure Zone 1 (Maps L-3 and -4 ofthe Draft RMP/EIS and L-5), thereby retaining theselands in Federal ownership/management. In addition,inholdings would be a high priority for future acquisi-tion. This would improve the manageability of theseareas.

Analysis of Impacts: Devils Garden ACEC

Alternatives A–D

Under Alternatives A and B there would be little or nochange in current management or associated impacts.The area would continue to be protected from theimpacts of new right-of-way locations and mostmineral development, as well as managed as VRMClass I under the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b),preserving the area’s naturalness and scenic character.

Maintaining closures of trails created since the wilder-ness inventory was completed (Alternatives A-D) andpermanent closure of the road into the Devils Garden inthe center of the lava flow (Alternative C only) and toDerrick Cave (Alternatives C and D) (Map SMA-5)would protect these areas from impacts of vehicle use,soil compaction, and disturbances to natural character,as well as return these areas to more natural conditions.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM88


4 -89

Under Alternative D, all roads in the area prior to thewilderness inventory would be seasonally closed (Table4-4; Maps SMA-5 and -24). This would decreaseharassment of wintering mule deer and bighorn sheep,as well as limit other vehicle impacts.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, no impacts would be expectedas long as the area is in WSA status. If the area is notdesignated as wilderness and is removed from WSAstatus, the integrity and scenic quality of the south endof the Lava Flow would be impacted as a result ofmineral material disposal. OHV use on existing roadsin the garden would impact the naturalness of the area.

Analysis of Impacts: Lake Abert ACEC

Alternatives A–D

Under Alternatives A–D, the Lake Abert ACEC wouldbe retained. The impacts of Alternative A are describedin detail in the “High Desert Management FrameworkPlan Amendment and Final Environmental ImpactStatement for the Lake Abert Area of Critical Environ-mental Concern (ACEC) in Lake County, Oregon”(USDI-BLM 1996d).

Under Alternatives A and B, the size of the ACECwould not increase. Protection of resources would beprovided by limiting OHV use to existing roads andtrails and avoiding location of new rights-of-way.Retaining the ACEC designation would continue toprovide protection and management direction forcultural resources. Alternative A would limit theamount of impacts from mineral leasing in portions ofthe ACEC. Impacts of Alternative B would be similarto Alternative A, except that Lake Abert would beopened to exploration, development, and mining oflakebed evaporite mineral salts. This would mostlikely occur at the north end of the lake. Such activitywould have a negative impact on the water cycle of thelake, alter the water chemistry, and negatively impactthe shorebird habitat that has recently gained world-wide recognition.

Under Alternatives C and D, Abert Rim WSA would beadded to the ACEC. The entire WSA would be limitedto designated roads and trails. Closures of trailscreated since the wilderness inventory was completedwould be maintained. Proposed road closures areshown in Table 4-4 and Map SMA-7. OHV use aroundLake Abert would be limited to existing roads andtrails. This would limit access to certain areas, includ-ing areas with large numbers of cultural sites or arti-

facts.

Alternative E

The ACEC designation would be revoked, therebyremoving special management to protect cultural,scenic, and biological values. The national historicdistrict would remain in effect, protecting culturalvalues. Lake Abert would be open to exploration,development, and mining of lakebed evaporite mineralsalts. Impacts from mineral activity would be the sameas Alternative B.

Analysis of Impacts: Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil

Lake ACEC/RNA

Impacts Common to Alternatives A-D

The Sand Dunes WSA would continue to be protectedfrom the impacts of new right-of-way locations andmost mineral development, as well as managed asVRM Class I under the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM1995b). Under Alternatives B-D, the boundary adjust-ments (Map SMA-9) would focus management actionsin a more logical area that the BLM could readilyinfluence and make management more efficient.

Alternatives A and B

The entire ACEC would remain open to camping. Thiswould result in continued impacts from camping use,such as tree cutting for fire wood (even though the areais currently closed to firewood cutting), obliteratingvegetation, disturbing soil, and vandalizing trees androck formations in the Lost Forest RNA, particularlyaround Sand Rock. Development of a campgroundunder Alternative B, either by the BLM or a privateparty, would help to reduce these impacts. Impactswould be contained and concentrated in an area specifi-cally designed for high use.

The Sand Dunes would continue to be open to OHVuse. In 2000, the BLM desired to find out if currentmanagement in the Sand Dunes was affecting thenatural migration of the dunes, as well as how themigration might affect the surrounding area, such as theLost Forest RNA. Aerial photographs taken of thedune field over the last 60 years were examined todocument dune dynamics and migration patterns of thedune field. Other parameters (wind, precipitation, sandorigin, particle size, dune shape, present movement,active, partially active, stabilized) and presence orabsence of vegetation, were also examined. Since1939, the areas on the southwestern edge of the dune

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM89


4 - 90

field and east of Fossil Lake have been active, movingabout 5-10 meters to the east per year, covering about ahectare per year. However, one small section has hadno net movement of sand at all. Two small areaswithin the northeast section of the Lost Forest have hadvery little movement and in one area appears to haveretracted. The areas due west of the Lost Forest haveaveraged less than 1 meter of movement per year. Itappears that what little sand movement spills off ofdunes is piling up between the trees. The area of thelargest dunes west of Lost Forest and south of CountyRoad 5-14E was hard to assess quantitatively. Qualita-tively, no measureable dune movement was detected.The overall conclusions suggest that between 1939 and1994, the migration rates in the dune field were notsensitive to changes in climate or human use (DesertResearch Institute 2001).

The existing Fossil Lake fence exclosure wouldcontinue to protect palentological and cultural sitesfrom damage by OHV’s, livestock trampling, and otherdisturbances. However, there would be no protectionfor newly-discovered paleontological and cultural sitesin the sand dunes outside the exclosure. The manage-ment of most of the area as VRM Class I would benefitother resource values. Upgrading BLM Road 6151through the Lost Forest would reduce impacts fromvehicles driving off road to avoid muddy or rocky areas(i.e., soil compaction, damage to vegetation, anderosion). The restrictions on location of new rights-of-ways and mineral development would protect most ofthe ACEC/RNA, except Fossil Lake.

Alternative C

The limited effects of past grazing would be eliminatedby prohibiting grazing within the ACEC’s, thus improv-ing the soils for microbiotic crusts, improving survivalof grasses and forbs (perennial and annual), returningplant litter to the soil, and providing for greater produc-tivity.

The maximum protection of paleontological andcultural resources would result from eliminating OHVuse from the ACEC, limiting the size of the existingpowerline corridor, retaining the mineral withdrawal inthe Lost Forest RNA, and removing livestock grazingfrom the entire area. Implementing these actions wouldreduce the possibility of surface disturbance of culturalsites by up to 90 percent.

Closing the Lost Forest section of the ACEC to camp-ing (day use only) would reduce vehicle and human usein fragile disturbed areas, especially around Sand Rock.This would also help eliminate the illegal cutting of

trees for firewood and the vandalism of trees and rocksin the area. OHV activity would be prohibited in theentire ACEC. This would have a positive effect on thearea as negative vehicle and human effects on dunevegetation and in the Lost Forest would be eliminated.The management of most of the area as VRM Class Iwould benefit other resource values similar to Alterna-tive A. The restrictions on location of new rights-of-way and mineral development would protect most ofthe ACEC/RNA.

Alternative D

The size of the Fossil Lake closure area would beincreased (Table 3-3; Map SMA-9A) to preventdamage to paleontological resources by OHV use. Theexpanded closure area would be fenced, which wouldprotect artifacts that are found outside the existingfenced area. Outside the enlarged fenced area, the sanddunes would still be open to OHV use, which couldresult in some cultural and paleontological sites andartifacts being unearthed and destroyed. Protection ofcultural and paleontological resources would be lessthan under Alternative C, but more than under Alterna-tives A and B. Continued livestock grazing could alsodamage these resources.

Within the existing exclosure of Fossil Lake, nativevegetation has returned and is stabilizing the sandyarea. This stabilization would be expected to occur inthe enlarged exclosure area of low dunes. Rotating useof the camping and staging areas in the dunes wouldgive those areas a chance for rehabilitation and vegeta-tion. Development of a campground either by theBLM or a private party would reduce the disturbanceassociated with camping. Impacts would be containedand concentrated in an area specifically designed forsuch use. The inner dunes would have a chance torecover from damage, including soil disturbance,erosion, and destruction of vegetation caused by OHVuse. Providing designated access routes between acampground and the dunes would further limit impactsto soil and vegetation caused by OHV’s. The manage-ment of most of the area as VRM Class I would benefitother resource values similar to Alternative A. Therestrictions on location of new rights-of-way andmineral development would protect most of the ACEC/RNA.

Alternative E

The impacts to cultural, paleontological, and biologicalresources would be similar to Alternative C, since theSand Dunes would be closed to OHV’s. Much of thearea would continue to be protected by the wilderness

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM90


4 -91

IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b) and restrictions on newrights-of-way or mineral development.

Analysis of Impacts: Warner Wetlands ACEC

Alternatives A–D

Under Alternatives A–D, the ACEC would be retainedand management direction and protection of theimportant resources would continue as at present. Theimpacts of this management are described in detail inthe “Warner Lakes Plan Amendment for Wetlands andAssociated Uplands” (USDI-BLM 1989b).

Conducting noxious weed management in accordancewith the “Warner Basin Weed Management Area Plan”(USDI-BLM 1999g) would have positive impacts onplant communities in the area. Changing the grazinguse in the meadow management area under AlternativesC and D would not impact the ACEC as a whole.

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails wouldresult in 28–60 miles of roads being closed (Table 4-4;Map SMA-10), depending on alternative, potentiallyreducing soil compaction and erosion. Reducingvehicle access would also reduce disturbance towildlife. Continuing management of the area as VRMClass III would not impact other resource values.

Mineral development would be restricted only in theeastern half of the ACEC. Future development in thewestern half could have significant impacts. Newrights-of-way would be excluded under Alternative Cand avoided under Alternative D, both of which wouldrestrict the potential amount of disturbance allowedfrom these activities.

Alternative E

The ACEC designation would be revoked and somefences not needed to protect wildlife habitat would beremoved. This could open the area to more vehiclesand people, which could result in more disturbance tosoil, vegetation, and wildlife, as well as vandalism andillegal collecting of artifacts at cultural sites.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Abert Rim Addition to

Lake Abert ACEC

Impacts Common to Alternatives A-D

Conducting noxious weed management in accordancewith the “Abert Rim Weed Management Area Plan”(USDI-BLM 1995e) would have positive impacts on

plant communities in the area. The area would con-tinue to be protected from the impacts of new right-of-way locations and most mineral development, as wellas managed as VRM Class I under the wilderness IMP(USDI-BLM 1995b).


Abert Rim would not be added to the existing LakeAbert ACEC. Though the area would continue to bemanaged under the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM1995b), this would not provide special managementdirection and protection for the cultural and traditionalcultural properties which have been identified, shouldAbert Rim WSA be dropped from wilderness consider-ation by Congress.

Alternative C

About 18,049 acres would be added to the Lake AbertACEC, providing special management direction andprotection for significant cultural and traditionalcultural properties located within the addition area.Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails wouldresult in about 16 additional miles of roads and trailsbeing closed, potentially reducing soil compaction anderosion.

Alternative D

About 18,049 acres would be added to the Lake AbertACEC, providing special management direction andprotection for significant cultural and traditionalcultural properties located within the addition area.Continued grazing could cause trampling of culturalsites. Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trailswould result in about 3.3 additional miles of roads andtrails being closed (Table 4-4; Map SMA-7), reducingsoil compaction and erosion.

Alternative E

The existing Lake Abert ACEC designation would berevoked and Abert Rim ACEC would not be desig-nated. This would eliminate any special protection andmanagement for cultural resources in the area. How-ever, cultural resources would be generally protected,since neither livestock grazing, mining, nor any othercommercial activities would be allowed. Recreationuse would continue; therefore, there could be damageto cultural sites from illegal artifact collecting orvandalism.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM91


3 - 92

ing a variety of treatment methods, would cost-effec-tively reduce fuel hazards to acceptable levels andachieve both ecosystem health and resource benefits.Fire management programs and activities should bebased upon protecting resources, minimizing costs, andachieving land management objectives. They must alsobe economically viable. ICBEMP also stresses the useof fire to restore and sustain ecosystem health based onsound scientific principles and information. This mustalso be balanced with other societal goals, includingpublic health and safety, air quality, and other specificenvironmental concerns. Finally, ICBEMP states thatprescribed fire should be considered in wildernessareas where it has been determined that wildland fireuse for resource benefit would not achieve desired ratesof ecosystem maintenance or restoration.

Sound risk management is a foundation for all firemanagement activities. Risks and uncertainties relatingto fire management activities must be understood,analyzed, communicated, and managed as they relate tothe cost or consequences of either doing or not doingan activity.

Management Common to Alternatives A–D

A fire management plan would be updated for the LRAsoon after completion of the RMP. The fire manage-ment plan would identify conditions and potentiallocations for wildland fire use and for prescribed fires,as well as other factors pertaining to fire managementin LRA.

For Alternatives A, B, C, and D, treatment acres referto those areas analyzed in an environmental assess-ment; it does not assume that 100 percent of thoseacres are treated. The intent is to actually treat ap-proximately 40–70 percent of the area, and keep 30–60percent untreated. A goal of landscape-level treatmentis to break up treated and untreated areas in a mosaiceffect. The acres listed in the alternatives are upperlimits for analytical purposes, and not targets. ForAlternatives C and D, wildland fire use may cause thenumber of treated acres to vary widely from year toyear, and in some years may accomplish a very largenumber of treated acres. Lightning-caused fires inexcess of 100,000 acres have occurred periodically inthe rangeland fuels on the LRA.

Areas burned by prescribed fire would be rested fromgrazing for a minimum of two growing seasons. Restfor less than two growing seasons may be justified on acase-by-case basis. Under Alternative C only, the areawould be rested for a minimum of two full years.Other temporary use restrictions, such as no off-road

travel, may be imposed where warranted.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Use prescribed fire and mechanical, chemical, andbiological hazardous fuels reduction treatments on acase-by-case basis to improve forage base and restorenatural processes. There are no areas designated forwildland fire use. The Fort Rock Fire ManagementArea is managed for appropriate suppression response,rather than wildland fire use. Many fires occurringwithin the Fort Rock Fire Management Area bound-aries are monitored and allowed to be extinguishednaturally. For the past 5 years, BLM has prescribedburned approximately 5,000 to 20,000 acres per year(this is approximately 0.15 to 0.6 percent of the LRA).There have been very little mechanical hazardous fuelsreduction treatments on the LRA. Appendix B of the“Lakeview Grazing Management EIS” (USDI-BLM1982a) describes mechanical/chemical treatments toshrub/western juniper habitats, few of which have beenimplemented to date.

Alternative B

Under this alternative, prescribed fire and mechanical,chemical, and biological hazardous fuels reductiontreatments would be used primarily to enhance com-modity production and enhance the forage base forlivestock. Therefore, landscape-level treatments wouldnot occur under this alternative. There would be noareas designated for wildland fire use. No more than 2percent of the resource area (64,000 acres) would betreated annually by prescribed fire or mechanicalmethods under this alternative; less than 10 percent(320,000 acres) would be burned or mechanicallytreated for hazardous fuels reduction in a 10-yearperiod.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, prescribed fire, mechanical,chemical, and biological fuel treatments, and wildlandfire use would be emphasized to restore natural pro-cesses, and to protect, maintain, and enhance naturalresources. Emphasis would be placed on using pre-scribed fire for restoration of degraded rangelands.Areas for possible wildland fire use would be deter-mined under this alternative, but would be furtheranalyzed in the fire management plan. The Fort RockFire Management Area would no longer be managedfor appropriate suppression response, but would be

Chap3_0924.p65 11/7/2002, 4:31 PM92

Management Alternatives

3 -93

managed for wildland fire use. No more than 20percent of the resource area (640,000 acres) would betreated annually by prescribed fire, mechanical fueltreatments, and wildland fire use combined under thisalternative. Less than 50 percent (1,600,000 acres)would be treated in a 10-year period.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, prescribed fire, mechanical,chemical, and biological fuel treatment, and wildlandfire use would be used to: protect, maintain, andenhance natural resources; restore degraded habitats;and protect other adjacent Federal, state and privateland. Areas for wildland fire use would be determinedunder this alternative, but would be further analyzed inthe fire management plan. The Fort Rock Fire Man-agement Area would no longer be managed for appro-priate suppression response, but would be managed forwildland fire use. No more than 15 percent of theresource area (480,000 acres) would be treated annu-ally by prescribed fire, mechanical fuel treatment forhazard reduction, and wildland fire use under thisalternative. Less than 35 percent (1,120,000 acres) ofthe resource area would be treated in a 10-year period.

Alternative E

Under this alternative, there would be no prescribedfire, no mechanical, chemical, and biological fueltreatments for hazard reduction, and no wildland fireuse for resource benefit.

Recreation Resources

Management Goal—Provide and enhance developedand undeveloped recreation opportunities, whileprotecting resources, to manage the increasingdemand for resource-dependent recreation activities.

Rationale

The FLPMA provides for recreation use of public landas an integral part of multiple use management. Dis-persed, unstructured activities typify the recreationaluses occurring throughout the majority of the LRA.Policy guidelines in BLM Manual 8300 direct the BLMto designate special units known as special recreationmanagement areas. Management within these specialrecreation management areas focuses on providingrecreation opportunities that would not otherwise beavailable to the public, reducing conflicts among users,minimizing damage to resources, and reducing visitor

health and safety problems. Major investments inrecreation facilities and visitor assistance are appropri-ate in special recreation management areas whenrequired to meet management objectives.

Public lands not designated as special recreationmanagement areas, or other special designations, aremanaged as extensive recreation management areas.Management direction within extensive recreationmanagement areas focuses on actions to facilitaterecreation opportunities by providing basic informationand access. Visitors in extensive recreation manage-ment areas are expected to rely heavily on their ownequipment, knowledge, and skills while participating inrecreation activities.

In accordance with FLPMA, the “BLM’s Recreation—A Strategic Plan” (USDI-BLM 1990l) sets recreationpolicy on the national level. The policy emphasizesresource-dependent recreation opportunities that typifythe vast western landscapes; striving to meet the socialand economic needs of present and future generations,providing for the health and safety of the visitor, andaccomplishing these goals within the constraints ofachieving and maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Actions Common to Alternatives A–D

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the North Lake SpecialRecreation Management Area (Maps R-1 and -8 of theDraft RMP/EIS and map R-9) and extensive recreationmanagement area designations would become effectiveupon signature of the approved RMP and record ofdecision. An individual recreation area managementplan outlining specific management for the North LakeSpecial Recreation Management Area would beprepared following publication of the approved RMP.

All areas within the LRA not covered under a specialdesignation, such as WSA’s, special recreation manage-ment areas, ACEC’s, etc., would be managed as anextensive recreation management area.

Recreation area management plans would not beprepared for the extensive recreation managementareas. Specific management actions or projects in theextensive recreation management areas would beincluded in individual project plans or in plans writtenfor SMA’s following publication of the approved RMP.

Any recreational use within ACEC’s, including com-mercial and noncommercial uses authorized underspecial recreation permits, would be evaluated andpermitted, modified, or prohibited as needed to protectACEC values. However, camping would be prohibited

Chap3_0924.p65 11/7/2002, 4:31 PM93


3 - 94

in a few of the ACEC’s under Alternatives C and D.

Throughout the LRA, occupancy and use for recre-ational camping is limited to 14 consecutive days.Camping within 300 feet of any water source is prohib-ited. A water source is defined as any fenced springenclosure, flowing spring, man-made metal or concretewater tank or trough, or dirt pond.

Designation of additional scenic byways or vehicleroutes would be considered, provided they are consis-tent with OHV designations and resource concerns areaddressed. Existing scenic byway designations wouldremain.

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, designation of theNorth Lake Special Recreation Management Area isproposed.

Operations for all wilderness therapy groups authorizedwithin the proposed North Lake Special RecreationManagement Area would be limited to the followingarea: east of County Road 5-12 B and BLM Road6121, and north of Lake County Road 5-14. Adjacentto the proposed North Lake Special Recreation Man-agement Area there are a number of campsites associ-ated with wilderness therapy operations located withinthe Prineville and Burns Districts that are addressedunder this RMP process. Within the Prineville Districtcampsites are located in Sections 4, 14, and 34, T.22S.,R.19E.; Sections 1 and 3, T.23S., R.19E.; Sections 15and 36, T.23S., R.20E.; Sections 19, 29, and 33, T.23S.,R.12E.; and Sections 5, 8, and 23, T.24S., R.21E.Campsites within the Burns District are located inSections 4, 13, 22, and 26, T.25S., R.22E., and Section2, T.26S., R.22E.

Management Direction by Alternative

Alternative A

Under this alternative, management of the existingWarner Wetlands Special Recreation Management Areawould continue and the remaining public land through-out the LRA would be managed as an extensive recre-ation management area. Possible future designation ofspecial recreation management areas to enhancetourism and recreation opportunities would be consid-ered. Existing developed and undeveloped recreationsites (including trails, wildlife viewing areas, backcountry byways, interpretive areas, and campgrounds)would be expanded to accommodate increased visita-tion. Opportunities for partnerships to expand tourismand recreation would be optimized. Recreation experi-ences would be provided through increased information

and education opportunities.

Commercial recreation opportunities would be contin-ued through the authorization of special recreationpermits consistent with present management directionwhile providing for resource protection. Specialrecreation permits, for both commercial and noncom-mercial activities, would be authorized throughout theLRA.

The Sunstone Collection Area would be managedunder existing guidelines, where there would be nocommercial collection of stones, and only hand toolsmay be used.

Development of a watchable wildlife site on the northend of Abert Lake would be considered.

Wilderness therapy schools would be authorized,through the issuance of special recreation permits, tooperate on BLM-administered lands within the LRAand portions of the Prineville and Burns Districts.Total user days (defined as any calendar day, or portionthereof, that a participant/client/student is accompaniedor serviced by an operator or permittee) associated withwilderness therapy school operations may not exceed16,600 for combined use in Lakeview, Prineville, andBurns Districts. Group size would be limited to ninestudents, plus staff. In the vicinity of Fredericks Buttein north Lake County, no wilderness therapy schoolswould be authorized to operate with more than twogroups at any one time within Lakeview, Burns, andPrineville Districts. No more than five groups wouldbe authorized to operate concurrently within this area.When possible, no campsites would be authorizedwithin 5 miles of any year-round residence.

Special Recreation Management Areas

Warner Wetlands Special Recreation ManagementArea: Management of the Warner Wetlands SpecialRecreation Management Area would be as outlined inthe “Warner Wetlands Recreation Area ManagementPlan” (USDI-BLM 1990). Existing managementdirection allows hunting, motorized boating, andpersonal motorized watercraft (jetskis andwaverunners) use. Vehicles would be required to stayon designated roads and trails. The following projects,previously approved to enhance and provide newrecreation opportunities, would be considered:

• Upgrade approximately 12–13 miles of existingroads to provide all-weather public access toTurpin, Campbell, and Stone Corral Lakes.

Chap3_0924.p65 11/7/2002, 4:31 PM94


4 -95

Managing the area as VRM Class III would providelittle protection to other resources. Mineral develop-ment would have the potential to cause surface distur-bance and related impacts. Mineral activity is notlikely, since the area has only moderate potential forgeothermal resources. Impacts associated with thelocation of new rights-of-way would be avoided.

Alternative E

No ACEC/RNA designation would mean no protectionor special management of one ONHP plant communitycell. However, since no grazing, mining, or othercommercial activity would occur, the cell would existin a more natural situation. The plant communitywould be monitored over time. The conservationagreement with the USFWS would provide somespecial management to Columbia cress.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Guano Creek/Sink

Lakes ACEC/RNA

Impacts Common to Alternatives A–D

The area overlaps completely with the Guano CreekWSA and would continue to be protected from theimpacts of new right-of-way locations and mostmineral development, as well as managed as VRMClass I under the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b).This area would continue to be excluded from livestockgrazing; therefore, related impacts would not occur.


No ACEC/RNA designation would be made. There-fore, no special management direction and protectionwould be provided for the resources other than thewilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b). The two ONHPplant cells identified in the area (Appendix I) could belost in the long term. Implementing the conservationagreement with the USFWS would benefit two specialstatus plants: Crosby’s buckwheat and grimy ivesia.OHV use would continue to be limited to existingroads and trails, which could reduce off-road surfacedisturbance, vegetation destruction, soil compaction,and erosion.

Alternative C

Approximately 4,936 acres would be designated as anACEC/RNA. Protective management would be put inplace that would benefit the condition and continuedexistence of the two plant cell communities, as well asthe two special status plants, even if the area were

released from wilderness study. These healthy repre-sentations of natural systems would have a betterchance of surviving and representing biodiversitywhere surface-disturbing activities are limited. Imple-menting the conservation agreement with the USFWSwould benefit the two special status plants.

Limiting OHV’s to designated roads and trails, includ-ing closure of about 2.4 miles of existing roads andtrails (Table 4-4), could reduce off-road surface distur-bance, vegetation destruction, soil compaction, anderosion.

Alternative D

Approximately 11,239 acres would be designated as anACEC/RNA (Table 4-4; Map SMA-15). The impactswould be the same as Alternative C.

Alternative E

No ACEC/RNA designation would mean no protectionor special management would occur, except for thatrequired by the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b).Since no grazing, mining, or other commercial activitywould occur, the plant community cells would exist ina more natural situation. The ONHP plant communitycells and special status plants would be monitored overtime. Implementing the conservation agreement withthe USFWS would benefit the two special status plants.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Hawksie-Walksie

ACEC/RNA


The area overlaps completely with the Hawk Mountainand Sage Hen Hills WSA’s and would continue to beprotected from the impacts of new right-of-way loca-tions and most mineral development, as well as man-aged as VRM Class I under the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b).


Under Alternatives A and B, no ACEC/RNA designa-tion would be made. No additional managementdirection and protection would be provided. The twoONHP plant cells identified in the area, as well as thehigh quality grasslands unique to that area (Appendix I)could be lost in the long term. However, continuedmanagement of the area as a WSA would provide someprotection. OHV use would continue to be limited toexisting roads and trails which could reduce off-road

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM95


4 - 96

surface disturbance, vegetation destruction, soilcompaction, and erosion.

Alternative C

Approximately 17,339 acres would be designated as anACEC/RNA. Management would provide directionand protection of cultural resources. Excluding live-stock and wild horses from part of the area would be asignificant benefit to the plant communities in theACEC/RNA. Limiting OHV use to designated roadsand trails, including closure of about 10.5 miles ofexisting roads and trails, could reduce off-road surfacedisturbance, vegetation destruction, soil compaction,and erosion, as well as protect cultural sites fromsurface disturbance, destruction, and theft. Theseactions would also protect the two ONHP cells and thehigh quality grasslands.

Alternative D

Approximately 17,339 acres would be designated as anACEC/RNA. Management would provide specialmanagement direction and protection generally similarto Alternative C. However, the areas containing theplant cells are not proposed to be excluded fromlivestock or wild horses initially. The ACEC would bemonitored to determine impacts from grazing. Limit-ing OHV use to designated roads and trails, includingclosure of about 4.1 miles of existing roads and trails(Table 4-4; Map SMA-15), could reduce off-roadsurface disturbance, vegetation destruction, soilcompaction, and erosion.

Alternative E

No ACEC/RNA designation would mean no specialprovision would be made for the protection or manage-ment of the two ONHP cells or the high quality grass-lands other than that provided by the wilderness IMP(USDI-BLM 1995b). Since no grazing, mining, orcommercial activity would occur, these sites wouldexist in a more natural situation. The ONHP cell plantcommunities and special status plants would be moni-tored over time.

No ACEC/RNA designation would eliminate specialprotection and management for cultural resources inthe area. However, cultural resources would be gener-ally protected since neither livestock grazing nor anyother commercial activities would be allowed. Therecould be damage to sites from illegal artifact collectingand vandalism. Recreation use and associated impactswould continue.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed High Lakes ACEC


No designation would be made and no additionalmanagement direction and protection would be pro-vided for the cultural resources and cultural plants inthe area outside of Guano Creek WSA (Appendix I).

Alternative C

About 40,095 acres would be designated as an ACEC.The area overlaps a small portion of the Guano CreekWSA. This area would continue to be protected fromthe impacts of new right-of-way locations and mostmineral development, as well as managed as VRMClass I under the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b).

This is one of the few proposed ACEC’s under thisalternative where livestock grazing would be allowed.However, it would be closely monitored and adjustedin the future if impacts occur.

Management actions prescribed for the ACEC wouldprovide protection and management direction forcultural resources. These actions would significantlybenefit the integrity and scientific value of culturalsites. Limiting surface-disturbing activities andadjusting grazing use (if required) would benefitcultural plant species, ensuring their abundance andsustainability. This would be a benefit to local Tribeswho desire to be able to harvest these plants for tradi-tional or ceremonial uses.

Limiting OHV’s to designated roads and trails andclosure of about 23 miles (Table 4-4) of roads and trailscould reduce off-road surface disturbance, vegetationdestruction, soil compaction, and erosion, as well asprotect cultural sites from surface disturbance, directdestruction of artifacts, and vandalism often resultingfrom human access. Managing most of the area(outside of the WSA) as VRM Class III would providelittle protection for other resources.

Closing the area to sale and lease of minerals andexcluding new rights-of-way would protect resourcesfrom surface disturbance and related impacts.

Alternative D

About 38,985 acres would be designated as an ACEC.

ACEC management actions would provide additionalprotection and management direction for culturalresources. Impacts to cultural plants and Native

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM96


4 -97

American use of the area and plants would be the sameas Alternative C.

OHV use would be limited to designated roads andtrails and would include closure of about 17.8 miles ofroads and trails (Table 4-4; Map SMA-16). This couldreduce off-road surface disturbance, vegetation destruc-tion, soil compaction, and erosion, as well as protectcultural sites from surface disturbance, direct destruc-tion of artifacts, and vandalism often resulting fromhuman access.

The area would be subject to future potential miningimpacts of surface disturbance and resource damage.Impacts associated with new rights-of-way would beavoided.

Other impacts would be similar to Alternative C, but toa lesser degree since this alternative would be lessrestrictive.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated. This would eliminateany special protection and management for culturalresources and cultural plants in the area. However,cultural resources and plants would generally beprotected since neither livestock grazing, mining, orany other commercial activities would be allowed.Recreation use would continue. There could bedamage to sites from illegal artifact collecting andvandalism. Although Native Americans and otherswould still be able to harvest cultural plants, theseplants would have no special protection or manage-ment. Long-term impacts on their continued existencewould be uncertain.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Juniper Mountain

ACEC/RNA


No ACEC/RNA designation would be made. Noadditional management direction and protection wouldbe provided. The one ONHP plant cell identified in thearea, as well as old growth juniper woodland unique tothat area (Appendix I) would not receive specialmanagement. The eastern half of this area burned in alightening-caused wildfire in the summer of 2001.Some live stands of juniper remain. Restrictingvehicles to existing roads and trails would facilitaterevegetation of the area. If woodcutting is allowed tocontinue within the ACEC, it would be limited to deadand down material near existing roads and trails.

Alternative C

About 6,335 acres would be designated as an ACEC/RNA. All commercial wood or plant collection wouldbe prohibited. This would have some short-term andlong-term positive impacts on biological resources.Closing the area to wood cutting would protect theecological and scientific values associated with theremaining old growth juniper woodland. Firewood forpersonal use could be made available immediatelynorth and east of the ACEC within invasive juniperstands that burned in 2001 (Map V-3).

This is one of the few proposed ACEC’s under thisalternative where livestock grazing would be allowed.However, it would be closely monitored and adjustedin the future if impacts occur.

Closing the area to camping and limiting OHV’s todesignated roads and trails, along with closure of about6.7 miles of roads and trails (Table 4-4), could reduceoff-road surface disturbance, vegetation destruction,soil compaction, and erosion, as well as allow naturalprocesses to operate, allow recovery from the fire, andfacilitate continued research. Managing the area asVRM Class II would provide protection for otherresource values.

Closing the area to the sale or lease of minerals andexcluding new rights-of-way would eliminate distur-bance impacts associated with these activities.

Alternative D

About 6,335 acres would be designated as an ACEC/RNA. Firewood for personal use would be madeavailable immediately north and east of the ACECwithin invasive juniper stands that burned in 2001(Map V-3).

No impacts from camping would be expected as longas live trees were not cut for use as camp firewood.Limiting OHV’s to designated roads and trails, alongwith closure of about 4.3 miles of roads and trails(Table 4-4; Map SMA- 17), could reduce off-roadsurface disturbance, vegetation destruction, soilcompaction, and erosion, as well as allow naturalprocesses to operate, allow recovery from the fire, andfacilitate continued research. Managing the area asVRM Class IV would provide little or no protection forother resource values.

Although mineral exploration and development couldcause surface disturbance and related impacts, it is notlikely due to the relatively low mineral potential in the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM97


4 - 98

area (Maps M-8, -9, and -10). Mineral leasing activitywould be subject to a no-surface-occupancy stipulation.This would protect the integrity of the remainingwoodland. New right-of-way locations and associatedimpacts would be avoided.

All other impacts would be the same as those describedunder Alternative C.

Alternative E

There would be no ACEC/RNA designation. Therewould there be no commercial activity, includingwoodcutting, livestock grazing, or mineral develop-ment. Therefore, no negative impacts would be likelyto occur. Recreational use of the area, includingcamping, would continue with no expected impact.Scientific study and research would continue.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Rahilly-Gravelly

ACEC/RNA


No ACEC/RNA designation would be made. Noadditional management direction and protection wouldbe provided for the relevant and important resources inthe area. The one ONHP plant cell identified, as wellas the one special status plant species unique to thearea, Cooper’s goldflower (Appendix I), would notreceive special management and could be lost in thelong term.

About two-thirds of the ACEC/RNA is within theCrump Geyser Known Geothermal Resource Area.Geothermal exploration and development would belikely in the future. This could cause a significantnegative impact to the special status plant, culturalplants, and cultural sites in the area, depending on howthe activity is conducted. Stipulations would beattached (Appendix N3) to any lease issued to protectthe special resources in the area to the extent possible.

Alternative C

About 20,127 acres would be designated as an ACEC/RNA. This is one of the few proposed ACEC’s underthis alternative where livestock grazing would beallowed. However, it would be closely monitored andadjusted in the future if impacts occur.

Management direction would provide protection forcultural resources. These actions would significantlybenefit the integrity and hence, the scientific value of

cultural sites. Limiting surface-disturbing activitiesand adjusting grazing use to meet the needs of culturalplants would benefit these species and ensure theirabundance and continued survival. Allowing collectingof vegetative material including cultural plants wouldallow Native Americans to continue to use the area fortraditional purposes. It would provide one more areafor sustainable cultural plant collection. This would bea benefit to the Tribes who desire to harvest theseplants for traditional or ceremonial uses.

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails,including closure of about 11.8 miles of roads and trails(Table 4-4), could reduce off-road surface disturbance,vegetation destruction, soil compaction, and erosion.Managing the area as VRM Class III would providelittle protection to other resource values.

Closing the area to mineral sale and placing a no-surface-occupancy stipulation on mineral leasingwould limit mining related impacts. Geothermalexploration or development would have to be donefrom outside the area, which would eliminate anyimpacts to cultural resources or plant communities andspecial status species. Excluding new rights-of-waywould eliminate disturbance impacts associated withthis activity.

Alternative D

About 19,648 acres would be designated as an ACEC/RNA. Management direction would provide protectionfor the resources. Most impacts would be similar toAlternative C. Impacts to the plant community cells,the special status plant, and cultural plants and their useby local tribes would be the same as Alternative C.

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails couldreduce off-road surface disturbance, vegetation destruc-tion, soil compaction, and erosion, but not as much asAlternative C. Managing the area as VRM Class IIIwould provide little or no protection to other resources.

Some protection would be provided by restrictingmineral leasing to no surface occupancy. Impacts frommineral sale or location could still occur. New rights-of-way and associated impacts would be avoided.

Alternative E

No ACEC/RNA would be designated. This wouldeliminate special protection and management forcultural resources. However, cultural resources,cultural plants, and other botanical values in the areawould be generally protected, since neither livestock

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM98


4 -99

grazing, mining, or any other commercial activitiesincluding geothermal exploration and developmentwould be allowed. Recreation use would continue.There could be damage to sites from illegal artifactcollecting and vandalism. Although Native Americansand others would still be able to harvest cultural plants,these plants would have no special protection ormanagement. Long-term impacts on their continuedexistence would be uncertain.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Red Knoll ACEC


Noxious weed treatment would benefit native plantcommunities in the area and would be similar underthese four alternatives.


No ACEC designation would be made. No specialmanagement direction would be provided for twospecial status plant species, a number of cultural plants,and an abundance of cultural resource sites (AppendixI).

Alternative C

About 11,588 acres would be designated as an ACEC.Management direction would provide protection ofcultural resources. Limiting surface-disturbing activi-ties and eliminating grazing (Map G-2) would preventdamage or destruction of cultural plants and the specialstatus plants in the area. Allowing collecting ofvegetative material, including cultural plants forindividual use, would enable Native Americans tocontinue to use the area for traditional or ceremonialpurposes and provide one more area for sustainablecultural plant collection.

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails,including closure of about 7.3 miles of roads and trails(Table 4-4), could reduce off-road surface disturbance,vegetation destruction, soil compaction, and erosion, aswell as direct destruction of artifacts, which wouldsignificantly benefit the integrity and hence, thescientific value of cultural sites. Managing the area asVRM Class II would provide protection to otherresources.

Withdrawing the area from mineral location, closingthe area to mineral sale or lease, and excluding thelocation of new rights-of-way would prevent surfacedisturbance and destruction of cultural resources.

Alternative D

About 11,127 acres would be designated as an ACEC.Management direction would provide protection forcultural resources. Impacts to cultural plants andspecial status plants would be similar to those underAlternative C, except that livestock grazing wouldcontinue. However, grazing could be adjusted toreduce impacts to cultural plants or special statusplants, if necessary.

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails,including closure of about 3.8 miles of roads and trails(Table 4-4; Map SMA-19), could reduce off-roadsurface disturbance, vegetation destruction, soilcompaction, and erosion, and would significantlybenefit the integrity and hence, the scientific value ofcultural sites. However, the protection would not be asgreat as under Alternative C. Managing the area asVRM Class II would provide protection to otherresources.

Closing approximately 4,600 acres of the area (wheremineral potential is highest and development is mostlikely to occur) from mineral location (by withdrawal),sale, or lease would eliminate potential impacts frommining in part of the ACEC. However, the remainderof the area would remain open to mineral development,subject to special stipulations (Appendix E3). Miningrelated impacts could occur in this part of the area.New rights-of-way and associated impacts would beavoided.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated. This would eliminateany special management for cultural resources in thearea. However, cultural resources would be generallyprotected since neither livestock grazing, mining, orother commercial activities would be allowed. Recre-ation use would continue. There could be damage tosites from illegal artifact collecting and vandalism.

No special provision would be made for the manage-ment of the two special status species; however, sinceno grazing, mining, or commercial activity wouldoccur, the plants would exist in a more natural situa-tion. These plants would be monitored over time.Similarly, cultural plants would exist in a more naturalsituation and Native Americans and others would stillbe able to harvest them. However, the long-termimpacts on their continued existence would be uncer-tain.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM99


4 - 100

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Spanish Lake ACEC/

RNA


No ACEC/RNA designation would be made. Noadditional management direction and protection wouldbe provided for the resources. The two ONHP plantcells identified in the area (Appendix I) would notreceive special management and could be lost overtime.

Alternative C

About 4,699 acres would be designated an ACEC/RNA. This is one of the few proposed ACEC’s underthis alternative where livestock grazing would beallowed. However, it would be closely monitored andadjusted in the future if impacts occurred.

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails,including closure of about 4.4 miles of roads and trails(Table 4-4), could reduce off-road surface disturbance,vegetation destruction, soil compaction, and erosion.Managing the area as VRM Class III would providelittle or no protection to other resources.

Closing the area to sale or lease of minerals andexcluding new rights-of-way would protect the twoplant cell habitats by reducing potential vegetation lossand soil disturbance.

Alternative D

About 4,699 acres would be designated as an ACEC/RNA.

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails,including closure of about 0.6 miles of roads and trails(Table 4-4; Map SMA-20), could reduce off-roadsurface disturbance, vegetation destruction, soilcompaction, and erosion. Managing the area as VRMClass IV would provide little or no protection to otherresources.

The area would remain open to mineral developmentand the potential for related impacts. The area has amoderate potential for geothermal resources. Explora-tion or development could impact the two plant cells bydestroying vegetation, by driving vehicles off-road, orby constructing access roads. Geothermal leases wouldbe issued with stipulations (Appendix E3) to protectresources to the extent possible. Location of newrights-of-way and associated impacts would be

avoided.

Alternative E

No designation would mean no special provision wouldbe made for the management of the two ONHP plantcommunity cells; however, since no grazing, mining, orcommercial activity would occur, the plant communi-ties would exist in a more natural situation and wouldbe monitored over time.

Analysis of Impacts: Proposed Table Rock ACEC


The special status plants, Cusick’s buckwheat andsnowline cymopterus, would continue to benefit frommanagement and protection provided by the existingconservation agreement with USFWS.


No ACEC designation would be made. No additionalmanagement direction would be provided for thecultural resources and cultural plants in the area(Appendix I).

Alternative C

About 5,891acres would be designated as an ACEC.Management direction would provide protection ofcultural resources. Actions that limit surface distur-bance would reduce direct destruction of artifacts,thereby maintaining the integrity and hence, thescientific value of cultural sites. These actions wouldalso reduce impacts to special status plants.

Closing the area to camping and limiting OHV use todesignated roads and trails, including closure of about11.1 miles of roads and trails (Table 4-4), could reduceoff-road surface disturbance, vegetation destruction,soil compaction, and erosion. Managing the area asVRM Class II would provide protection to otherresources.

Closing the area to sale and lease of minerals andexcluding new rights-of-way would eliminate impactsfrom these types of activities.

Alternative D

About 5,138 acres would be designated as an ACEC.Impacts would be similar to Alternative C; however,protection would not be as great. Management direc-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM100


4 -101

tion would provide protection of cultural resources.This is one of the few proposed ACEC’s under Alterna-tive D where livestock grazing and the associatedimpacts would continue to be excluded from part of thearea.

Limiting camping use to designated areas and OHV useto designated roads and trails, including closure ofabout 3.6 miles of roads and trails (Table 4-4; MapSMA-21), could reduce off-road surface disturbance,vegetation destruction, soil compaction, and erosion.Managing the area as VRM Class II would provideprotection to other resources.

The area would be closed to mineral sale. The area hasa moderate potential for geothermal resources, butwould be restricted by a no-surface-occupancy stipula-tion. This would eliminate potential impacts fromthese types of activities. New rights-of-way andassociated impacts would be avoided.

Alternative E

No ACEC would be designated. This would eliminateany special cultural resources in the area. However,cultural resources would be generally protected, sinceneither livestock grazing, mining, or any other commer-cial activities would be allowed. Recreation use wouldcontinue. There could be damage to sites from illegalartifact collecting and vandalism.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, no new ACEC’s would be desig-nated and four existing ones would be retained. Theoverall impact on currently designated ACEC’s wouldbe generally beneficial, although a lack of restrictionson certain activities in some ACEC’s leaves themvulnerable to adverse change. Twelve areas withidentified relevant and important values would not bedesignated as ACEC/RNA’s, and would therefore, notreceive a priority for special management. The overallimpact could be adverse in undesignated areas. TheACEC objectives would be met generally in the fourexisting ACEC’s as priority for management would beextended to these areas.

Under Alternative B, four existing ACEC’s would beretained and only one new area, Connley Hills, wouldbe designated. The overall impact on the existing andthe one proposed ACEC would be somewhat benefi-cial. Smaller areas within ACEC’s would receivespecial management attention. Eleven potentialACEC’s would not be proposed. The overall impactcould be adverse in these undesignated areas. Empha-

sis on commodity uses would increase the risk ofadverse impacts. The ACEC objectives would be metgenerally in the four existing ACEC’s and the proposedConnley Hills ACEC.

Under Alternatives C and D, 4 existing ACEC’s wouldbe retained, 1 would be enlarged, and 12 new ACEC’swould be designated. Nine new RNA’s would bedesignated within nine of the ACEC’s. Under bothalternatives, the special management of the proposedACEC’s would help protect areas designated as ONHPplant community cells. These healthy representationsof natural systems would have a better chance ofsurviving and providing biodiversity where no grazingis allowed and fences are constructed to limit wildhorse access. Tribal people would have access totraditional resources and be able to use areas in eightACEC’s managed partially for cultural values andplants. This would ensure that these areas and re-sources are available for traditional and ceremonialpractices in the future.

The overall impact of Alternative C on currentlydesignated ACEC’s would be generally beneficial,although a lack of restrictions on certain activities insome ACEC’s leaves them vulnerable to adversechange. The emphasis on management for naturalvalues would provide indirect benefits to the proposedACEC’s. Special management actions that mitigateadverse effects would be implemented for all activitieswithin ACEC’s. A priority for management would beextended to areas designated as ACEC’s. Alternative Cwould provide the most extensive and most restricticemanagement for ACEC’s. Overall, the ACEC objec-tives would be met for an extensive representation ofrelevant and important values.

In Alternative C, the impacts from livestock grazingwould be significantly less because 102,412 acreswithin nine existing or proposed ACEC’s would beclosed to grazing. This would provide greater protec-tion to special status plants and plant communities. AllACEC’s would be closed to mineral sale and leasingbut would remain open to locatable minerals, exceptfor Red Knoll, where the entire ACEC would bewithdrawn from mineral activity. Surface-disturbingactivity associated with locatable mineral entry wouldbe prohibited in ACEC’s that overlap WSA’s. (Surfacedisturbance requiring reclamation is prohibited inWSA’s.) These actions would lessen or eliminate thenegative effects of mineral development, such as roadbuilding and damage to soils and vegetation.

The overall impact on areas of existing and proposedACEC’s would be beneficial in Alternative D, although

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM101


4 - 102

a lack of restrictions on certain activities in someACEC’s leaves them vulnerable to adverse change.Special management actions that mitigate effects ofadverse impacts would be implemented for all activi-ties within the ACEC’s. However, special monitoringof commodity use, such as livestock grazing and wildhorse use, would be necessary. Overall, the ACECobjectives could be met for an extensive representationof relevant and important values.

In Alternative D, leasable mineral development is openor open with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation for themajority of the existing and proposed ACEC’s. At RedKnoll, only the northern section would be withdrawnfrom mineral entry and would be fully protected frommineral development. Leasable mineral developmentis unlikely in most of the ACEC’s due to low potential.However, where there is potential for development ofgeothermal resources (Black Hills, Connley Hills,Juniper Mountain, Rahilly-Gravelly, Sink Lakes, andTable Rock), there would be a no-surface-occupancystipulation. This would protect the botanical andcultural resources in these areas. The Rahilly-GravellyACEC would be the most likely candidate for geother-mal exploration and development due to the presenceof the Crump Geyser Known Geothermal ResourceArea. Except for the Lost Forest RNA portion of theLost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC and thenorthwest portion of Red Knoll ACEC, all otherACEC’s would be open to locatable mineral develop-ment. However, no disturbance could occur in thoseportions of ACEC’s within WSA’s and the instant studyarea (ISA) until they are released from wildernessstudy. Sale of minerals would be closed for five of theACEC’s. Areas remaining open would be subject topotential adverse impacts from mineral activities.

Under Alternative E, all existing ACEC designationswould be revoked and no new ACEC’s would bedesignated. Management for these areas would be thesame as that applied across the planning area. Thecessation of many activities, including livestockgrazing, all mineral activities, and all project develop-ment, would permit natural functions and processes tooccur within the natural systems. However, the poten-tial for increased horse numbers, nonaggressive weedcontrol, and no management of woodland areas wouldresult in long-term adverse impacts to relevant andimportant values. The management of wildland andprescribed fire would not be beneficial. There wouldbe no prescribed fires, nor would there be rehabilitationof burned areas. Wildland fires would be allowed toburn except when endangering life or private property.These policies would create a repeated wildland fireregime, which could result in large stands of cheatgrass

and noxious weeds, which in turn would create a higherpotential for repeated wildland fires. This policywould cause damage to the relevant and importantvalues of all the ACEC’s.

Recreation use would be expected to increase, particu-larly in areas which had been previously designated,such as the Lost Forest/Sand Dune ACEC. Unlessregulated, recreation use would result in adverseimpacts to cultural and natural values. Overall, impactsof recreation use are anticipated to be moderate.With limited or no noxious weed control, weeds mayspread throughout the planning area, resulting indegradation of natural values and severe long-termadverse impacts to natural area communities, plant/animal interaction, and biodiversity. Overall, theACEC objectives would not be met because thisalternative does not provide the necessary protectionfor relevant and important values.


The major secondary, indirect, or cumulative impactsto ACEC’s would be the loss of relevant and importantvalues, such as special status species, unique plantcommunities, habitats, conversion to marginal plantcommunities, and loss of cultural values. Up to147,149 acres of new ACEC’s and 167,020 acres ofexisting ACEC’s would be set aside to protect and havespecial management for special status species (plantand animal), cultural values, scenic values, and uniqueplant communities. Ten RNA’s within these ACEC’swould be available for researchers and exist as ex-amples of plant communities for the entire State ofOregon. The impacts from activities implemented onthe adjacent USFS, USFWS, state, and private lands,create additional cumulative impacts in addition toBLM-authorized actions.

Especially noteworthy is the increase of OHV recre-ation in the planning area, some from the closure ofsand dunes on the Oregon coast and overflow fromOHV areas in the Prineville District. Changes in dunesin the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC haverecently been studied by researchers to determine thecumulative impacts of OHV use. The study concludedthat neither climate or OHV use have caused signifi-cant changes in dune movement patterns since 1939(Desert Research Institute 2001). Recreation use ispredicted to increase just from the increase of popula-tion in Oregon, which would have an effect on recre-ation sites, roads, and would have a special impact inareas of traditional congregation of campsites.

One positive cumulative impact would be the sustain-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM102


4 -103

able use of up to 122,560 acres by Tribal people forcultural resources and practices; thus fulfilling theBLM’s trust responsibility.

A lack of noxious weed policies and prevention on non-BLM lands has had a negative effect on thebiodiversity of the existing plant communities withinACEC’s in both short and long term. Overall, there hasbeen a loss of biodiversity.

The role of wildland fire policies in non-BLM landscould also negatively impact the existing and proposedACEC’s in the long term, especially by disturbing theconnectivity of plant and animal species habitats andby changing the wildland fire regimes at the landscapelevel.

If Congress decides to designate those WSA’s thatoverlap ACEC’s as wilderness, the values of theACEC’s would be greatly enhanced and would receiveincreased protection.

Wilderness Values

Management Goal—Wilderness study areas (WSA’s)and proposed WSA additions would be managedunder the “Interim Management Policy for LandsUnder Wilderness Review” (wilderness IMP) (USDI-BLM 1995b). BLM-administered land acquired sincethe wilderness inventory and determined to havewilderness values would be included in adjacentWSA’s.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

There have been no parcels of land adjacent to orwithin any existing WSA’s assessed through the landuse planning process to determine if they would besuitable for wilderness designation. Until the assess-ment of a specific acquired parcel of land is completed,there would be a potential for wilderness values inthese parcels to be impaired because they would not beafforded the same level of protection as the wildernessIMP (USDI-BLM 1995b).

Overall, wilderness values associated within the 12WSA’s would not be degraded under current manage-ment. The Sand Dunes WSA would remain open tomotorized uses. The opportunity for visual solitudewithin the Sand Dunes WSA is greatest within thecentral core where the largest dunes occur. Theopportunity for visual and auditory solitude is dimin-ished toward the boundary of the WSA; sounds from

human activities outside of the WSA influence solitudewithin the area as well. The continued motorized useof the Sand Dunes would preclude solitude potential,especially during periods of high use, which havetypically been associated with holiday weekends suchas Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day. Over1,000 people have been observed camping and ridingOHV’s within the WSA during recent Memorial Dayweekends. Although holiday weekends are docu-mented as the highest use periods, there has been asteady increase in use in OHV recreation activitiesobserved throughout the year. There are three undevel-oped camping areas located along the main access road(6151) to the Sand Dunes WSA. Concentrated vehicleuse has caused soil compaction and impacts to vegeta-tion within these areas. These areas would continue tosee high use during the holiday weekends. Duringthese high use periods, there is no opportunity forsolitude in the Sand Dunes WSA. Outside of the highuse periods, there are opportunities for solitude andprimitive recreation experiences, but activities such asagriculture and other uses on adjacent private landswould be a negative impact to some degree. Over time,there would be more pioneered trails leading into andout of the central dunes area from these camping areas.There are 7 miles of fence within the Sand DunesWSA, including a fence around Fossil Lake, whichrestricts OHV’s from entering Fossil Lake from thecentral core area of the sand dunes. The Fossil Lakefence is noticeable on the flatter open terrain in thedeflation basin on the very west portion of the WSA.However, this fence does not substantially affect thenaturalness of the area.

Alternative B

Lands adjacent to or within existing WSA’s that wereacquired after the “Wilderness Study Report” (USDI-BLM 1991a) would not be added to existing WSA’s.There would be limited management actions availableto provide protection for any wilderness values andcharacteristics. This alternative does not meet themanagement goals for potential wilderness resources.

Overall, potential impacts to wilderness values associ-ated with the 12 existing WSA’s would be similar toAlternative A.

Alternative C

Approximately 1,194 acres of acquired lands within oradjacent to three WSA’s (Abert Rim, Fish Creek Rim,and Guano Creek), determined to have wildernesscharacteristics would be recommended as suitable forwilderness designation. Adding these areas to the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM103


4 - 104

existing WSA’s would ensure that the wildernesscharacteristics and values are adequately protected.

The potential negative impacts to wilderness valuesfrom motorized uses within all of the WSA’s would belower than under either Alternatives A or B. Allmotorized and mechanical uses within WSA’s underAlternative C would be limited to designated roads andways; whereas under Alternatives A and B, the motor-ized uses would be limited to existing roads and ways.

The closure of the main road into the center of DevilsGarden and the road from BLM Road 6179 to DerrickCave would eliminate access on approximately 25miles of roads within the Devils Garden WSA (Table 4-4). The opportunity to experience solitude, naturalnessand primitive recreation activities would be enhancedwith these road closures.

Closure of the Sand Dunes WSA to all OHV’s wouldhave a positive impact on the potential opportunitiesfor experiencing primitive recreation and wouldimprove visual and auditory solitude within the centralcore of the sand dunes. The opportunity for visual andauditory solitude would continue to be diminishedtoward the boundary areas of the WSA because ofsounds and visual impacts from human activities anddevelopment outside of the WSA. With the entire areadesignated as day use only, the traditionally usedcamping areas along the main access road to the SandDunes would eventually revegetate and signs of pasthuman use would diminish. The existing ways leadinginto and out of the core dunes area would be obliteratedover time from the movement of sand and naturalrevegetation. Additionally, the fence separating FossilLake from the central core area sand dunes would nolonger be necessary and could be removed. This wouldimprove the naturalness of the area, as seen from thedeflation basin located on the west portion of the WSA.

Alternative D

Approximately 1,194 acres of acquired lands within oradjacent to three WSA’s (Abert Rim, Fish Creek Rim,and Guano Creek), were determined to have wildernesscharacteristics and would be recommended as suitablefor wilderness designation. Adding these areas to theexisting WSA’s would ensure that the wildernesscharacteristics and values are adequately protected.

With the exception of the Sand Dunes WSA, motorizedand mechanical uses within WSA’s would be limited toeither designated or existing roads and ways. Roadclosures within the Devils Garden WSA would befewer than under Alternative C, and the Sand Dunes

WSA would remain open to OHV’s (as in AlternativesA and B). However, the total number of acres in theopen designation would be decreased by about 2,328(Table 3-3), because the Fossil Lake closure would beincreased by a corresponding amount. Campingadjacent to the main access road to the Sand Duneswould be allowed to continue, but the use would belimited to designated areas on a rotational basis.Access into the central dunes areas would be limited tospecific routes and some existing pioneered trailswould be closed. Over time, the naturalness of thesecamping areas would be improved.

Overall, the management actions proposed would havesimilar but slightly more positive effects on wildernessvalues compared to Alternatives A and B and lessbenefit than Alternative C.

Alternative E

The addition of 1,194 acres of acquired lands within oradjacent to Abert Rim, Fish Creek Rim, and GuanoCreek would be the same as under Alternatives C andD. Motorized and mechanical uses within WSA’swould be limited to existing roads and ways, and theSand Dunes WSA would be designated closed to OHVuse.

Overall, the potential effects on wilderness values frommanagement actions proposed would be similar toAlternative C. Alternatives C and E would possiblyhave a slightly greater positive effect than AlternativesA, B, or D because the Sand Dunes WSA would bedesignated closed under Alternatives C and E.

Summary of Impacts

Overall, the management actions proposed underAlternative D would have similar effects on wildernessvalues compared to Alternatives A and B. Managementactions proposed under Alternatives C and E wouldhave a greater positive effect on wilderness values thanAlternative D.


The addition of acquired lands to the existing WSA’swould provide protection of the wilderness characteris-tics and values against future development and useswhich would otherwise not be available without arecommended designation as wilderness. Managementof existing WSA’s and acquired areas would be guidedby the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b).

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM104


4 -105

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Management Goal—Protect and enhance outstand-ingly remarkable values of rivers determined to beadministratively suitable for potential inclusion in thenational wild and scenic river (WSR) system untilCongress acts.

Impact Analysis

Alternative A

Guano Creek, Honey Creek, and Twelvemile Creekwould not be recommended administratively suitablefor inclusion in the national WSR system. GuanoCreek is located within the Guano Creek WSA, whichwould continue to provide protection of the outstand-ingly remarkable values under wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b). Potential designation of Guano CreekWSA by Congress as wilderness would provide a long-term level of protection similar to that afforded adesignated WSR. If Congress should act to release theGuano Creek WSA from consideration, the BLM couldrevisit the issue and determine if the designation ofGuano Creek as part of the national WSR systemwould be necessary to protect the outstandingly re-markable values.

As part of the Hart Mountain Jurisdictional Transfer,dated February 26, 1998 (and the Shirk Ranch Agree-ment, dated September 30, 1997), grazing is notauthorized within the Guano Creek WSA, whichincludes the Guano Creek study corridor. The designa-tion of Guano Creek as part of the national WSRsystem would not appreciably increase the level ofprotection over the current level of protection providedunder the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b) and thecurrent management mentioned above. The mostsignificant difference in the protections providedthrough potential wilderness designation and potentialdesignation in the national WSR system is in the areaof energy development. Under a wilderness designa-tion, energy development (e.g., hydropower dams)could be authorized by the President, whereas under aWSR designation, energy development would beincompatible. The potential for energy developmentwithin the Guano Creek corridor is very low. Motor-ized use within the Guano Creek corridor area islimited to existing roads and ways. There are twoexisting ways within the Guano Creek corridor; oneparallels the stream along the upper 1.5 miles and theother parallels the stream along the last 1.0 mile.Under wilderness designation these ways would beclosed to motorized use. Under the existing situation,the potential negative impacts to the vegetative out-

standingly remarkable values from motorized access isnegligible.

Grazing is not authorized within the Honey Creekcorridor with the exception of a water gap (a water gapallows cattle access to water for a distance of approxi-mately 100–150 feet along the stream). There areapproximately 5.6 miles of BLM-administered publicland along a 17-mile stretch of Honey Creek, whichstarts at the Fremont National Forest boundary on thewest and ends at Hart Lake in the east. This publicland is interspersed with private land in a checkerboard pattern. Approximately 67 percent of the 17-mile segment is in private ownership. This checkerboard land ownership limits the ability to effectivelymanage stream resources, and the same would hold trueif Honey Creek was proposed for designation as part ofthe national WSR system. Designation would notprovide a significantly higher level of protection to thefisheries outstandingly remarkable values in HoneyCreek than that which is already available under the“Endangered Species Act.” There is potential forenergy development, but the physical suitability isunknown. Because of the rural and arid nature of thearea, potential for energy development is consideredlow. Recreational use of the area is very low. Waterlevels are generally too low for boating activities, andthere is minimal evidence of human use. The potentialfor negative impacts to the fisheries outstandinglyremarkable values from recreational uses, includingmotorized use, is negligible.

Designation in the national WSR system would notprovide a significantly higher level of protection to thefisheries outstandingly remarkable values inTwelvemile Creek above that which is already avail-able under the “Endangered Species Act.” Recreationuses within the Twelvemile Creek area are relativelylow and the effects of these activities on the fisheriesoutstandingly remarkable values are negligible. Im-pacts from motorized uses would not be significant,because access within the stream corridor is limited tothree very rough, steep jeep trails (one is on privateland). The potential for energy development withinTwelvemile Creek is considered low because of therural and arid nature of the area. Grazing is excludedwithin the Twelvemile Creek corridor by fencing.

Although the fisheries outstandingly remarkable valuesfor both Honey and Twelvemile Creeks are currentlyafforded adequate protection under the “EndangeredSpecies Act,” these protections would be diminishedshould the Warner sucker be removed from Federallisting.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM105


4 - 106

Alternative B

Guano, Honey, and Twelvemile Creeks would not berecommended administratively suitable for inclusioninto the national WSR system. OHV designations foreach of these streams would be the same as AlternativeA. Overall, there would not be a significant increase inthe potential for negative effects to the outstandinglyremarkable values because of existing laws, regula-tions, and policies which currently apply on each of thethree creeks, as described under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Guano, Honey, and Twelvemile Creeks would berecommended administratively suitable for inclusion inthe national WSR system. Guano Creek would berecommended suitable for potential designation byCongress with a tentative classification as wild. HoneyCreek and Twelvemile Creek would be recommendedsuitable for potential designation by Congress with atentative classification as scenic.

Under a wild classification, no energy developmentwould be allowed within Guano Creek. However,potential energy development within Guano Creek isconsidered low. Guano Creek is also located within theGuano Creek WSA and potential development withinthe stream corridor would be limited based on the WSAstatus and the future potential congressional designa-tion as wilderness. No new mining claims and mineralleases would be allowed within 0.25 miles of thestream. There are no mining claims or oil and gasleases located near Guano Creek, and the potential forlocatable minerals is very low. Grazing is currently notauthorized and would not be allowed with or withoutdesignation in the national WSR system. Recreationaluse within the stream corridor is low and the restric-tions on the development of recreation facilities withinthe stream corridor under the wild classification wouldnot be necessary. Motorized travel on land and watercould be permitted under the wild classification.However, access within the stream corridor due toWSA status would be limited to designated roads andways, and the potential for impacts from OHV usewould be negligible to nonexistent. The way located atthe lower stream reach near the Shirk Ranch would beclosed to OHV travel. Because Guano Creek is locatedwithin the Guano Creek WSA, the vegetative outstand-ingly remarkable values are afforded a level of protec-tion under wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b), whichis comparable to designation within the national WSRsystem. Additionally, the potential designation ofGuano Creek WSA by Congress as wilderness wouldprovide a long-term level of protection.

Under a scenic classification, no energy developmentwould be allowed on either Honey or TwelvemileCreeks. However, potential energy development withineach of these creeks is considered low. Althoughmining claims and mineral leases would be allowedunder a scenic designation, the mineral potential ineach of these stream corridors is low. There are noexisting mining or oil and gas leases located near thesestreams. The potential for negative impacts to thesestream corridors from resource extraction activitieswould be negligible to nonexistent. Livestock grazingwould continue to be excluded from both streams.Development of recreation facilities would be allowedwithin the stream corridors, but the recreation useswithin these areas are so low that any developmentwould not be economically feasible or practical.Access to these stream corridors is limited, and thepotential negative impacts to the fisheries outstand-ingly remarkable values is negligible. Designation ofHoney Creek and Twelvemile Creek as part of thenational WSR system, with a potential classification asscenic, would not provide a significantly higher levelof protection to the fisheries outstandingly remarkablevalues than that which is already available under the“Endangered Species Act.”

Alternative D

About 6.6 miles of Twelvemile Creek would be recom-mended administratively suitable for potential designa-tion by Congress with a tentative classification asrecreational. Honey Creek and Guano Creek wouldboth be recommended administratively nonsuitable forinclusion in the national WSR system. The impactsassociated with the nonsuitable recommendations forthese two creeks would be the same as described underAlternative A.

Under a recreational designation, public use and accesscould be regulated, recreation facilities could beestablished within the stream corridor, forest practiceswould be allowed, mining could occur subject toexisting regulations, rights-of-way (for transmissionlines, pipelines, etc.) would be avoided or restricted toexisting rights-of-way, and motorized uses would bepermitted on land and water. Recreation and OHV(motorized uses) uses within the Twelvemile Creekarea are relatively low and the effects of these activitieson the fisheries outstandingly remarkable values arenegligible. With the exception of 90 acres, all 6.6miles (0.25 miles on either side of the stream) ofTwelvemile Creek corridor is in public ownership(Map SMA-22). Acquisition of this private parcelwould benefit the fisheries outstandingly remarkablevalues, regardless of potential designation in the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM106


4 -107

national WSR system.

The potential inclusion of Twelvemile Creek as part ofthe national WSR system under a recreational classifi-cation would provide an additional, although minimal,level of protection to the outstandingly remarkablevalues above the protections already provided underthe “Endangered Species Act.” However, should theWarner sucker be removed from the “EndangeredSpecies Act” list, the protection afforded through theAct would no longer play a key role in the protection ofthe fisheries outstandingly remarkable values orassociated habitat. Livestock grazing would continueto be excluded from this stream, regardless of anydesignation by Congress. Designation as part of thenational WSR system would ensure a long-term levelof protection relating to the outstandingly remarkablevalues, regardless of any future role the “EndangeredSpecies Act” would or would not play in protection ofthe fisheries. Although Twelvemile Creek was given atentative classification as scenic under the eligibilityassessment, the recreational classification wouldprovide the needed level of protection of the outstand-ingly remarkable values, while allowing a greater levelof flexibility in the management of the fish populationsand habitat within the stream corridor. Designation ofTwelvemile Creek as a recreational river within thenational WSR system would have a positive, butminimal, impact on the fisheries outstandingly remark-able values.

Alternative E

None of the three eligible streams would be recom-mended administratively suitable for potential designa-tion by Congress as WSR’s. The impacts to theoutstandingly remarkable values for each of thestreams would be the same as addressed under Alterna-tives A and B. Guano Creek would continue to bemanaged under the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM1995b), and there would be no change in currentmanagement. Management of Twelvemile and HoneyCreek corridors would continue to be driven by themanagement prescriptions for the Warner sucker. NoVRM class would be assigned to Twelvemile andHoney Creek. Visual resources would be managed toallow natural processes to determine visual quality.Visual resources within Guano Creek would be man-aged under VRM Class I because of the WSA status.Overall, there would not be a significant increase in thepotential for negative effects to occur because of theprotections afforded by existing laws, regulations, andmanagement policies which are currently in place:Wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b) for Guano Creekand the “Endangered Species Act” for Honey and

Twelvemile Creeks.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternatives A, B, and E, none of the eligiblestreams would be recommended administrativelysuitable for potential designation by Congress as partof the national WSR system. Potential impacts to theoutstandingly remarkable values associated with thethree streams would be negligible without designationas part of the national WSR system because of theexisting protections afforded them through the wilder-ness IMP (USDI-BLM 1995b) and the “EndangeredSpecies Act.” Additionally, grazing is excluded fromeach these streams and the potential negative impactson the outstandingly remarkable values from thisactivity is not an issue.

Under Alternative C, Guano Creek is proposed fordesignation with a tentative classification as wild,while Honey Creek and Twelvemile Creek are recom-mend for designation with a tentative classification asscenic. The potential protection afforded the outstand-ingly remarkable values through designation andinclusion in the national WSR system would be negli-gible in comparison to the existing situation. Designa-tion under a wild and/or scenic classification wouldprovide protection against the possibility for hydro-power development. However, the potential forhydropower development on all three streams isconsidered to be low. Additionally, given the protec-tions provided the outstandingly remarkable valuesthrough the Wildnerness IMP (Guano Creek) and the“Endangered Species Act” (Honey Creek andTwelvemile Creek), designation as part of the nationalWSR system would provide little protection abovewhat is currently in place.

Under Alternative D, only Twelvemile Creek would berecommended administratively suitable for possibledesignation by Congress at a tentative classification asrecreational. The added protection of designation as arecreational river in the national WSR system wouldhave a slightly higher potential to positively impact theoutstandingly remarkable values (fisheries) in compari-son to Alternatives A, B, and E, and would be compa-rable to Alternative C, even though the tentativeclassification under Alternative C would be scenic.Inclusion in the national WSR system under a tentativeclassification of recreational would ensure long-termprotection of the fisheries outstandingly remarkablevalues, even if current protections under the “Endan-gered Species Act” would no longer be applicable.Alternative D, which provides protection of the out-standingly remarkable values under a tentative classifi-

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM107


4 - 108

cation of recreational, would be sufficient to meet thestated management goal for WSR’s.


Past water resource related projects (i.e., reservoirs andwater diversion structures) on Guano, Honey, andTwelvemile Creeks have had an impact on each streamto varying degrees. On Guano Creek, Jacob’s Reser-voir, which is located above the study corridor, wasconstructed for irrigation purposes and has had aninfluence on the natural stream flow. There are severalsmall reservoirs located upstream of the study corridoron Honey Creek, as well as several small diversionstructures on private lands above and below the BLM-administered stream segments. There are also severaldiversion structures above and below the study corridoron Twelvemile Creek. Potential negative impacts tothe outstandingly remarkable values from present orfuture projects or actions on lands within or adjacent tothe study corridors would be negligible or nonexistentbecause of the existing protections under current laws,regulations, and policies; e.g., the wilderness IMP(USDI-BLM 1995b) and possible ACEC designation(Guano Creek) and the “Endangered Species Act”(Honey and Twelvemile Creeks).

Cultural and PaleontologicalResources

Management Goal 1—Preserve and protect culturalresources in accordance with existing laws, regula-tions, and Executive orders, in consultation withNative Americans.

Management Goal 2—Increase the public’s knowl-edge of, appreciation for, and sensitivity to culturalresources, Native American issues, and paleontologi-cal resources.

Management Goal 3—In consultation with localNative American Tribes, take actions, includingdesignating areas of critical environmental concern(ACEC’s) to protect traditional religious sites, land-forms, burial sites, resources, and other areas ofinterest. Nominate as traditional cultural propertiesthose areas that qualify.

Assumptions

Some of the actions which are described in the alterna-tives may have positive or beneficial impacts oncultural resources; some may have negative impacts

which would have to be mitigated, as required byFederal laws and regulations. Some impacts would bedestructive and cannot be mitigated (such as thedestruction of a Native American traditional culturalproperty).

Significant cultural resource properties and NativeAmerican traditional cultural properties may be pro-tected by various management strategies designed topreserve such sites for future scientific research,recreational uses, educational use, or Native Americanuse. Examples of protected significant properties arethe Abert Lake National Register District within theLake Abert ACEC. Exclosures proposed by otherprograms, such as wildlife and range, often protectcultural resources from cattle congregation and humanvandalism. WSA and wilderness designations helprestrict OHV use and protect sites.

Analysis of Impacts


Impacts to cultural resources would generally be thesame under all four alternatives.

The management proposed for riparian zones toimprove water quality and aquatic habitat whilereducing soil erosion would benefit cultural resources.Restricting livestock grazing along streams, stabilizingstream banks, and closing roads in or near riparianareas would maintain or enhance conditions of ar-chaeological sites in these areas. Negative impactsoften outweigh beneficial ones, but could be mitigated.Livestock and wild horse congregation and tramplingcould adversely affect cultural resources alongstreambanks and around springs.

The designation of SMA's, such as RNA’s, ACEC’s,and WSR’s, generally would have a positive effectupon cultural resources and traditional cultural proper-ties since management actions restrict detrimental uses.This would be accomplished by reduction or elimina-tion of surface disturbances, which are often caused byactivities such as OHV use, grazing, construction ofrange improvements, rights-of-way placement, andmineral entry. Restricting these activities would resultin increased ground cover, leading to a reduction in soilerosion, which would help to maintain the integrity ofcultural sites.

Prescribed fires generally would not have an impact oncultural resources. Any flammable structures thatcould be damaged or destroyed would be protected oravoided. Current fire management policy is to avoid

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM108


4 -109

cultural sites, traditional cultural properties, andhistoric sites. However, in the case of wildland firesuppression, decisions must be made quickly, andoccasionally there is no time to consult with a culturalresource specialist about cultural values. As a result,cultural or historic sites may be damaged or destroyed.Fires of low intensity (amount of heat) generally havelittle or no effect on cultural resources unless heavyequipment is used to create firelines and firebreaks.Fire severity (duration of heating) can adversely affectprehistoric sites because extreme heat can damagestone tools and lithic debris on or near the surface.Rock art can be vulnerable to both fire intensity andseverity on rock types subject to spalling and in areaswith high fuel loadings. Fires of any type may exposehidden sites to increased visibility and illegal collec-tion. Prehistoric, historic, and traditional culturalproperties could also be damaged by fireline construc-tion, particularly with heavy equipment.

OHV activities, particularly if unregulated, could havea negative impact upon cultural resources and tradi-tional cultural properties. Alternatives A, B, and Dwould manage large parts of the planning area in theOHV open use class. This would have the greatestimpacts on cultural resources. New trails are createdthat cut and erode sites, scattering and breaking arti-facts. The noise level and presence of people couldimpact the use of traditional cultural properties byNative Americans.

In addition, as OHV’s take people into generallyunvisited or hard-to-reach areas, the integrity ofprehistoric and historic sites would be at greater risk ofvandalism and collecting. Site vandalism and illegalexcavation can increase in these instances. Looting ofimportant sites is a continuing negative impact and is acriminal activity. Some people steal artifacts frompublic land and sell them for a profit, while othersmaintain private collections. Both actions impact theresource base.

When locatable minerals are mined under a plan ofoperation, provisions are made for inventory, evalua-tion, and sometimes mitigation of adverse effects tocultural resources. However, the notice of intent,which precedes a formal plan of operation, has a shorttimeframe, and occasionally these limited operationshave adverse impacts on cultural resources. Theoperator would still be responsible and held account-able if the activities damaged archaeological properties.Increased mining for locatable minerals could haveadverse impacts upon archaeological resources andtraditional cultural properties. Locatable mining isgoverned by the regulations found at 43 CFR 3809.

The regulations prohibit the “undue degradation” of theenvironment, which might be used to prevent associ-ated mining impacts. Another vehicle for the removalof impacts is to withdraw areas of importance frommineral entry; however, that is a difficult action,requiring secretarial or congressional approval. Salableand leasable mineral development would involve siteavoidance, no-surface-occupancy stipulations, or othermitigation methods to reduce potential impacts tocultural resources (Appendix E3).

The most common, least expensive, and quickest formof mitigation of adverse effects would be to cancel,relocate, or redesign a project to avoid cultural sites.This could be easily done if the project is a fence orpipeline. On more complex projects, such as highwayconstruction, or projects which can only be placed inone location, mitigation would be more difficult. Inthese cases, the adverse effects would be mitigated byscientific excavation and data collection by archaeolo-gists. Such mitigation would always be done inconsultation with Native American Tribes who have aninterest.

Alternative E

The removal of livestock grazing and potential forfuture construction of range improvement projects,mineral activity, rights-of-way, and other commercialuses would have an overall beneficial impact oncultural resources, as this would eliminate the sourcesof most ground-disturbing activity. Sites would not bedisturbed, and artifacts would be left intact. However,the planning area would still be open to dispersedrecreation and continued impacts from site vandalismand illegal artifact collecting. This would be a signifi-cant negative impact to the integrity and scientificvalue of the sites.

Excluding all commodity production from the planningarea would also have a negative impact on the culturalresource program. Almost all survey or inventory workcurrently conducted on cultural resources is the resultof doing cultural clearances for ground-disturbingprojects. Since no new projects would be installed,there would be no need for new clearances. Thissource of information about cultural resources wouldessentially be lost.

Summary of Impacts

The objectives for cultural/paleontological resourceswould be met under all the alternatives to varieddegrees. The short-term impacts of the preferredAlternative D on cultural resources would be positive

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM109


4 - 110

for the cultural resource program objectives, historicproperty interpretation and stabilization, and for thepreservation of traditional Native American uses.

The long-term impacts of the preferred Alternative Don cultural resources would be positive for all culturalresource objectives, including locating and protectingsites, increasing opportunity for public education andenjoyment of cultural and paleontological resources viasite interpretation, and systematic protection of tradi-tional Native American uses.


Because cultural resources are location-specific,fragile, and nonrenewable, adverse impacts across thelandscape (regardless of land ownership) would becumulative. For example, if there are 500 small lithicscatters in an area and 1 or 2 per year are lost toerosion, eventually none would exist. Likewise, eachepisode of vandalism diminishes the educational andscientific value of an archaeological site. Over time,the history and prehistory of an area may be completelylost.

Management Goal 4—In order to fulfill trust respon-sibilities with Tribal peoples, manage public land tomaintain, restore, or enhance plant community healthand cultural plants. Identify traditional ecologicalknowledge with humans as part of the ecosystem, andmaintain habitat integrity with sustainable yields at alandscape level.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

During the NEPA analysis process for proposed landmanagement actions, impacts to cultural plants wouldbe considered to determine if such actions would causea decline. Consultation with the different Tribes wouldbe carried out concerning cultural plants and juniperwoodland management. On an as-needed basis,surveys for cultural properties would be conducted injuniper woodlands.

Impacts from activities such as livestock grazing, wildhorses, OHV use, rights-of-way or mineral develop-ment, and in some cases, wildland fire, would havenegative impacts on the cultural plants species becauseof ground disturbance and potential for noxious weedinvasion. Tables 2-36 and 2-37 list those plants andplant communities at risk from such actions. Impactsfrom vegetation treatment could have a negative effectif cultural plants are not included in the seed mixes for

rehabilitation. Since few of these plants have availableseed, other species would replace them, and in the caseof using crested wheatgrass plantings, it would have anextremely negative effect. However, replanting of bothnative and introduced plant species would curb theinvasion of competing weeds.

Alternative B

Most of the impacts would be the same as AlternativeA. However, the impacts to cultural plants would beslightly higher because of the increase in livestock andwild horse AUM’s, especially in areas of spring use oflow sagebrush and camas meadows or riparian areas.The increase of rangeland projects would spread thelivestock into larger areas than Alternative A, whichwould slightly increase the possibility of impacts.

The possibility of biomass energy generation plantsusing juniper wood would have a definite effect on thesome big sagebrush and juniper woodland communi-ties. This could impact traditional uses in some areas.Such proposals would require preparation of a separateNEPA analysis and would need consultation withTribal people.

Alternative C

The addition of new ACEC’s and expansion of anexisting ACEC specifically for management of culturalplant communities would have a significant positiveeffect on these resources. These ACEC’s would limitground disturbance from activities such as mining andright-of-way development and would protect many ofthe plant communities identified as important to Tribalpeople in the area.

Limiting juniper harvesting within SMA's would havea positive effect on the traditional use of this resource.The potential impacts of biomass energy generation onjuniper woodlands would be similar to Alternative B.An increase of Tribal input and education within theBLM would have a positive effect for managementneeds and direction.

The decrease in AUM’s for livestock and decreasednumber of range projects would have a positive effecton the plant communities. Wild horses would have thesame impact as in Alternative A.

By limiting OHV use to existing or designated roadsand trails (Map R-6 of the Draft RMP/EIS), the impactto cultural plants and communities would be lessened,compared to Alternatives A or B.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM110


4 -111

Alternative D

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C.However, the impact of the OHV open use designationwould be greater than Alternative C. The impact oflivestock grazing would be the same as Alternative A.The potential increase of wild horse numbers andAUM’s could create an increased threat to culturalplants and communities within herd management areas.

Alternative E

This alternative would not designate any new ACEC’sfor cultural plants, and thus, would not provide extramanagement protection of these areas. Juniper wood-lands and associated traditional uses would haveincreased protection with prohibition of wood andbough cutting.

Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A and B would generally have a negativeimpact on cultural plant community health. Projectclearances and mitigation actions for protection ofcultural plants would be done on a case-by-case basis.Consultation would continue with local Tribes. Onlyone new ACEC (Connley Hills) providing protectionand management of cultural plants would be designatedunder Alternative B.

Under Alternatives C and D, impacts to plant commu-nities and cultural plants would be much more benefi-cial. Eight new ACEC’s would be designated, in partto protect the traditional uses and values that areimportant to local Tribes. Tribal people would haveaccess to traditional resources and use areas in theseeight ACEC’s. Future management of these ACEC’swould take these values into account.

Under Alternative E, no new ACEC’s would be desig-nated; therefore, this would preclude any specialprotection and management for cultural plants andtraditional use areas. However, these resources wouldbe generally protected since neither livestock grazing,mining, nor other commercial activities would beallowed. Native Americans and others would still beable to harvest cultural plants. However, these plantswould have no special protection or management.Long-term impacts on their continued existence wouldbe uncertain.


Designating areas as ACEC’s and prescribing specialmanagement for resources and values that are impor-

tant to local Tribes fulfills BLM trust responsibilities.This provides a means to establish better workingrelationships with these Tribes. Actions in AlternativesC and D provide special management for areas that,while they are still available for other uses, wouldsupport traditional uses and needs of local Tribes.Across the larger landscape, areas that have traditionalimportance and use are disappearing or are beingchanged in ways that make them no longer compatiblefor Tribal uses. Designating these areas would help toensure that some areas survive unchanged for theforeseeable future.

Human Uses and Values

Management Goal—Manage public lands to providesocial and economic benefits to local residents,businesses, visitors, and future generations.

Assumptions

Recreation use of BLM-managed lands generates localeconomic activity in several ways. Visitors to the areapurchase food, fuel, lodging, and other goods andservices from local businesses. Some businesses caterspecifically to visitors and have special recreationpermits for commercial uses of BLM-managed lands.Examples include all types of guide services andwilderness therapy schools.

Current visitation to developed sites on BLM-managedland is estimated at 117,500 annually (out of an esti-mated total annual visitation of 155,118 visitors).Future demand for recreation opportunities is expectedto increase at about 4.0 percent annually. Populationincreases are the primary drivers of this trend. TheOregon State Parks Department has projected annualgrowth rates for specific activities. Of particularconcern in the Lakeview District is the projectedincreases in OHV use of 2.9 percent annually (OregonState Parks and Recreation 1991). The projecteddemand for recreation opportunities can be met inmultiple places by multiple ownerships. Futuremanagement of lands and recreation sites woulddetermine the attractiveness of these areas for specifictypes of recreation uses. This would determine thedistribution of recreation between regions and acrossownerships.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM111


4 - 112

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Agriculture and livestock use: Opportunities toincrease grazing use levels from the past average uselevel of 108,234 AUM’s to the full active preference of164,128 are retained. The ability of actual grazing useto increase to full active preference is tied to thedevelopment and implementation of economicallyfeasible grazing systems and range improvements, andthe willingness and ability of existing permittees toexpand grazing operations when opportunities arise.Overall, it is anticipated that total cattle and calf salesin Lake County could be approximately $22.7 to $24.6million (based on 1998 sales in the county), an increaseof 9 to 17.9 percent from historic sales. The range ofimpacts identified represents uncertainty regarding theflexibility of permittees to expand productivity andherd sizes during seasons when livestock are notutilizing BLM-managed lands. Grazing fee collectionscould be approximately $221,573 annually if thecurrent fee remains the same for the life of the plan, anincrease of $75,457 from historic averages.

Mineral resources: Alternative A continues existingmineral withdrawals for about 13,400 acres. Thiswould not change future development opportunities asdiscussed in Appendix N2 (reasonably foreseeabledevelopment scenarios) from the current situation.Continuation of the Public Sunstone Area would retainan important and unique recreational resource thatcontributes to tourism-related economic activity.

About 433,790 acres would continue to be closed toleasing. These closures affect about 10 percent oflands with high potential. Also, 101,433 acres wouldcontinue to be subject to no-surface-occupancy stipula-tions. These stipulations affect 11 percent of acres withhigh mineral potential (Table 4-6). The current man-agement direction moderately limits opportunities forfuture mineral development, as discussed in AppendixN2. In the event that lands are eliminated from wilder-ness consideration by future congressional action, theselands would be reopened for mineral leasing unlessconstrained by other designations or specific closures.Necessary constraints would be implemented to protectresource values.

Alternative A continues present management of exist-ing pits and quarries and allows for establishment ofnew sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.About 467,323 acres are closed to mineral materialdisposal. Several sites of high quality decorative stone,cinders, and dolomitic limestone are included within

the closed acreage. This alternative identifies onepotential site (Devils Garden) for establishment of acommon use area if that particular area is dropped fromwilderness consideration by future congressionalaction. A high level of lands would be available formineral materials. The current needs and anticipatedfuture demands of both public users and county, state,and Federal agencies could be met under this alterna-tive.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative A doesnot declare an allowable sale quantity for the forest andwoodlands within the planning area. Instead, commer-cial forest products would be a byproduct of manage-ment treatments designed to reduce overstocking,control competing vegetation, remove invasive juniperor white fir, reduce ground and understory ladder fuels,improve forest health, and increase resistance to insectand disease outbreaks and wildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting is an importantexisting use that would be used to address some forestand woodland treatment needs, especially in invasivejuniper stands. It is unlikely the demand for commer-cial and public wood cutting could completely addressthe identified need for treatment of invasive juniperstands over the life of the plan. Alternative A meetsexisting and anticipated future demand for commercialand public wood cutting opportunities. Other forestand woodland treatments (culturing, cutting, mechani-cal, thinning, and prescribed fire) could provideemployment opportunities to various contractors andseasonal employees. The extent of these employmentopportunities would be dependent of future funding offorest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative A develops tourismopportunities. New recreation sites would be devel-oped to meet increased recreation demand and toprotect cultural and natural value and public health andsafety. This would meet current and future demandsand would pursue opportunities to further expandrecreation use and opportunities through developments,partnerships, and increased visitor information andeducation.

Motorized and mechanical vehicle use would bemanaged under open, limited to designated or existingroads and trails, and closed designations. The SandDunes WSA would be designated as open, allowingsignificant recreational use to continue. Specialrecreation permits would be issued for organizedevents consistent with the protection of resourcevalues. Existing and future demand for motorizedvehicle use would be met under this alternative.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM112


4 -113

Special recreation permits would be issued. Existingcommercial recreational uses and organized recre-ational activities would continue. Existing guided usesand wilderness therapy schools would be able to useBLM-managed lands. Existing tourism-related firmswould continue and would have opportunities toexpand in the future.

Management of the Sunstone Collection Area would becontinued. Future development of a primitive campingarea in the vicinity would support additional visitoruse. Sunstone collection is a unique recreationalopportunity. No commercial uses would be permittedin the public collection area.

Federal agency activities: The business activities ofthe Federal government would not change significantly.With appropriated funding, current program emphasiswould continue to generate local economic activitythrough direct Federal employment, local and regionalpurchases and contracting, and provision of commodi-ties and recreational opportunities. The level ofgovernment and contract employment associated withrestoration activities (such as prescribed fire, noxiousweed treatment, and wildfire rehabilitation) would beunchanged.

Land tenure and revenue sharing: This alternativewould not result in significant changes in Federalownership patterns. Future land exchanges would haveno significant impacts, including impacts to Federalrevenue sharing programs, due to the equalizationrequirements of the 1992 “Interior Appropriations Act.”Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes would increase due toPublic Law 103-397, which authorizes increasedpayments. Actual increases would be dependent oncongressional action to fund these increases.

Environmental justice: Executive Order 12898,“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low Income Populations,”requires Federal agencies make achievement of envi-ronmental justice part of its mission by identifyingdisproportionately high adverse human health orenvironmental impacts of its programs, policies, andactivities on minority and low income populations.Native Americans are a minority population of concernbecause of historic and current uses of public lands fortraditional cultural practices. No other minority of lowincome populations has been identified.

There would be no disproportionate, adverse impacts tolow income or minority populations from this alterna-tive. Impacts related to Native American traditionaluses are discussed in the Special Management Areas

and Cultural and Paleontological Resources sections ofChapter 4.

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends woulddominate future population and age distributionconditions within the study area. Alternative A main-tains current levels of economic uses of the publiclands. This includes economic activity associated withFederal grazing use, mining activity, recreation, andrestoration. Alternative A maintains the current level ofeconomic opportunity for future development. Thisincludes potential for growth in mining and recreation.

Alternative B

Agriculture and livestock use: Active preferencewould be increased to 180,541 AUM’s, 10,823 AUM’smore than active preference under Alternative A. Theability of actual grazing use to increase to full activepreference is tied to the development and implemen-tation of economically feasible grazing systems andrange improvements, and the willingness and ability ofexisting permittees to expand grazing operations whenopportunities arise. Overall, it is anticipated that totalcattle and calf sales in Lake County could be approxi-mately $23.3 to $25.7 million (based on 1998 sales inthe county). This represents an increase of 11.6 to 23.2percent from historic sales and 2.4 to 4.5 percentrelative to potential sales under Alternative A. Therange of impacts identified represents uncertaintyregarding the flexibility of permittees to expandproductivity and herd sizes during seasons whenlivestock are not utilizing BLM managed lands. Graz-ing fee collections could increase by approximately$90,068 from historic averages and by $14,611 whencompared to Alternative A, if the current fee remainsthe same for the life of the plan.

Mineral resources: Alternative B would open anadditional 4,440 acres to mining claim location throughrevocation of existing withdrawals. These areasinclude the current Public Sunstone Area (an area ofhigh interest) and public water reserves (areas of lowinterest). These changes would not measurably changefuture development opportunities, as discussed inAppendix N2. Revocation of the Public Sunstone Areawould eliminate an important and unique recreationalresource, potentially reducing tourism-related eco-nomic activity.

Alternative B would slightly increase the acreage opento mineral lease from the current situation. Approxi-mately 18,000 acres in the Lake Abert area would bemade available for leasing by removing special stipula-tions that currently preclude sodium development.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM113


4 - 114

This is an area of high potential. Lease closures totalabout 415,790 acres and would affect about 36 percentof lands with high potential (Table 4-6). About105,108 acres would be subject to no-surface-occu-pancy stipulations. These stipulations would affectabout 52 percent of acres with high mineral potential.With the exception of greatly increased opportunity forthe development of sodium leasing in the Lake Abertarea, this alternative would not appreciably changefuture mineral leasing development opportunities, asdiscussed in Appendix N2.

Alternative B would continue present management ofexisting pits and quarries and allow for establishmentof new sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.Four specific sites for possible future community useareas would be identified. About 467,323 acres wouldcontinue to be closed to mineral material disposal.Several sites of high quality decorative stone andcinders would be included within the closed acreage.Three potential sites (Devils Garden, Squaw Ridge, andFour Craters) would be identified for establishment ofa common use area if those particular areas are droppedfrom wilderness consideration by future congressionalaction. A high level of lands (about 85 percent) wouldbe available for mineral materials use. The currentneeds and anticipated future demands of both publicusers and county, state, and Federal agencies could bemet under this alternative.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative B wouldnot declare an allowable sale quantity for forest andwoodlands. Instead, commercial forest products wouldbe a byproduct of management treatments designed toreduce overstocking, control competing vegetation,remove invasive juniper or white fir, reduce ground andunderstory ladder fuels, improve forest health, andincrease resistance to insect and disease outbreaks andwildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting would continueto be an important existing use that would be used toaddress some forest and woodland treatment needs,especially in invasive juniper stands. It is unlikely thedemand for commercial and public wood cutting couldcompletely address the identified need for treatment ofinvasive juniper stands over the life of the plan. Exist-ing and anticipated future demand for commercial andpublic wood cutting opportunities would be met. Otherforest and woodland treatments (culturing, cutting,mechanical, thinning, and prescribed fire) couldprovide employment opportunities to various contrac-tors and seasonal employees. The extent of theseemployment opportunities would be dependent onfuture funding of forest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative B would emphasizethe development of tourism opportunities. Newrecreation sites would be developed to meet increasedrecreation demand and to protect cultural and naturalvalues and public health and safety. This would meetcurrent and future demands and would provide oppor-tunities to further expand recreation use and opportuni-ties through developments and promotions.

Motorized and mechanical vehicle use would bemanaged under open, limited to designated or existingroads and trails, and closed designations. The SandDunes WSA would be designated as open, allowing asignificant recreational use to continue. Specialrecreation permits would be issued for organizedevents.

Special recreation permits would be issued. Existingcommercial recreational uses and organized recre-ational activities would continue. Existing guided usesand wilderness therapy schools would be able to useBLM-managed lands. Existing tourism-related firmswould continue. Existing and new firms would haveopportunities to expand in the future.

The Sunstone Collection Area would be managed toencourage commercial use. Opportunities could existto expand tourism-related businesses to include outfit-ting and guided tours for the collection of sunstones.

Federal agency activities: The business activities ofthe Federal government could increase slightly. Withappropriated funding, program emphases would shift togenerate local economic activity through increasedprovision of commodities and recreational opportuni-ties. The level of government and contract employ-ment associated with restoration activities (such asprescribed fire, noxious weed treatment, and wildfirerehabilitation) would be similar to Alternative A.

Land tenure and revenue sharing: Impacts would besimilar to Alternative A.

Environmental justice: Impacts would be similar toAlternative A

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends woulddominate future population and age distributionconditions. Alternative B would maintain currentlevels of economic uses of public lands. Severalproposals to enhance visitor services and access onpublic lands could occur. Economic activity associatedwith visitors to public lands would increase. Thecurrent level of economic opportunity for futuredevelopment would be maintained. This would include

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM114


4 -115

potential for growth in mining, livestock use, andrecreation.

Alternative C

Agriculture and livestock use: Active preferencewould decrease by 77,541 AUM’s to 86,587 AUM’sover the life of the plan. Opportunities to expandgrazing operations using federal forage would beeliminated. Total cattle and calf sales in Lake Countywould be approximately $19.4 to $20.15 million (basedon 1998 sales in the county). This would represent adecrease of 3.5 to 6.9 percent from historic sales and11.4 to 21.1 percent relative to potential sales underAlternative A. The reduction in active preferencebelow the historic use level of 108,234 AUM’s wouldresult in marginal to modest reductions in historic herdsize for affected permittees, reducing productivecapacity and sales. Permittees who experience reduc-tions or loss of Federal grazing privileges would berequired to restructure their existing operations toutilize existing private resources more efficiently oracquire new resources to replace those no longerprovided by public lands. Changing the season of usewould also require similar restructuring of livestockoperations. The range of impacts identified representsuncertainty regarding the flexibility of permittees torestructure their existing operations. Restructuring ofthis kind favors large, diversified agricultural opera-tions with capital reserves or resources. Smaller, lessdiversified operations and operations of relativelysmall, privately-owned land bases would be at greaterrisk of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Grazing fee collec-tions would decrease by approximately $29,224 fromhistoric averages and by $104,680 when compared toAlternative A, if the current fee remains the same forthe life of the plan.

Mineral resources: Alternative C would continueexisting mineral withdrawal for 13,400 acres and closean additional 18,459 acres to mineral location. Theseclosures would moderately reduce future developmentopportunities, as discussed in Appendix N2.

Alternative C would moderately decrease the acreageopen to leasing from the current situation. Closureswould total about 532,403 acres. These closures wouldaffect 98 percent of the lands with high potential.About 119,460 acres would be subject to no-surface-occupancy stipulations. These stipulations wouldaffect 1 percent of the acreage with high mineralpotential (Table 4-6). This would moderately reducefuture mineral development opportunities, as discussedin Appendix N2.

Alternative C would continue present management ofexisting pits and quarries and allow for establishmentof new sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.About 600,598 acres would be closed to mineralmaterial disposal. Several potential sites for highquality decorative stone and cinders would be includedwithin the closed acreage. Areas dropped from wilder-ness consideration by future congressional actionwould be opened to mineral material disposal. A highlevel of lands (about 82 percent) would be available formineral material use. The current needs and antici-pated future demands of both public users and county,state, and Federal agencies could be met under thisalternative.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative C wouldnot declare an allowable sale quantity for the forest andwoodlands. Instead, commercial forest products wouldbe a byproduct of management treatments designed toreduce overstocking, control competing vegetation,remove invasive juniper or white fir, reduce ground andunderstory ladder fuels, improve forest health, andincrease resistance to insect and disease outbreaks andwildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting would continueto be an important method used to address some forestand woodland treatment needs, especially in invasivejuniper stands. It is unlikely that the demand forcommercial and public wood cutting could completelyaddress the identified need for treatment of invasivejuniper stands over the life of the plan. Alternative Cwould meet existing and anticipated future demand forcommercial and public wood cutting opportunities.Other forest and woodland treatments (culturing,cutting, mechanical, thinning, and prescribed fire)could provide employment opportunities to variouscontractors and seasonal employees. The extent ofthese employment opportunities is dependent on futurefunding of forest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative C deemphasizestourism opportunities. Minimal new recreation siteswould be developed. Opportunities for recreation inprimitive and remote locations would occur unlessresource values were being degraded beyond accept-able levels. Specific area closures and use limitationswould be proposed to protect resource values andhuman safety. Some current uses would no longer beallowed and future demand for developed site recre-ational opportunities would not be met by this alterna-tive. This could marginally impact existing recreation-related businesses and limit future opportunities todevelop new recreational related businesses.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM115


4 - 116

OHV use would be managed under open, limited todesignated or existing roads and trails, and closeddesignations. The Sand Dunes WSA would be desig-nated as closed, precluding a significant existingrecreational use. The current annual visitation of about11,000 generates an estimated $263,000 of visitorspending locally and throughout the region (Johnson etal. 1995). Displacement of these visitors to sitesoutside the north Lake County area would eliminatelocal spending generated by these visitors. The com-munities of Christmas Valley, Summer Lake, SilverLake, and Fort Rock would be impacted. Specialrecreation permits would be issued for organizedevents, but use would be limited to designated orexisting roads and trails. Some existing visitationcould be shifted to other ownerships (primarily USFS)in the area and to other regions which offer greateropportunities for OHV use. Compared to AlternativesA and B, OHV restrictions (Map R-6 of the DraftRMP/EIS), along with closure of specific roads andtrails (Table 4-4), would make it more difficult for thepublic and Tribal people to access public lands forhunting, other recreational pursuits, and traditionaluses.

Issuance of special recreation permits would be limited.Existing guided uses and wilderness therapy schoolswould be able to use BLM-managed lands. Opportuni-ties to develop new recreation-related businesses wouldbe reduced compared to Alternatives A or B.

Management of the Sunstone Collection Area wouldcontinue under existing guidelines. This would retainan important and unique recreational resource thatcontributes to tourism-related economic activity.

Federal agency activities: The business activities ofthe Federal government could increase slightly. Withappropriated funding, program emphasis would shift togenerate local economic activity through direct Federalemployment, local and regional purchases and contract-ing, improved recreational opportunities, and restora-tion activities. The level of government and contractemployment associated with restoration activities (suchas prescribed fire, noxious weed treatment, and wildfirerehabilitation) would increase and have the potential toslightly increase local employment. The extent wouldbe dependent on future budget allocations, the extentcontracts are used, and additional Federal employeeshired to accomplish restoration objectives.


Environmental justice: This alternative would

preclude collection of vegetative products for personaluse within some of the proposed ACEC’s and/or RNA’s(see Special Management Area section and Table 3-3).This restriction would reduce opportunities for allpeople equally. However, Native Americans would bedisproportionately adversely impacted since they arethe main traditional users of these products. Culturalresource values and traditional use areas would beprotected in eight ACEC’s which are proposed, in part,to protect cultural values and known Native Americantraditional use areas. Collection of vegetative productsby Native Americans would be allowed to continue inthese areas. No other ethnic groups or low incomepopulations would be disproportionately adverselyimpacted.

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends woulddominate future population and age distributionconditions. Current levels of economic uses of thepublic lands would be decreased. Economic activityassociated with visitation on public lands could in-crease because of underlying population increases, butthe BLM would not provide new facilities or opportu-nities to attract additional recreational users. The levelof economic opportunity for future development woulddecrease due to decreased acreage available for mineraldevelopment, decreased livestock use authorizations,and limited availability of special use permits.

Alternative D

Agricultural and livestock use: Active preferencewould be unchanged from Alternative A. Alternative Dwould retain opportunities to increase grazing uselevels up to full active preference. The ability of actualgrazing use to increase to full active preference is tiedto the development and implementation of economi-cally feasible grazing systems and range improvements,and the willingness and ability of existing permittees toexpand grazing operations when opportunities arise.Total cattle and calf sales in Lake County could beapproximately $22.7 to 24.6 million (based on 1998sales in the county), an increase of 9 to 17.9 percentfrom historic sales. The range of impacts identifiedrepresents uncertainty regarding the flexibility ofpermittees to expand productivity and herd sizes duringseasons when livestock are not utilizing BLM-managedlands. Grazing fee collections could be approximately$221,573 annually if the current fee remains the samefor the life of the plan, an increase of about $75,457from historic averages.

Mineral resources: Alternative D would continueexisting mineral withdrawals and would close anadditional 3,820 acres to mineral location (Table 3-7,

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM116


4 -117

Map M-10). These closures would slightly reducelikely future development opportunities (Table 4-6), asdiscussed in Appendix N2.

Alternative D would slightly decrease acreage open tomineral leasing from the current situation. Leasingclosures would total about 496,983 acres and affectabout 91.2 percent of lands with high or moderatepotential (Table 4-6; Map M-9). About 810,983 acreswould be subject to no-surface-occupancy stipulations.These stipulations would affect about 53 percent ofacres with high or moderate mineral potential. Thisalternative would not appreciably change futuremineral development opportunities, as discussed inAppendix N2.

Alternative D would continue present management ofexisting pits and quarries and allow for establishmentof new sites in areas open to mineral material disposal.About 41,658 acres of high/medium potential landswould closed to mineral material disposal (Table 4-6;Map M-8). Several potential sites for high qualitydecorative stone and cinders would be included withinthe closed acreage. Areas dropped from wildernessconsideration by future congressional action would beopened to mineral material disposal on a case-by-casebasis. A high level of lands (about 61 percent) wouldbe available for mineral material use. The currentneeds and anticipated future demands of both publicusers and county, state, and Federal agencies could bemet under this alternative.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative D wouldnot declare an allowable sale quantity for forest andwoodlands. Instead, commercial forest products wouldbe a byproduct of management treatments designed toreduce overstocking, control competing vegetation,remove invasive juniper or white fir, reduce ground andunderstory ladder fuels, improve forest health, andincrease resistance to insect and disease outbreaks andwildland fires.

Commercial and public wood cutting would continueto be an important method used to address some forestand woodland treatment needs, especially in invasivejuniper stands. It is unlikely that the demand forcommercial and public wood cutting could completelyaddress the identified need for treatment of invasivejuniper stands over the life of the plan. Alternative Dwould meet existing and anticipated future demand forcommercial and public wood cutting opportunities.Other forest and woodland treatments (culturing,cutting, mechanical, thinning, and prescribed fire)could provide employment opportunities to variouscontractors and seasonal employees. The extent of

these employment opportunities would be dependenton future funding for forest treatment activities.

Recreation resources: Alternative D would developtourism opportunities when consistent with otherresource objectives. New recreation sites would bedeveloped to meet increased recreation demand and toprotect cultural and natural values and public healthand safety. Alternative D would develop tourismopportunities when consistent with other resourceobjectives. This alternative would meet current andfuture demands, but would not pursue opportunities tofurther expand recreation use and opportunities throughdevelopments or promotions.

Motorized and mechanical vehicle use would bemanaged under open, limited to designated or existingroads and trails, and closed designations. The SandDunes WSA would be designated as open, allowingsignificant recreational use to continue. Specialrecreation permits would be issued for organizedevents under this alternative, but use would be limitedto designated or existing roads and trails. Someexisting visitation may be shifted to other ownerships(primarily USFS) in the area and to other regionswhich offer greater opportunities for use in areasdesignated as open.

Special recreation permits would be issued under thisalternative. Existing commercial recreational uses andorganized recreational activities would continue.Existing guided uses and wilderness therapy schoolswould be able to use BLM-managed lands. Existingtourism-related firms would continue and have oppor-tunities to expand in the future under this alternative.

Compared to Alternatives A and B, OHV restrictions(Map R-7), along with closure of specific roads andtrails (Table 4-4), would make it more difficult for thepublic and Tribal people to access public lands forhunting, other recreational pursuits, and traditionaluses. This impact would be less than Alternatives C orE.

Management of the Sunstone Collection Area wouldcontinue under existing guidelines. Future develop-ment of a primitive camping area in the vicinity wouldsupport additional visitor use in the area. Sunstonecollection is a unique recreational opportunity withinthe planning area. This would retain an important andunique recreational resource that contributes to tour-ism-related economic activity.

Federal agency activities: The business activities ofthe Federal government could increase slightly. With

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM117


4 - 118

appropriated funding, program emphasis would shift togenerate local economic activity through direct Federalemployment, local and regional purchases and contract-ing, improved recreational opportunities, and restora-tion activities. The level of government and contractemployment associated with restoration activities (suchas prescribed fire, noxious weed treatment, and wildfirerehabilitation) would increase and have the potential toslightly increase local employment. The extent wouldbe dependent on future budget allocations, the extentthat contracts are used, and additional Federal employ-ees hired to accomplish restoration objectives.


Environmental justice: The impacts to low income orminority populations would be similar to Alternative C.

Conclusion: Underlying demographic trends woulddominate future population and age distributionconditions. Current levels of economic uses of thepublic lands would be maintained. This alternativeincludes several proposals to enhance visitor servicesand access on public lands. Economic activity associ-ated with visitation of public lands would increase.The level of economic opportunity for future mineraldevelopment would decrease compared to AlternativesA or B, but would be higher than Alternatives C or E.Future opportunities for development of other com-modity uses and recreation opportunities would besimilar to Alternative A.

Alternative E

Agricultural and livestock use: Alternative E wouldresult in elimination of all active preference within theplanning area. Total cattle and calf sales in LakeCounty could be approximately $13.6 to $17.3 million(based on 1998 sales in the county). This would be areduction of 17.3 to 34.7 percent from historic levelsand approximately 24.1 to 44.6 percent less thanpotential sales under Alternative A. This would resultin modest to significant reductions in herd size foraffected permittees, reducing productive capacity andsales. Permittees who experience loss of Federalgrazing privileges would be required to restructuretheir existing operations to utilize existing privateresources more efficiently or acquire new resources toreplace those no longer provided by public lands.Grazing operators could also choose to use privateresources more intensively. The range of impactsidentified represents uncertainty regarding the flexibil-ity of permittees to restructure their existing operations.Restructuring of this kind would favor large, diversi-

fied agricultural operations with capital reserves orresources. Smaller, less diversified operations andoperations on relatively small privately-owned landbases would be at greater risk of foreclosure or bank-ruptcy. Annual historic grazing fee collections of$146,116 would be foregone.

Mineral resources: Alternative E would withdraw theentire planning area from mineral location, precludingany future development. Existing mineral claims anddevelopments would continue as valid existing rights.

The entire planning area would be closed to mineralleasing, precluding future development of leasablemineral resources. Existing mineral leases wouldcontinue as valid existing rights.

Existing pits and quarries would be closed. The entireplanning area would be closed to mineral materialdisposal, except where required by law or whereessential for critical road construction and emergenciesto protect human safety. Current needs and anticipatedfuture demands of both public users and county, state,and Federal agencies would not be met under thisalternative. In particular, state and county agencies thatreceive material site rights-of-way and free use permitswould face difficulty finding the mineral materialsneeded to build and maintain public roads. In addition,these agencies would face much higher costs whenobtaining these materials from private sources. Min-eral material site rights-of-way and free use permitswould still be available on USFS and other Federalagency lands.

Forest and woodland resources: Alternative E wouldpreclude all forest and woodland treatments, and thus,any auxiliary commercial products. Alternative Ewould not meet existing or anticipated future demandfor commercial and public wood cutting. Forest andwoodland treatment activities would not provideemployment opportunities in the future.

Recreation resources: Alternative E woulddeemphasize tourism opportunities. No new recreationsites would be developed to provide visitor services.Existing sites would be closed or rehabilitated. Oppor-tunities for recreation in primitive and remote locationswould occur unless resource values were being de-graded beyond acceptable levels. Area closures wouldbe the primary management response when necessaryto protect resource values and human safety. Currentand future demand for developed site recreationalopportunities would not be met by this alternative.

The entire planning area would be limited to existing

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM118


4 -119

roads and trails, except for 19,996 acres including theSand Dunes WSA, which would be designated asclosed, and 66,460 acres of deer winter range, whichwould be limited to designated roads and trails. Theeconomic impacts to the north Lake County area fromclosing the Sand Dunes to OHV use would be similarto Alternative C. No special recreation permits wouldbe issued for organized events. This alternative wouldnot provide for existing levels and types of use andwould not meet anticipated future demands for OHVuse. Some existing visitation would be shifted to otherownerships (primarily USFS) in the area and to otherregions which offer greater opportunities.

Special recreation permits would not be issued. Thiswould preclude commercial recreational uses andorganized recreational activities. Existing guided usesand wilderness therapy schools would be unable to useBLM-managed lands, negatively impacting existingrecreation related firms.

Public use of the Sunstone Collection Area would belimited to surface collection. No commercial useswould be permitted. Revocation of the PublicSunstone Area would eliminate an important andunique recreational resource, potentially reducingtourism-related economic activity.

Federal agency activities: The business activities ofthe Federal government could decrease significantly.With appropriated funding, program emphasis wouldshift to resource protection and enforcement. Localeconomic activity through direct Federal employment,local and regional purchases and contracting, recre-ational opportunities, and restoration activities wouldbe reduced. Federal lands would no longer providecommodities for uses that generate economic activity.Mining, grazing, and special recreation permits wouldbe curtailed. The level of government and contractemployment associated with vegetation treatmentactivities would be limited to those necessary to protecthuman health and safety.


Environmental justice: Impacts would be similar toAlternative A.

Conclusion: Alternative E, which would triggeremployment losses and reduce opportunities for futureeconomic growth associated with Federal land com-modities, could intensify pressures contributing to out-migration from the area.

Opportunities for employment associated with restora-tion activities would be reduced because of allowingnatural processes to determine the rate of ecosystemimprovement.

Opportunities for developed recreation and OHV usewould be decreased. Underlying growth trends forvisitor use would continue. However, managementactions would not be responsive to this demand. OHVdesignations would significantly reduce the amount andquality of opportunities for OHV use. Users would bedisplaced to other areas of the state or to other owner-ships, such as USFS lands. Some users would nolonger participate in the activity due to longer traveltimes to suitable sites.

Existing levels of mining activity on public landswould continue due to valid existing rights associatedwith existing mineral leases and mining claims. Futureenergy and mineral development opportunities wouldbe precluded by closure of the remaining acres tomineral leasing, location, and disposal. Opportunitiesfor energy and mineral development would remain onother lands in the area.

Summary of Impacts

Under Alternatives A–D, underlying demographic,regional, and national economic trends would be theprimary determinants of economic activity in thefuture. Alternative E would disrupt existing uses onpublic lands and preclude future development ofmineral resources. This would reduce existing levelsof economic activity and negatively impact futureeconomic growth.

Recreation growth is expected to continue. The BLMwould continue to provide developed and dispersedrecreational opportunities on its lands under Alterna-tives A–D. Alternative B particularly emphasizeseconomic activities on public lands through the in-creased emphasis on special use permits and recre-ational site development. The future economic impactof recreation would be highly dependent on the abilityof local businesses to provide the goods and servicesdemanded by existing and additional visitors. Alterna-tive E would not address the existing or future recre-ational demand.

The impacts to the livestock sector of the economywould vary by alternative. Alternatives A and D wouldcontinue to provide existing levels of forage. Nochanges in economic activity would be anticipated.Alternative B would slightly expand potential livestockuse. This would create additional potential economic

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM119


4 - 120

opportunities for affected permittees. Alternative Cwould negatively affect the livestock sector by reduc-ing forage availability. Impacts would be moderateoverall with some permittees experiencing significantreductions. Alternative E would eliminate all grazingof BLM lands. Impacts would be severe overall.

None of the alternatives would impact existing levelsof mineral activity, because existing mineral claims andleases are unaffected. However, the alternatives wouldimpact the potential for future development andassociated economic activity. Alternatives C and Ewould severely reduce or eliminate the potential forfuture development through closure and withdrawal oflands to leasing, location, and disposal. Alternative Bwould provide the greatest opportunity for futuremineral development. Alternative D would have amoderate impact on future mineral developmentthrough closures and no-surface-occupancy stipulationson lands with high potential. Alternative A wouldcontinue the present situation.


Anticipated recreational growth would increase thedemand for recreation across all ownerships. Alterna-tives which close lands to OHV use or close developedfacilities would cause recreational use to be shifted toother ownerships, in particular to lands managed by theUSFS. Opportunities would exist for private sectorbusiness growth to meet the increasing demand forrecreational opportunities, especially for developedsites such as campgrounds.

Reduced livestock AUM’s in Alternatives C and Ewould place additional grazing pressure on privatelands and/or increase the demand for hay and otherforage alternatives. Other public lands, in particularthe USFS, would not be expected to increase grazinguse as a result of increased demand for alternativeforage.

The LRA is not a major contributor to economicactivity in the lumber and wood products sector. Noneof the alternatives would change this. In the future,increased juniper utilization, including biomass energygeneration, could reduce the costs and increase thefeasibility of certain landscape treatments proposedunder Alternatives A–D.

Air Quality

Management Goal—Meet the national ambient airquality standards as described in the “Clean Air Act”(CAA) and follow the direction and requirements ofthe Southcentral Oregon Fire Management Partner-ship.

Assumptions

• The national ambient air quality standards and theState “Oregon Smoke Management Plan” wouldnot become more stringent.

• The maximum number of acres of prescribed firewould be ignited for each alternative over a 10-yearspan.

• The acres of potential wildland fire would be thesame as stated in the Fire Management impactsection.

• The amount of particulate matter and direction ofsmoke dispersion can be managed in prescribedfire but not in wildland fire.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Between 5,000–7,500 tons of particulate matter couldbe put into the atmosphere over a 10-year period fromwildland fire. Another 10,000 tons of particulatematter could be produced by prescribed fire.

Alternative B


Alternative C


Alternative D

Between 7,500–15,000 tons of particulate matter couldbe put into the atmosphere over a 10-year period from

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:38 PM120


4 -121

wildland fire. Another 24,000 tons of particulatematter could be produced by prescribed fire.

Alternative E

Between 10,000–20,000 tons of particulate mattercould be put into the atmosphere over a 10-year periodfrom wildland fire. No prescribed fire would be done.

Summary of Impacts

All alternatives would emit varying amounts of particu-late matter, but because of the ability to manageemissions in prescribed fire, the air quality goal shouldbe met in Alternatives A–D. Wildland fire is a randomevent. The alternatives with larger amounts of particu-late emissions (Alternatives C–E) have the potential toexceed the air quality management goal. Due to therelative isolation of the planning area and the predomi-nant wind patterns for smoke dispersion, the probabil-ity of degrading the airshed would be low.


Smoke from prescribed or wildland fires burningsimultaneously on the adjacent national forests—Modoc, Fremont, Winema, Deschutes—and adjacentBLM districts—Alturas Field Office, Surprise FieldOffice, Burns District, and Prineville Districts—and onprivate and state lands could have a significant impacton the air quality of southcentral Oregon. Prevailingwinds in the area are south and southwesterly. As aresult, multiple fires could degrade air quality in northLake County and the Bend, LaPine, Prineville, andBurns areas. It is not likely that several prescribed fireswould occur at the same time, since burn plans arecoordinated with other BLM, USFS and OregonDepartment of Forestry (ODF) offices. However, largewildland fires or escaped prescribed fires could occurat one time, resulting in significant air quality degrada-tion.

Fire Management

Management Goal 1—Provide an appropriatemanagement response on all wildland fires withemphasis on firefighter and public safety. Whenassigning priorities, decisions would be based onrelative values to be protected commensurate with firemanagement costs.

Assumptions

• The most efficient level of fire suppression re-sources (people and equipment) would be fundedover the time period assessed. The “acres burned”assumptions are from the latest initial attackanalyzer calculations.

• Human life (firefighter and public safety) would bethe highest priority during a wildland fire. Oncefirefighters have been assigned to a fire, theirsafety would become the highest value to beprotected. Property, natural, and cultural resourceswould be secondary priorities.

Analysis of Impacts


Firefighter and public safety would be maximizedbecause of the ability to attack fires when they aresmall and to use direct tactics. The time spent onindividual fires would be reduced, minimizing humanexposure and fatigue. Aerial resources (planes andhelicopters) would not utilized as often or for as long aduration. The percentage of large fires would besmaller and public exposure would be minimized.Large fire costs and resource damage would be small-est of the alternatives. Potentially, 100,000–150,000acres could be burned by wildland fire over a 10-yearperiod in Alternative A, and 125,000–175,000 acres inAlternative B.

Alternatives C, D, and E

Firefighter safety could be compromised due to thelarger size of fires by the time action is taken. Publicsafety would be compromised due to larger firesburning unchecked. Large fires would take longer toextinguish, which would lead to more exposure timefor firefighters. More aerial resources would be usedand for longer durations. A higher percentage of firestarts would become large incidents. Total fire costsand resource damages would be much higher. About150,000–300,000 acres could be burned by wildlandfire over a 10-year period in Alternatives C and D, and200,000–400,000 acres in Alternative E.

Management Goal 2—Rehabilitate burned areas tomitigate the adverse effects of wildland fire on soiland vegetation in a cost-effective manner and tominimize the possibility of wildland fire occurrencesor invasion of weeds.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM121


4 - 122

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

This alternative would be one of the most cost-effectiveover the short term. Rehabilitation would be on an as-needed basis, and the acres burned would be thesmallest.

Alternative B

More acres would require rehabilitation than Alterna-tive A. All wildland fires would be rehabilitated withan emphasis on forage production. In the long term,rehabilitation would benefit upland vegetation, wildlifehabitats, and soil and watershed conditions by improv-ing ground cover.

Alternatives C and D

The costs would be higher in these alternatives due tothe amount of acreage burned. The acres of grounddisturbed would also allow for increased risk of weedinvasion. The conversion to a short fire regime wouldallow for more wildland fire occurrence.

Alternative E

No active rehabilitation would occur. Any rehabilita-tion of wildland fire areas would be the result ofnatural processes.

Management Goal 3—Restore and maintain ecosys-tems consistent with land uses and historic fireregimes through wildland fire use, prescribed fire,and other methods. Reduce areas of high fuel load-ing resulting from years of fire suppression that maycontribute to extreme fire behavior.

Assumptions

• The funding levels for prescribed fire would besufficient to treat the target acres.

• Air quality regulations would not become sostringent as to hamper the use of fire as a manage-ment tool.

• The number of qualified people available would besufficient to carry out the program.

• For Alternatives A–D, “treated acres” refers to the

acreages analyzed in a NEPA document. It doesnot assume that 100 percent of those acres wouldbe burned by fire. When applying fire, the intentwould be to burn approximately 40–70 percent ofthe area and keep 30–60 percent unburned. A goalof landscape-level treatments would be to create amosaic of burned and unburned areas within alarger treatment area. The range of treated acreslisted in the alternatives are for impact analysispurposes, not targets. For Alternatives C and D,wildland fire use could cause the number of treatedacres to vary widely from year to year, and in someyears could treat a very large number of acres.(Lightning-caused fires in excess of 100,000 acreshave occurred periodically in the rangeland fuels inthe planning area.)

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

The number of acres that would be converted to ahistoric fire regime, and the reduction of high fuelloadings would be relatively small. The option tomanage wildland fires in the Fort Rock Fire Manage-ment Area would still be available. This option wouldhave the potential to save thousands of dollars annuallyin fire suppression costs.

Alternative B

The number of acres that would be converted to ahistoric fire regime and the reduction of high fuelloadings would be larger than Alternative A. The areasthat may need the most treatment to reach the manage-ment goal may not be the same acres that would betreated for forage and commodity production. Theoption to manage wildland fires in the Fort Rock FireManagement Area would not be available. This couldcost thousands of dollars annually in fire suppressioncosts and tie up firefighting resources that could beavailable for higher priority fires.

Alternatives C and D

These alternatives would treat the most acres to meetthe stated management goal. Areas designated forwildland fire use would have to have easily defendableboundaries. Prescribed fire would be the preferredmethod of restoration, but would not be nearly as cost-effective as wildland fire use. With the large amount ofburned acres, the potential for an escaped fire in-creases, as does the potential for noxious weed orcheatgrass establishment following a fire.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM122


4 -123

Alternative E

This alternative would slowly meet the managementgoal for restoring historic fire regimes, unless nonna-tive, short-interval species become established. Thereduction of high fuel loadings would be a randomevent, and the resulting high intensity fire behaviorwould most probably change the historic fire regime.

Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A and B provide the highest safety forfirefighters and the public, and the costs of firefightingand fire rehabilitation are the lowest (with AlternativeA lower than Alternative B because of the Fort RockFire Management Area). The availability of burnedarea is the smallest for the invasion of weeds. Therestoration of fire regimes and reduction of fuel loadingwould take longer.

Alternatives C, D, and E rate lower over the life of theplan for firefighter and public safety. This couldchange as fire regimes and fuel loadings are changed.The costs for suppression and rehabilitation wouldincrease over the over the life of the plan as more acreswould be burned. The chances for escape of prescribedand wildland fire use would increase. The air qualitycould be impacted due to the large volume of burning.Alternatives C and D would restore the historic fireregime sooner with the availability of prescribed fire.The randomness and variability of fire occurrence inAlternative E would hamper ecosystem restoration, andthe lack of rehabilitation could lead to the dominanceof nonnative, short-interval species.


Increased use of prescribed fire and wildland fire usewould ultimately result in smaller and fewer wildlandfires due to reduced fuel loadings. Fire severity andintensity would also be reduced. These actions wouldalso begin to include fire as part of natural ecosystemprocesses and result in more natural potential vegeta-tion groups across the landscape. Since prescribedfires and wildland fire use would also be occurring onthe adjacent Fremont National Forests, Hart Mountainand Sheldon National Wildlife Refuges, and adjacentBLM districts, a more natural form of wildland fire inthe ecosystem would begin to occur, not just in theplanning area, but over several million acres in south-east Oregon.

Recreation Resources

Management Goal—Provide and enhance developedand undeveloped recreation opportunities, whileprotecting resources, to manage the increasingdemand for resource-dependent recreation activities.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Management actions aimed at protecting, restoring, orenhancing watershed functions, forest health, riparian/wetland areas, upland vegetative communities,biodiversity, wildlife habitats and wildlife populationswould not create significant effects on recreation. Insome instances, recreation may benefit from theseactions by increasing aesthetic values and throughincreased fish and wildlife populations providingopportunities for wildlife viewing and enhancing sportfishing and hunting.

Recreation could be negatively impacted from manage-ment actions relating to the maintenance, restoration,and protection of populations and habitats for specialstatus plant and animal species. The degree of theeffects on recreation would be dependent on theintensity of the actions. In particular, managementactions initiated for the protection of greater sage-grouse and their habitat, could potentially have nega-tive effects on dispersed recreation because of futurearea or road closures. Hunting would be the recreationactivity with the greatest potential to be negativelyimpacted. Habitat important to the various life stagesof the greater sage-grouse are known to occur overmost of the planning area.

Actions initiated to protect cultural resources wouldhave minimal negative impacts on recreation. Anyrestrictions, such as area or road closures, wouldtypically be on a site-specific basis. Opportunities forinterpretation and permitted commercial tours mayexist, which would positively affect recreation. Poten-tial resource degradation could be mitigated throughinterpretation and public education creating greaterawareness and appreciation for these resources.

Wilderness therapy schools could create conflicts withother public lands users, ranchers, and residents, andcould damage roads on a seasonal basis. Hunterswould be the primary recreation user group negativelyimpacted. However, the impacts would be confined tolocalized areas where the groups are authorized tocamp. The overall negative effects on hunters would

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM123


4 - 124

not be significant. In north Lake County, wildernesstherapy schools are authorized to utilize 29 campsiteswithin an area covering approximately 230 squaremiles east of Fredericks Butte Road. Given establishedgroup size limitations and limits on the number ofgroups authorized to operate within this area, themaximum number of campsites used at any one timewould be five. There have been conflicts betweenranchers/residents living in the area where threewilderness therapy companies have conducted opera-tions in the past. Runaway students have been thefocal point of concern. To reduce the potential forfuture conflicts relating to runaway students, there havebeen a number of permit stipulations initiated. Whenpossible, wilderness therapy groups have been movedat least 5 miles from any year-round residents/ranches,there must be a minimum of one staff member for eachthree students, and a runaway protocol has beeninitiated to notify ranchers/residents of runaways.

Management actions relating to the development ofmineral materials, oil, gas, and geothermal leasing, andlocatable minerals would have minimal effects onrecreation. Land acquisitions and the issuance ofrights-of-way, leases, and permits would not causesignificant negative effects on recreation.

Restricting vehicle access in the mule deer winter rangein north Lake County (Map R-2 of the Draft RMP/EIS)would have minimal negative effects on dispersedrecreation, and could provide greater opportunities ofsolitude for hikers and cross-country skiers duringperiods of adequate snow. Area or road closures wouldhave minimal negative effects on dispersed recreationbecause they would typically occur on a limited site-specific basis. During periods when roads are wet (fall,winter, and early spring), there is a potential forresource impacts to occur.

Alternative B

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watershedfunctions, riparian/wetland areas, upland vegetativecommunities, and wildlife habitats and populationswould not increase significantly compared to Alterna-tive A. Overall, these actions would improve aestheticvalues while increasing fish and wildlife populations,providing opportunities for wildlife viewing andenhancing sport fishing and hunting. Negative effectsto recreation based on actions to improve forest healthand biodiversity could increase slightly compared toAlternative A because the size and number of juniperstand treatments would be maximized. However, theseimpacts would typically be short term and site-specificduring periods of rehabilitation and revegatation.

Impacts associated with management actions which areaimed at maintaining, restoring, and enhancing wildlifeand wildlife habitats would be similar to Alternative A.Improving habitats for game and nongame animalswould have a positive impact on recreation by increas-ing wildlife viewing opportunities, as well as providingfor quality sport hunting opportunities. Protection andimprovement of fish habitats would continue to en-hance sport fishing opportunities.

Actions relating to the maintenance, restoration, andprotection of populations and habitats for special statusplant and animal species would be similar to Alterna-tive A. The negative effects on recreation would beminimal. Management actions to protect greater sage-grouse and their habitat could have a negative impacton motorized and nonmotorized recreation because offuture area and road closures. The significance of theimpacts would be dependent on the degree or level ofthe restrictions imposed through specific managementactions.

The designation of one new ACEC/RNA (ConnleyHills) could negatively affect localized dispersedrecreation activities in the area through restrictions onactivities such as camping, firewood gathering, androad closures.

Impacts to recreation relating to the protection ofcultural resources would be similar to Alternative A.Access to cultural sites for interpretation and educa-tional purposes would be given greater emphasiscompared to Alternative A. There could be a corre-sponding increase in the positive effects on tourism.

The total number of authorized user days for wilder-ness therapy operations would be 16,400, a decrease of200 user days compared to Alternative A. Of this total,8,300 user days would be available for use within northLake County and the remainder (8,100) would beavailable for use in other areas. The total number ofgroups authorized to operate at any one time in northLake County (five groups) would not change. Thenumber of authorized campsites in north Lake Countywould not vary appreciably from the number currentlyauthorized (29). Given the proposed use levels andgroup limitations, the level and type of potentialimpacts associated with wilderness therapy operationswould be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts to recreation relating to the development ofmineral materials, oil, gas, and geothermal leasing, andlocatable minerals would be similar to Alternative A,except for recreational sunstone collecting. Revokingthe mineral segregation and allow mining claim

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM124


4 -125

location on the Public Sunstone Area would createsignificant negative impacts to recreationalrockhounds. Impacts from issuing new rights-of-way,leases, and permits would be similar to Alternative A.Greater emphasis on acquisition of lands with highrecreational values would enhance recreation opportu-nities compared to Alternative A.

The impacts of the mule deer winter range closure innorth Lake County would be similar to Alternative A.Management actions could include restricting recre-ational access via area or road closures (Map R-5 of theDraft RMP/EIS/Table 4-4) on a case-by-case basis.The impacts on nonmotorized and motorized recreationactivities would be similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts on recreation relating to actions to protect,restore, or enhance watershed functions, riparian/wetland areas, upland vegetative communities, andwildlife habitats and populations would be similar toAlternatives A and B. Negative effects to recreationbased on actions to improve forest health andbiodiversity would be lower in comparison to Alterna-tive B (only 50 percent of the invasive juniper standswould be treated under Alternative C, whereas 75percent would be treated under Alternative B, andcommercial and public wood cutting would be maxi-mized). However, impacts would typically be shortterm and site-specific during periods of rehabilitationand revegatation.

Impacts associated with management actions aimed atmaintaining, restoring, and enhancing wildlife andwildlife habitats would be similar to to Alternatives Aand B. Impacts of management actions proposed theprotection and improvement of fish habitats wouldcontinue to enhance sport fishing opportunities, asunder Alternatives A and B.

Actions relating to the maintenance, restoration, andprotection of populations and habitats for special statusplant and animals would be similar to Alternative A orB. Actions initiated to protect greater sage-grouse andcrucial habitat would be greater than Alternatives A andB and would be dependent on the degree or level of therestrictions imposed.

Management of existing and proposed SMA's (e.g.,ACEC’s) would impact recreational opportunities.Overnight camping would not be allowed in the LostForest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC (35,566 acres),Juniper Mountain ACEC (6,334 acres), Black HillsACEC (3,048 acres), Connley Hills ACEC (3,675

acres), and Table Rock ACEC (5,073 acres). Addition-ally, the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACECwould be closed to OHV use. The restrictions withinthe Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC wouldhave the greatest negative effect on motorized recre-ation uses. This area has traditionally received thehighest concentration of OHV use in the planning area(primarily in the sand dunes within the Sand DunesWSA). The camping restrictions within the JuniperMountain, Black Hills, Connley Hills, and Table RockACEC’s would not have a significant negative effect onrecreation because overnight camping opportunitieswould continue adjacent to the boundaries of theACEC’s. Hunters would be the user group mostimpacted, because historically-used primitive huntingcamps would no longer be accessible. The overallnegative effects on recreation would be greater thanunder Alternatives A and B because of these restric-tions, especially in relation to the Lost Forest/SandDunes/Fossil Lake ACEC.

Impacts to recreation relating to actions for the protec-tion of cultural resources would be similar to Alterna-tives A and B.

The total number of authorized user days (10,200) forwilderness therapy school operations would be 6,400less than under Alternative A, and 6,200 less than underAlternative B. Of the total available user days, 4,800user days would be authorized within the North LakeSpecial Recreation Management Area (a decrease of3,500 user days within this area compared to Alterna-tive B). There would be 5,400 user days available forthe remainder of the planning area (a decrease of 2,700compared to Alternative B). Under Alternative A, thetotal number of user days (16,600) were not splitbetween North Lake Special Recreation ManagementArea and the remainder of the planning area. Consider-ing group number and size limitations, upwards of13,500 user days could be utilized in North LakeSpecial Recreation Management Area under Alterna-tive A, whereas under Alternative C, approximately8,700 could be utilized. Only four groups would beauthorized to operate within North Lake SpecialRecreation Management Area at any one time, one lessthan would be allowed under Alternatives A and B.The number of authorized campsites would be similarto Alternatives A and B. Negative impacts to other usergroups within the North Lake Special RecreationManagement Area would be significantly less thanunder Alternatives A and B. The level of potentialnegative impacts to other user groups from wildernesstherapy operations in the remainder of the planningarea would be higher under Alternatives A and Bbecause of the higher number of available user days.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM125


4 - 126

Because of the seasonal use limitations within theNorth Lake Special Recreation Management Area, thepotential for damage to roads would be significantlyless than Alternatives A and B. There would be ahigher potential for negative impacts to roads in theremainder of the planning area because there would beno seasonal limitation on wilderness therapy schooloperations.

Approximately 35,300 acres would be added to theCabin Lake/Silver Lake Deer Winter Range Coopera-tive Seasonal Vehicle Closure area located in northLake County (Map R-6 of the Draft RMP/EIS). Thedispersed recreation activities, such as hiking andcross-country skiing, would be enhanced with in-creased opportunities for solitude. Vehicle travelwould be restricted to existing and designated roadsand trails within most of the planning area (Map R-6 ofthe Draft RMP/EIS). Several areas would be closed toOHV use. A number of roads would be closed withinSMA's (Table 4-4). These restrictions would have bothnegative and positive effects on dispersed recreationactivities. Public and Tribal access would be restrictedfor motorized recreation and other activities, butnonmotorized recreationists would have a greateropportunity to experience solitude. There would begreater negative effects on recreation compared toeither Alternatives A, B, or D.

Development of mineral materials, oil, gas, and geo-thermal leasing, and locatable minerals would berestricted to varying degrees within existing andproposed SMA's, resulting in slightly lower negativeeffects to recreation in comparison to Alternatives Aand B. The mineral segregation on the Public SunstoneArea would be retained, which would allow publicrecreational collection of sunstones to continue similarto Alternative A.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permitswould have similar impacts as Alternatives A and B.Similar to Alternative B, recreation opportunitieswould be enhanced with an emphasis on the acquisitionof lands with a high public value.

Alternative D

Impacts on recreation relating to actions to protect,restore, or enhance watershed functions, riparian/wetland areas, upland vegetative communities, wildlifehabitats and populations would be similar to Alterna-tives A, B, and C. Negative effects to recreation fromactions to improve forest health and biodiversity wouldbe lower in comparison to Alternative B but similar toAlternative C. Impacts would typically be short term

and site-specific during periods of rehabilitation andrevegatation.

Impacts associated with management actions to main-tain, restore, and enhance wildlife and wildlife habitatswould be similar to Alternatives A, B, and C. Manage-ment actions for the protection and improvement offish habitats would continue to enhance sport fishingopportunities, similar to Alternatives A, B, and C.

Actions relating to the maintenance, restoration, andprotection of populations and habitats for special statusplant and animal species would be similar to Alterna-tives A, B, and C. The significance of any actionswould be dependent on the intensity and duration of theproposed actions.

Management of existing and proposed SMA's (e.g.,ACEC’s) would impact recreational opportunities. Noovernight camping would be allowed in the Black HillsACEC (3,048 acres). Camping adjacent to the sanddunes (located within the Sand Dunes WSA) would belimited to three designated areas (Map SMA-9), withcamping at one of the three areas closed on a rotationalbasis. Impacts to recreation activities, and in particularmotorized recreational uses, would be significantlylower when compared to the Sand Dunes area underAlternative C, but similar to Alternatives A and B,other than the inconvenience of not being able to campin traditionally-used areas adjacent to the open sanddunes.

Impacts relating to actions to protect cultural resourceswould be similar to Alternatives A, B, and C.

The total number of authorized user days for wilder-ness therapy school operations would be 12,800. Thiswould be 3,800 less than Alternative A, 3,600 less thanAlternative B, and 600 more than Alternative C. Of thetotal (12,800) available user days, 7,400 user dayswould be authorized within the North Lake SpecialRecreation Management Area (an increase of 2,300user days over Alternative C, a decrease of 900 userdays in comparison to Alternative B, and a decrease of6,400 user days in comparison to Alternative A). Therewould be 5,400 user days available for the remainder ofthe planning area (the same as Alternative C and 2,700less than Alternative B). The number of groupsauthorized to operate at any one time in the North LakeSpecial Recreation Management Area would be thesame as Alternative C, which is two less than Alterna-tive B, and one less than Alternative A. No more thanthree groups would be authorized to operate in theremainder of the planning area at any one time. Nega-tive impacts to other user groups within the North Lake

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM126


4 -127

Special Recreation Management Area would be lessthan Alternatives A and B and slightly higher thanAlternative C. The level of potential impacts to otheruser groups in the remainder of the planning areawould be the same as Alternative C and less thanAlternatives A or B. The potential for damage to roadsis higher than Alternative C (due to a lack of seasonalrestriction on operations in the North Lake SpecialRecreation Management Area). Compared to Alterna-tives A and B, the potential for negative impacts toroads is slightly lower because of the lower number ofgroups authorized to operate at any one time and thelower number of authorized user days. The proposednumber of user days would not negatively impactcurrently-authorized wilderness therapy schoolsoperating in the planning area and portions of theBurns and Prineville Districts. These companies wouldcontinue to have the opportunity to increase theirnumber of clients and operating areas through thepermitting process.

The effects from the development of mineral materials,oil, gas, and geothermal leasing, and locatable mineralswould be similar to Alternatives A and B, but slightlyhigher than Alternative C (which restricts mineraldevelopment). The mineral segregation on the PublicSunstone Area would be retained. There would be nonegative effects on recreational collection of sunstone,as is the case under Alternative B. The impacts fromissuing of rights-of-way, leases, and permits would besimilar to Alternatives A, B, and C.

Approximately 35,300 acres would be added to theCabin Lake/Silver Lake Deer Winter Range Coopera-tive Seasonal Vehicle Closure area located in northLake County (Map R-7; SMA-24). The impacts wouldbe similar to Alternative C. The Northern WildlifeArea would be expanded to coincide with the boundaryof the North Lake Special Recreation ManagementArea. Vehicles would be restricted to existing ordesignated roads and trails in the northern portion ofthe planning area. Small areas would be closed tovehicle access (Map R-7). A number of roads would beclosed within SMA's (Table 4-4, Maps SMA-5 toSMA-31). These restrictions would have both negativeand positive effects on dispersed recreation activities.Public and Tribal access would be restricted formotorized recreation and other activities, butnonmotorized recreationists would have a greateropportunity to experience solitude. There would begreater negative effects compared to Alternative A or B,but less than Alternative C.

Alternative E

Impacts to recreation from actions to protect, restore,or enhance watershed functions, riparian/wetland areas,upland vegetative communities, and wildlife habitatsand populations would be similar to Alternatives A–D.Natural process would be allowed to regulate (e.g.,fire) forest health and biodiversity. There would be noimpacts to recreation.

All existing ACEC’s designations would be revokedand no new ACEC’s would be designated. The effectswould be less than Alternatives C and D and similar toAlternatives A and B.

Impacts from actions taken to protect cultural resourceswould be similar to Alternatives A–D.

No special recreation permits would be issued, whichwould eliminate all commercial uses of public lands,including guided hunting, nature tours, and wildernesstherapy group uses. Overall, this would significantlyimpact recreation because it would preclude segmentsof the population from using and enjoying public lands.

Actions would be taken to withdraw the entire planningarea from mineral entry, as well as close the area tomineral leasing and mineral material disposal. All ofthese actions would have a positive effect on recreationactivities. The entire planning area would be consid-ered a right-of-way exclusion area (except for existingrights-of-way), which would have a positive effect ondispersed recreation.

Impacts to recreation relating to the Cabin Lake/SilverLake Deer Winter Range Cooperative Seasonal VehicleClosure area in north Lake County would be the sameas Alternatives A and B. Restricting vehicle use toexisting roads and trails throughout most of the plan-ning area would have impacts on public and Tribalaccess and recreational uses similar to Alternative C.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative A allows for dispersed and developedrecreation opportunities while protecting other re-sources. Developed recreation sites would be main-tained and expanded as necessary, to meet increasingdemands for recreation activities. Protection of specialstatus plant and animal species and their habitats couldnegatively impact dispersed recreation through futurearea or road closures on a limited, case-by-case basis.The management goal for recreation resources wouldbe met under this alternative.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM127


4 - 128

With the exception of several site-specific managementactions, impacts to recreation resources from Alterna-tive B would be similar to Alternative A. Revocationof the mineral segregation on the Public Sunstone Areawould have significant negative effects on recreationalcollection of sunstone by the public. Impacts associ-ated with wilderness therapy groups operating withinnorth Lake County would potentially decrease slightlybecause total authorized user days would be capped at8,300 annually.

Impacts to recreation uses under Alternative C wouldincrease slightly in comparison to Alternatives A and B.Changes in OHV designations for the protection ofwildlife, i.e., seasonal road restrictions on motorizedaccess because of the mule deer winter range and theNorthern Wildlife Area, would change the compositionof dispersed recreation from motorized tononmotorized. This would have both negative (tomotorized recreation) and positive (greater opportuni-ties for solitude) effects on recreation uses. Impactsassociated with wilderness therapy groups would beless than both Alternatives A and B because of thedecreased number of authorized user days and becauseof the seasonal restrictions in the North Lake SpecialRecreation Management Area. Restrictions within theLost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC would havesignificant effects on recreation resources in compari-son to Alternatives A, B, and D.

Overall, impacts to recreation uses under Alternative Dwould be less than under Alternative C and slightlyhigher than under Alternatives A and B. Impacts torecreation uses within the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil Lake ACEC would be lower than under Alterna-tive C but similar to Alternatives A and B. Therewould be slightly higher impacts associated withwilderness therapy school operations under AlternativeD in comparison to Alternative C, but lower thanAlternatives A or B.

Impacts to recreation uses under Alternative E wouldbe the lowest of any alternative, except in relation tocommercial uses and motorized access. No commer-cial recreational uses would be allowed throughout theplanning area, which would have higher impacts thanany of the other alternatives. Over 99 percent of theplanning area would be designated as limited toexisting roads and trails for motorized access. Thiswould impact recreational use slightly less than underAlternative C, but would have greater impacts than incomparison to Alternatives A, B, or D.


When taken in concert, future management actionsrelating other resources on lands within and adjacent tothe planning area could negatively impact recreationuses. Although the population base within the bound-aries of the planning area is fairly steady, urban growthand increases in populations in surrounding areas, inparticular the Bend/Redmond area, would have thepotential to increase recreation uses, especially withinnorth Lake County.

Off-Highway Vehicles

Management Goal–-Manage off-highway vehicle(OHV) use to protect resource values, promote publicsafety, provide OHV use opportunities where appro-priate, and minimize conflicts among various users.


The frequency and extent of future off-road military,emergency, or law enforcement use in limited or closedareas is impossible to predict, but for analytical pur-poses is assumed to occur no more than three times peryear in very small areas. The level of surface distur-bance would depend on soil conditions, season of year,vegetative cover, and other factors. Wildfire, thoughdifficult to predict, would likely occur over a muchlarger area. Rehabilitation actions typically occurfollowing wildfire and could include water-barring,seeding, and other measures to mitigate impacts offirefighting actions, including off-road travel. Refer tothe Fire Management section and Appendix L of theDraft RMP/EIS for more information.

The frequency and extent of future off-road use associ-ated with authorizing exceptions for licensed, leased,permitted, contracted, or other authorized uses is alsodifficult to predict. The BLM is required to provideaccess for authorized uses such as livestock manage-ment and mineral location. However, due to thesideboards placed on granting such exceptions, impactswould be limited.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,riparian/wetlands areas, upland vegetative communi-ties, fish, wildlife and their habitats, special status plantand animal species, and forest health and biodiversity

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM128


4 -129

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM129


4 - 130

would have the potential to negatively affect motorizedrecreation. The significance of the effects would bedependent on the intensity and duration of the proposedactions. Future management actions focusing on theprotection of greater sage-grouse and habitat couldhave significant negative impacts on motorized recre-ation. Habitat important to various life stages of thegreater sage-grouse occur over most of the planningarea. Area and road closures would result in reductionin areas open to motorized uses. Potential negativeeffects relating to greater sage-grouse issues notwith-standing, it is anticipated that the negative impacts tomotorized uses would not be significant becausepotential area and road closures would occur on a site-specific basis.

The management of existing SMA's (ACEC’s, RNA’s,and WSA’s) negatively affects motorized recreationactivities by restricting access.

Actions to protect cultural resources could negativelyaffect motorized uses because of potential road andarea closures. Overall, these impacts would be mini-mal because these closures would be on a site-specificbasis.

The greatest amount of public land would be open toOHV use under this alternative (Table 4-5; Map R-2 ofthe Draft RMP/EIS). About 642,000 acres would belimited to existing or designated roads and trails.About 8,500 acres would be closed to OHV use. Thesedesignations would not significantly restrict motorizedrecreation. The mule deer winter range closure innorth Lake County would negatively impact motorizedrecreation activities, but these impacts are not signifi-cant because the closure only restricts access on aseasonal basis. Access is not restricted during huntingseasons. Snowmobile activities are negatively im-pacted, but the extent of the impact is dictated by thepresence or lack of snowfall. The wettest periods ofthe year typically occur in the late fall, winter, andearly spring. This is when motorized vehicles have thegreatest potential to cause resource damage in openareas and roads.

The development of mineral materials, oil, gas, andgeothermal leasing, and locatable minerals would haveminimal negative effects on motorized recreation, andmay possibly provide motorized recreational opportuni-ties in the long term through the development of newroads and trails. In many instances, land acquisitions,the issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, andthe construction of roads may benefit motorizedrecreational activities by providing more opportunitiesfor access.

Alternative B

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,riparian/wetlands areas, upland vegetative communi-ties, fish, wildlife and their habitats, and special statusplant and animal species would have the same level ofimpacts as management actions proposed under thecurrent situation. The significance of the effects wouldcontinue to be dependent on the intensity and durationof the proposed actions. Future management actionsfocusing on the protection of greater sage-grouse andtheir habitat would have the same potential to nega-tively impact motorized recreation as Alternative A.Negative effects could increase slightly compared toAlternative A from management actions to enhanceforest health and biodiversity. Existing and newjuniper treatment areas would be maximized; up to 75percent of early- to mid-successional western juniperstands would be treated. However, these impactswould be short term.

The management of existing and creation of one new(Connley Hills) SMA would continue to negativelyaffect motorized recreation activities by restrictingaccess.

Impacts relating to cultural resource managementwould be similar to Alternative A. The protection ofcultural resources could negatively affect motorizedrecreation because of potential road and area closures.Overall, these impacts would be minimal becauseclosures would occur on a site-specific basis.The impacts of development of mineral materials, oil,gas, and geothermal leasing, and locatable mineralswould be similar to Alternative A. Opportunities forincreased motorized recreation could be slightly higherbecause of the potential for increased mineral develop-ment, especially in the long term. The impacts ofissuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits would besimilar to Alternative A. With greater emphasis onacquisition of lands with high recreational values,motorized recreation would potentially be enhancedcompared to Alternative A.

There would be a slight net loss of 3,434 acres (0.1percent) under the open designation compared toAlternative A (Table 4-5). The number of acres limitedto existing or designated roads and trails would in-crease about 3,434 acres. The impacts of the mule deerwinter range closure in north Lake County would bethe same as Alternative A. The impacts of limited, site-specific areas and road closures would be similar toAlternative A. The overall impact to motorized recre-ation would be similar to Alternative A.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM130


4 -131

Alternative C

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,riparian/wetlands areas, upland vegetative communi-ties, fish, wildlife and their habitats, and special statusplant and animal species would have little effect onOHV use because none of the planning area would bedesignated as open.

The management of existing and creation of newSMA's would negatively affect motorized recreationactivities by restricting access.

Impacts relating to cultural resource managementwould be similar to Alternatives A and B.

The use of all-terrain vehicles in conjunction with thecollection of deer and elk antlers in north Lake County(including the expanded Cabin Lake/Silver Lake DeerWinter Range Cooperative Vehicle Closure area andthe proposed Northern Wildlife Area) has been increas-ing in popularity over the past several years. Withmotorized access limited to designated or existingroads and trails, this activity would only be allowed onfoot or horseback. However, there would be a benefitto this restriction because there could be a correspond-ing decrease in impacts from the use of all-terrainvehicles which cause rutting and soil erosion, espe-cially during wet conditions, the trampling of vegeta-tion, and conflicts with wildlife, including big gameanimals and greater sage-grouse. The use of motorizedvehicles to retrieve big game during the hunting seasonwould be eliminated throughout the planning area.This would have a significant negative impact onhunters, especially for elderly hunters and those withphysical disabilities.

There would be no open designation for motorized use(Table 4-5). The negative impacts to motorized recre-ation in comparison to Alternatives A and B would besignificant. Motorized access would be restricted toeither a limited designation (24.4 percent designatedroads and trails and 74.3 percent existing roads andtrails) or closed (1.3 percent). Although the percentageof total acres closed would only increase by approxi-mately one percent in comparison to Alternatives A andB, the Sand Dunes WSA would be included in theseclosures. The Sand Dunes WSA receives the highestOHV recreational use throughout the entire planningarea. Closure of this area, in conjunction with 99percent of the area designated as either limited toexisting or designated roads and trails, would severelycurtail motorized recreation uses. The impacts of roadclosures (Table 4-4) would further impact motorizedvehicle use.

The impact of development of mineral materials, oil,gas, and geothermal leasing, and locatable minerals, aswell as the issuance of rights-of-way, leases, permits, orthe acquisition of lands would be similar to Alterna-tives A and B.

Alternative D

Actions to protect, restore, or enhance watersheds,riparian/wetlands areas, upland vegetative communi-ties, fish, wildlife and their habitats, and special statusplant and animal species would have impacts similar toAlternatives A and B. The significance of the effectswould be dependent on the intensity and duration of theproposed actions. Negative effects related to manage-ment actions to enhance forest health and biodiversitywould be similar to Alternatives A and B, and less thanAlternative C. It is anticipated that the impacts wouldbe short term. Future management actions focusing onthe protection of greater sage-grouse and habitat wouldhave the same potential to negatively impact motorizedrecreation as Alternatives A and B.

The management of existing and creation of newSMA's would negatively affect motorized recreationactivities by restricting access to a similar degree asAlternative C.

Impacts to OHV uses relating to cultural resourceswould be similar to those addressed under AlternativesA–C.

The percentage of land in the open designation (55.7percent) would be lower than Alternatives A and B andhigher than Alternative C (Table 4-5). Motorizedvehicle use would be limited to existing or designatedroads and trails on about 44 percent of the area. Theimpacts of the addition to the Cabin Lake/Silver LakeDeer Winter Range Cooperative Vehicle Closure areawould be similar to Alternative C (Map R-7, SMA-24).Vehicles would be seasonally limited to designatedroads and trails from December 1 through March 31,annually. During the remainder of the year, this areawould be limited to existing roads and trails. Motor-ized access within the North Lake Special RecreationManagement Area would be the limited to existingroads and trails, similar to Alternative C. The impactsto motorized uses in the northern part of the planningarea would be similar to Alternative C and greater thanAlternatives A and B. The impacts of road closures(Table 4-4; Maps SMA-5 to SMA-31) would furtherimpact motorized vehicle use.

The impacts of development of mineral materials, oil,gas, and geothermal leasing, locatable minerals, as well

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM131


4 - 132

as the issuance of rights-of-way, leases, permits, or theacquisition of lands would be similar to Alternatives A,B, and C.

Alternative E

Management actions relating to upland vegetativecommunities, fish, wildlife, and their habitats, andspecial status plant and animal species would havelittle or no impacts on motorized recreation. Futuremanagement actions focusing on the protection ofgreater sage-grouse and habitat would have the samepotential to negatively impact motorized recreation asAlternatives A–D because of possible road closures.

The entire planning area would be designated aslimited to existing roads and trails. Impacts to motor-ized recreation would be similar or slightly less thanAlternative C. The designation of limited to existingroads and trails would essentially close Sand DunesWSA to most vehicle use. Alternatives A, B, and Dwould be less-impacting in comparison to AlternativeE. No organized OHV events would be authorizedunder Alternative E. This would be a greater impactthan under the other alternatives (because OHV eventswould not be restricted).

Summary of Impacts

Common to all alternatives, future management actionswhich would focus on the protection of greater sage-grouse and their habitat could restrict motorizedrecreation. The significance of the impacts would bedependent on the scope of the area or road closureswhich could be initiated.

Alternative A provides for the highest percentage ofpublic land that would be open to OHV uses (79.4percent). Collectively, the limited and closed designa-tions would not significantly restrict motorized recre-ation. The impacts of Alternative B would be verysimilar to Alternative A.

Alternative C would have much greater impacts thaneither Alternatives A or B. None of the planning areawould be under the open designation, while approxi-mately 99 percent would be under a limited designa-tion. The overall negative impacts of Alternative Ewould be comparable to Alternative C. Under Alterna-tives C and E, no motorized uses would occur withinthe Sand Dunes WSA.

Alternative D would have less of a negative impact onmotorized recreation uses than under Alternatives C orE. With added restrictions relating to the mule deer

winter range and the North Lake Special RecreationManagement Area, impacts to motorized uses would behigher under Alternative D than Alternatives A or B.

Management goals for OHV’s would be best met underAlternative D. This alternative provides for the protec-tion of resources while allowing opportunities formotorized recreation uses, including the Sand Dunes,which receives the highest density of motorized usewithin the entire planning area.


Management actions, including past, present, andreasonably foreseeable actions, collectively, wouldimpact motorized recreation uses and users within theplanning area. Future management actions relating tothe protection of potential or existing threatened,endangered, and/or sensitive plant and animal specieshave a high potential for negatively impacting motor-ized recreation uses. Future management actionsrelating to the protection of greater sage-grouse andtheir habitat would have an impact on motorizedrecreation uses within the planning area and otherFederal lands adjacent to the planning area. However,the degree or level of these impacts is unknown at thistime.

Past actions which have restricted access and/ornumbers of motorized uses at popular OHV areas (e.g.,the Oregon Coast, Millican Valley) result in userslooking elsewhere for recreation opportunities. Usesthen increase within other areas (e.g., Sand Dunes),which then results in increased user conflicts andpotential resource impacts. The protection of theresources dictate increased management, which inevita-bly requires stricter controls on access and numbers ofusers.

The BLM’s “National Management Strategy forMotorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands”(2001e) and the USFS’s “Forest Service’s RoadlessAreas Initiative” would most certainly affect motorizedrecreation uses, in regard to both present and futureactions proposed or enacted. The population growththat the Bend/Redmond area is experiencing wouldbring increased motorized recreation use in the north-ern part of the planning area.

Visual Resources

Management Goal—Manage public land actions andactivities consistent with visual resource management(VRM) class objectives.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM132


4 -133

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Actions that promote the protection of watershedfunctions, riparian and wetlands, fish and wildlifehabitat, and upland vegetative communities wouldenhance the natural landscape character. Such actionscould include reduced livestock grazing within riparianareas and stream bank stabilization. However, monoc-ulture seedings, e.g., crested wheatgrass, could createan unnatural appearance within a characteristic land-scape. Impacts from forest health management actionsshould not significantly affect visual quality if con-ducted on small, localized areas.

There are twelve WSA’s, totaling approximately472,768 acres, which are managed under a VRM ClassI to maintain the highest level of protection for existingvisual qualities. This designation would remain ineffect until such time as Congress acts on designation.

With an emphasis on aggressive initial fire attack andfull suppression of all wildland fires, there could benegative impacts to visual qualities. Specific actionscausing adverse impacts would be from earth-movingequipment and other vehicles driving cross-country.Short-term, adverse impacts from controlled burnswould not be significant if mitigation measures arefollowed.

The construction of new recreation sites or the expan-sion of existing sites would be considered if unaccept-able resource degradation was occurring. It is antici-pated that any such development would not signifi-cantly impact visual qualities and would reduce im-pacts in many cases. Negative effects could occur fromOHV activities if these uses cause loss of vegetation,soil exposure, or erosion. Approximately 79 percent ofthe planning area is designated open, allowing cross-country vehicular travel.

Management actions relating to the development ofmineral materials, oil, gas, and geothermal leasing, andlocatable minerals have a high potential to change thenatural character of the landscape. However, thepotential for large-scale development relating to miningwould be low. Mitigation measures relating to theseactivities (Appendix N3 of the Draft RMP/EIS) wouldreduce the significance of the effects.

The issuance of new rights-of-way, leases, and permits,and road construction activities would have the poten-tial to negatively impact visual resources. Restrictingfuture developments to designated utility corridors

would help to mitigate these impacts.

Alternative B

Actions that promote the protection of watershedfunctions, riparian areas and wetlands, fish and wildlifehabitat, and upland vegetative communities wouldenhance the natural landscape character. Such actionscould include reduced livestock grazing within riparianareas and stream bank stabilization. The managementactions would be similar to Alternative A. The overallchanges in visual qualities would be similar as well.Changes to the landscape character could increaseslightly compared to Alternative A from managementactions to enhance forest health and biodiversity.Juniper treatment areas would be maximized; up to 75percent of early- to mid-successional western juniperstands would be treated.

There would be no change in the VRM designations inWSA’s. There would be no difference in visual quali-ties compared to Alternative A.

The overall impacts to visual resources relating toinitial fire attack and suppression of wildland fireswould not vary significantly from Alternative A. Thelevel of prescribed burns and other fuel reductiontreatments would be increased. This would raise thepotential for short-term, adverse impacts to occur tovisual resources, but the increase would not be signifi-cant.

Impacts from recreation would be similar to AlternativeA. Negative effects from OHV activities would besimilar to Alternative A.

Impacts from management actions relating to thedevelopment of mineral materials, oil, gas, and geother-mal leasing, and locatable minerals would have aslightly higher potential to change the natural characterof the landscape than under Alternative A, becausethese actions would be encouraged. However, thepotential for large-scale development relating to miningwould still be relatively low and existing mitigationmeasures (Appendix N3 of the Draft RMP/EIS) wouldreduce the significance of the effects from theseactions.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, androad construction activities would have potentially thesame impacts on visual resources as under AlternativeA. Land acquisitions would focus on acquiring landsthat would facilitate commodity production. Theseactions could potentially have a negative effect onvisual quality on a site-specific basis.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM133


4 - 134

Alternative C

Impacts to visual resource qualities from actions thatpromote the protection of watershed functions, riparianareas and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, andupland vegetative communities would be similar toAlternatives A and B. Changes to the landscapecharacter from management actions to enhance foresthealth and biodiversity would decrease slightly incomparison to Alternative B, because there would be adecrease of 25 percent in the amount of early- to mid-successional western juniper stands proposed fortreatment.

The effects of VRM designations in WSA’s would besimilar to Alternatives A and B. Proposed ACECdesignations and associated changes in VRM manage-ment class would provide more protection of visualquality on up to180,000 acres.

The overall impacts relating to initial fire attack andsuppression of wildland fires would be similar toAlternatives A and B. Reduction in fuel loads throughprescribed fire, wildland fire, or other treatments areproposed for up to 640,000 acres; this level of treat-ment would cause a higher level of negative impacts tovisual resources than Alternatives A or B. UnderAlternative A, approximately 5,000–20,000 acreswould treated annually, and approximately 64,000acres would be treated under Alternative B.

The impacts from recreation activities would be similarto Alternatives A and B. Negative effects from OHVactivities would be lower than under both AlternativesA and B. The total number of acres in the open desig-nation would decrease significantly (Table 4-5) incomparison to Alternatives A and B.

Impacts from management actions relating to thedevelopment of mineral materials, oil, gas, and geother-mal leasing, and locatable minerals would be similar toAlternative A. Compared to Alternative B, there wouldbe less potential for negative impacts because con-sumptive uses would not be encouraged. It is an-ticipated that the potential for large-scale developmentrelating to mining would be relatively low and existingmitigation measures (Appendix N3 of the Draft RMP/EIS) would reduce the significance of the effects.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, androad construction activities would have potentially thesame impacts on visual resources as Alternatives A andB. Land acquisitions would have potential positiveimpacts by focusing on lands with high resourcevalues.

Alternative D

Impacts to visual resource qualities from actions thatpromote the protection of watershed functions, riparianareas and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, andupland vegetative communities would be similar toAlternatives A, B, and C. Changes to the landscapecharacter from management actions to enhance foresthealth and biodiversity would be similar to AlternativeC.

The effects of VRM designations in WSA’s would besimilar to Alternatives A, B, and C. Proposed ACECdesignations and associated changes in VRM manage-ment class would provide the same level of protectionfor visual qualities as Alternative C.

Impacts relating to initial fire attack and suppression ofwildland fires would be similar to Alternatives A, B, orC. Fuel treatments (up to 480,000 acres annually)would be lower than Alternative C and higher thanAlternatives A and B. Therefore, potential short-termnegative effects on visual resources would be lowerthan Alternative C but higher than both Alternatives Aand B.

The impacts from recreation activities would be similarto Alternatives A, B, and C. Negative effects fromOHV activities would be similar to Alternative C.

Impacts from management actions relating to thedevelopment of mineral materials, oil, gas, and geother-mal leasing, and locatable minerals would vary be-tween Alternatives A, B, and C, but the differenceswould not be significant. More areas would be open tomineral leasing in comparison to Alternative C, but lessin comparison to Alternative B. It is anticipated thatthe potential for large-scale development relating tomining would be relatively low and existing mitigationmeasures (Appendix N3 of the Draft RMP/EIS) wouldreduce the significance of the effects.

The issuance of rights-of-way, leases, and permits, androad construction activities would have potentially thesame impacts as Alternatives A, B, and C. Landacquisition impacts would be the same as AlternativeC.

Alternative E

The effects of VRM designations in WSA’s would besimilar to Alternatives A, B, and C. No ACEC’s wouldbe designated, so visual qualities within these areaswould not receive the added protection, as underAlternatives C and D. All VRM designations in the

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM134


4 -135

remainder of the planning area would be revoked andnatural processes would be allowed to determine visualquality.

Commodity uses such as mining, grazing, commercialwood cutting, and other commodity uses would not beallowed. The potential for negative impacts in com-parison to all of the other alternatives would be re-duced significantly.

Negative impacts relating to initial attack and firesuppression would be higher than Alternatives A, B, C,or D because there would be a minimal level of time orresources used for these actions. However, fueltreatments would not occur, and the short-term impactsto visual qualities would be the lowest of all thealternatives.

Impacts from recreation uses would be minimizedcompared to all other alternatives. Site rehabilitationor closure would be the primary management actiontaken to prevent adverse impacts to visual qualities.Potential impacts from OHV uses would be lower thanunder any other alternative. The entire planning areawould be limited to travel on existing roads and trailsonly.

Summary of Impacts

The management goals for visual resources could bemet under all of the alternatives. With the exception ofAlternative E, there would be potential for negativeimpacts to occur on a site-specific basis from suchthings as proposed development, grazing, woodlandtreatments, OHV use, mining, recreation activities, andfire suppression activities. However, by followingBMP’s and mitigation (Appendices D and N3) forspecific projects, the degree or level of negativeimpacts on visual resources would be minimized.

The greatest protection for visual resources wouldoccur under Alternative E. Alternative B would havethe greatest potential for negatively impacting visualresources. Overall, Alternatives C and D are similar interms of the potential for negatively impacting visualresources. Alternatives C and D would provide agreater level of protection for visual resources thanAlternatives A and B.


With the western United States experiencing increasesin population, there is a corresponding increase in thepotential for proposed development, commodity uses,recreation activities (motorized and nonmotorized), and

the continuation of existing uses, such as grazing. It isnot anticipated that these increases and other uses andactivities would cumulatively have significant negativeimpacts on visual resources. Following BMP’s andmitigation (Appendices D and N3) for individualprojects, the overall effects or level of negative impactson visual resources would be minimized.

Energy and Mineral Resources

Assumptions

The allocations and management prescriptions forother resource programs affect availability of land forexploration and development of energy and mineralresources differently throughout the alternatives.Operating constraints on locatable, leasable, andsalable mineral activity vary from area to area acrossthese alternatives.

Future trends and assumptions, along with 15- to 20-year energy and mineral development scenarios for theplanning area, are discussed in detail in Appendix N2.It is assumed that the same level of interest in mineralexploration and development would be the samethrough all of the alternatives.

To assess the effects of various resource allocationsand management prescriptions through the alternatives,constraints have been divided into four categories: (1)closures, including withdrawals; (2) no-surface-occupancy (for leasable minerals); (3) standard require-ments or lease terms, and (4) additional restrictions,such as seasonal operating and controlled surface useconstraints. The closures are further divided intodiscretionary (under the control of BLM) andnondiscretionary (imposed by law, regulation, Secre-tarial decision, or Executive order). Tables 3-7 and 4-6show, by alternative, the acres of mineral estate of high,moderate, and low/unknown mineral potential availablefor, as well as restricted from, mineral exploration anddevelopment.

Management Goal 1—Provide opportunity for theexploration, location, development, and production oflocatable minerals in an environmentally-soundmanner. Eliminate and rehabilitate abandoned minehazards.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM135


4 - 136

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM136


4 -137

Analysis of Impacts


These alternatives provide the most land available forlocatable mineral exploration and development with thefewest restrictions, with Alternative B being lessrestrictive than Alternative A. Under Alternative A, 10percent of high-potential and 2 percent of moderate-potential locatable mineral lands would be closed,while 11 percent of high-potential and 71 percent ofmoderate-potential locatable mineral lands would beopen subject to additional restrictions (Table 4-6).

Under Alternative B, 0 percent of high-potential and 2percent of moderate-potential locatable mineral landswould be closed, and 11 percent of high-potential and71 percent of moderate-potential locatable minerallands would be open subject to additional restrictions.The Public Sunstone Collecting area would be open tomineral entry, which would make an additional 2,440acres of high-potential sunstone ground available formining claim location. An increase of up to 122mining claims would be anticipated. This could equateto 122 new, small sunstone operations or a few newlarge ones. The public would not be able to collectsunstones without the permission of the mining claim-ants.

Alternative C

Except for Alternative E, this alternative would be themost restrictive to the exploration and development ofmineral resources. Compared to Alternatives A and B,there would be less land available for mineral explora-tion and development and more restrictions on landsthat remain open. About 86 percent of high-potentialand 62 percent of moderate-potential mineral landswould be closed. About 5 percent of high-potential and34 percent of moderate-potential mineral lands wouldbe open, subject to additional restrictions (Table 4-6).

Alternative D

This alternative would provide for more mineral-related opportunities than Alternative C, but less thanAlternative B. About 10 percent of high-potential and2 percent of moderate-potential mineral lands would beclosed. About 29 percent of high-potential and 72percent of moderate-potential mineral lands would beopen subject to additional restrictions (Table 4-6; MapM-10).

Alternative E

This would be the most restrictive of all of the alterna-tives. The entire planning area (100 percent) would bewithdrawn from locatable mineral entry (Table 3-7).

Summary of Impacts

For locatable minerals, Alternative B, followed closelyby Alternative A, would close or restrict the leastamount of public land to locatable mineral exploration/development and therefore, would offer the greatestopportunity for these activities. Alternative E wouldclose the entire area. The remaining alternatives wouldbe intermediate in their overall effects to locatablemineral activity.

Management Goal 2—Provide leasing opportunityfor oil and gas, geothermal energy, and solid mineralsin an environmentally-sound manner.

Analysis of Impacts


These alternatives provide the most land available forleasable mineral exploration and development with thefewest restrictions, with Alternative B being lessrestrictive than Alternative A. Under Alternative A, 36percent of high-potential and 16 percent of moderate-potential fluid and solid leasable mineral lands wouldbe closed due to WSA status, and 52 percent of high-potential and 40 percent of moderate-potential landswould be open subject to the no-surface-occupancy orother stipulations due primarily to sensitive wildlifehabitat, visual quality, or cultural sites (Table 4-6).

Under Alternative B, 36 percent of high-potential and16 percent of moderate-potential fluid and solidleasable mineral lands would be closed due to WSAstatus, and 52 percent of high-potential and 39 percentof moderate-potential lands would be open subject tothe no-surface-occupancy or other stipulations dueprimarily to sensitive wildlife habitat, visual quality, orcultural sites (Table 4-6). This would be a minimalimpact to the exploration and development of leasableminerals.

Alternative C

Except for Alternative E, this alternative would be themost restrictive to the exploration and development ofleasable mineral resources. Compared to AlternativesA and B, there would be less land available for mineral

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM137


4 - 138

exploration and development, and more restrictions onlands that are open. About 36 percent of high-potentialand 19 percent of moderate-potential mineral landswould be closed due to WSA status. About 72 percentof high-potential and 81 percent of moderate-potentialmineral lands would be open subject to the no-surface-occupancy or other stipulations due primarily tosensitive wildlife habitat, visual quality, or culturalsites (Table 4-6). This would significantly reduce theamount of land available for exploration and develop-ment.

Alternative D

This alternative would provide for more leasablemineral-related opportunities than Alternative C, butless than Alternatives A and B. About 36 percent ofhigh-potential and 16 percent of moderate-potentialfluid and solid leasable mineral lands would be closeddue to WSA status, and 58 percent of high-potentialand 47 percent of moderate-potential mineral landswould be open subject to no-surface-occupancy andother stipulations due primarily to sensitive wildlifehabitat, visual quality, or cultural sites (Table 4-6; MapM-9).

Alternative E

This would be the most restrictive of all of the alterna-tives. Mineral leasing would not be allowed in theentire (100 percent) planning area (Table 3-7).

Summary of Impacts

Impacts to leasable mineral resources range from minorto extreme. Alternative B, followed closely by Alterna-tive A, would close or restrict the least amount ofpublic land to leasable mineral exploration and devel-opment and therefore, would offer the greatest opportu-nity for these activities. Alternative E would close theentire area. The remaining alternatives would beintermediate in their overall effects to leasable mineralactivity.

Management Goal 3—In an environmentally-soundmanner, meet the demands of local, state, and Fed-eral agencies, and the public, for mineral materialfrom public lands.

Analysis of Impacts


These alternatives provide the most land available for

salable mineral exploration and development with thefewest restrictions. Under both Alternatives A and B,94 percent of high-potential and 48 percent of moder-ate-potential mineral lands would be closed dueprimarily to WSA status, greater sage-grouse leks,sensitive plants, and cultural sites. About 3 percent ofhigh-potential and 9 percent of moderate-potentiallands would be open, but subject to other restrictionsdue primarily to sensitive wildlife and visual quality(Table 4-6). Opening the Devils Garden to salablemineral disposal would be a significant positive impacton the availability of decorative stone such as slab lava,should the area be released from wilderness study byCongress.

Alternative C

Except for Alternative E, this alternative would be themost restrictive to exploration and development ofmineral material resources. Compared to AlternativesA and B, there would be less land available for salablemineral exploration and development and more restric-tions on lands that are open. About 98 percent of high-potential and 94 percent of moderate-potential salablemineral lands would be closed due primarily to WSAstatus, greater sage-grouse leks, sensitive plants, andcultural sites. About 1 percent of high-potential and 6percent of moderate-potential lands would be open, butsubject to other restrictions due primarily to sensitivewildlife and visual quality (Table 4-6). This would bea significant reduction in the availability of salablemineral material sites.

Alternative D

This alternative would provide for more salablemineral opportunities than Alternative C, but less thanAlternative B. About 91 percent of high-potential and44 percent of moderate-potential salable mineral landswould be closed due primarily to WSA status, greatersage-grouse leks, sensitive plants, and cultural sites.About 91 percent of high-potential and 44 percent ofmoderate-potential lands would be open, but subject toother restrictions due primarily to sensitive wildlife andvisual quality (Table 4-6; Map M-8). The amountremaining open would meet public demand.

Alternative E

This would be the most restrictive of all of the alterna-tives. All of the planning area (100 percent), includingexisting pits and quarries, would be closed (Table 3-7).The disposal of salable minerals would be allowed onlyfor critical road construction and in case of emergen-cies, such as flood or erosion control.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM138


4 -139

Summary of Impacts

Impacts to salable mineral resources range from minorto extreme. Both Alternatives A and B would close orrestrict the least amount of public land to salablemineral exploration and development and therefore,would offer the greatest opportunity for these activities.Alternative E would close the entire area. The remain-ing alternatives would be intermediate in their overalleffects to mineral activity.


The most favorable condition for exploration anddevelopment of mineral resources would occur with asfew restrictions as possible. Individuals and companiesinvolved in exploration and development face numer-ous environmental obligations to comply with standardrequirements and lease and sale terms. Any additionalmeasures for mitigation of disturbance to lands andnonmineral resources bring about even greater impactsto mineral exploration and development. Compliancewith applicable environmental laws and regulations canadd costs and delays, resulting in adverse effects toexploration and mining that cannot be avoided. Theimposition of discretionary mitigation measuresgenerally adds more costs to mineral exploration anddevelopment, thereby increasing the adverse effects tothese programs. No-surface-occupancy stipulationsmay be appropriate for small areas where directionaldrilling may be feasible (up to 0.5 miles). For largeareas covering many square miles, such as the proposedRahilly-Gravelly ACEC and existing Abert LakeACEC, no-surface-occupancy stipulations effectivelyclose the area to mineral operations. In addition,seasonal restrictions could result in access times beingtoo short for effective exploration and development.When one considers land currently closed to mineraloperations, such as wildlife refuges, military withdraw-als, and new special management proposals that restrictor preclude mineral operations such as WSA’s andACEC’s, it is clear that cumulative impacts would besignificant under the more restrictive alternatives.

Numerous mining notices, plans of operation, andoccupancies could occur in the sunstone area. Withevery additional notice/plan/occupancy, impacts to thevegetation, wildlife, and visual resources of the areaincrease. Due to the open nature of the landscape, thisarea is visible for considerable distances. As thenumber of occupancies increase, the area could becomenoticeable from viewpoints on Hart Mountain andalong other vantage points. In addition, the accumula-tion of impacts from these mining-related activities,grazing, and recreation could be substantial. It is

difficult to project the actual number of acres thatwould be impacted from all of these activities. How-ever, in 20 years the total cumulative surface distur-bance from exploration, mining, and occupancycombined could reach 660 acres. Because of concur-rent reclamation, it is unlikely that more than 160 acresof unreclaimed surface disturbance would exist at anygiven time.

The planning area would be open to mineral entryunder Alternatives A–D. As long as the prospector/miner met the requirements of the general mining lawsand “Federal Land Policy and Management Act”(FLPMA) and the relevant regulations, exploration,mining, and occupancy could not be denied. Compli-ance with relevant laws, regulations, restrictionsimposed by the preferred Alternative D, and imple-menting appropriate mitigating measures (AppendicesD and N3 of the Draft RMP/EIS), would minimizecumulative adverse impacts.

Some irreversible and irretrievable commitment ofresources would occur and include the amounts ofmineral commodities removed, such as sand, gravel,perlite, decorative stone, sunstones, and diatomite.Geothermal energy (heat) is a renewable resource that,over time, is replenished by the decay of radioactiveminerals and heat-producing chemical reactions.

Lands and Realty

Management Goal 1—Retain public land with highpublic resource values. Consolidate public landinholdings and acquire land or interests in land withhigh public resource values to ensure effectiveadministration and improve resource management.Acquired land would be managed for the purpose forwhich it was acquired. Make available for disposalpublic land within Zone 3 by State indemnity selec-tion, private or state exchange, “Recreation andPublic Purpose Act” lease or sale, public sale, orother authorized method, as applicable.

Assumptions

The Lands and Realty program is a support function forother resource programs. Consequently, impacts to theprogram are a direct result of the management empha-sis of other resource programs. Land tenure actionswould be directed to a point ranging from fully devel-oping commodities to preserving natural values asdictated by other resource programs.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM139


4 - 140

Lands being considered for disposal are placed in Zone3 and are specifically identified, by alternative, onMaps L-1, -3, -4 of the Draft RMP/EIS, L-5, andAppendix O2. Contingent upon site-specific NEPAanalysis and inventory for sensitive resource values,any of the land identified as suitable for disposal couldbe transferred from Federal ownership. Disposalwould usually be by exchange or sale; however, thepreferred method of disposal would be by exchange.Any acquired land or acquired interest in land would bemanaged for the purpose for which it was acquired orin the same manner as adjacent or comparable publicland.

None of the alternatives would result in significant, netchanges in Federal ownership patterns due to the taxbase equalization requirements of the 1992 “InteriorAppropriations Act.”

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Land sales would be limited to those parcels identifiedin existing management framework plans (approxi-mately 42,500 acres; Map L-1 of the Draft RMP/EIS).Land sales could increase county(s) tax revenues byadding land to the tax rolls and could increase manage-ment flexibility in resolving situations involving surveyerrors and hiatuses and unauthorized uses. Land tenureadjustment by exchange would be allowed when therewould be no significant resource conflict on theselected BLM-administrative parcels and the offeredlands possess desirable resources. An emphasis onacquiring land with high resource values, such as landswithin WSA’s or ACEC’s, threatened or endangeredspecies habitat, riparian or wetland areas, etc., wouldbe of primary consideration.

Management of special status species, either plant oranimal, could limit or eliminate certain disposals andexchanges. Proposed land tenure adjustments may notbe allowed in order to protect special status specieshabitat. Proposed land tenure adjustments may not becarried out in order to retain high value habitat inFederal ownership.

Proposals involving the consolidation of split-estatewould be considered on a case-by-case basis. Actionsthat dispose of isolated, difficult to manage parcels andacquire inholdings or other parcels that “block up”large areas would improve overall management effi-ciency.

Alternative B

The major emphasis of land tenure adjustment wouldbe for commodity production. Decisions to retain ordispose of public land or to acquire private land wouldbe based on the opportunity to enhance commodityproduction. Exchanges may not result in the acquisi-tion of land possessing high public resource values. Insome cases, resource values (i.e., riparian and wildlifehabitat) could be lost from public ownership if shownto benefit commodity production. Implementation ofthis proposal would limit disposal opportunities toapproximately 54,800 acres (Map L-3 of the DraftRMP/EIS), which would be an increase above the levelof Alternative A. The benefits derived from land saleswould be similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except themajor emphasis of land tenure adjustment would beretention/acquisition of land with high public resourcevalue. Decisions to retain or dispose of public land orto acquire private land would be based on the quality ofpublic resource values. Implementation of this pro-posal would reduce the disposal opportunities toapproximately 7,500 acres (Map L-4 of the Draft RMP/EIS), lower than either Alternative A or B. The ben-efits derived from land sales would also be reduced.Under certain circumstances, disposal of small parcelsof public land would be permitted in Zones 1 and 2.The consolidation of split-ownership surface andsubsurface estates would be pursued on a case-by-casebasis to facilitate more efficient and effective manage-ment of public land.

Alternative D

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C,except the main emphasis for land tenure adjustmentwould be to protect and improve natural values whileproviding commodity production (Map L-5).

Alternative E

Public land would be retained and only considered fordisposal on a case-by-case basis.

Summary of Impacts

Management goals would be achieved under allalternatives except Alternative E. Land sales opportu-nities would be greatest in Zone 3 under Alternatives Aand B, approximately 42,500 acres and 54,800 acres,

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM140


4 -141

respectively. Exchanges and acquisitions in other landzones would be allowed to meet other resource objec-tives. Implementing Alternative B, land tenure adjust-ments would emphasize retention/acquisition ofcommodity producing land. Significant public re-source values, such as riparian and wildlife habitat,may potentially be lost from public ownership. UnderAlternatives C and D, land tenure adjustments wouldemphasize retention/acquisition of land high in re-source value. Disposal opportunities would be greatlyreduced from Alternatives A and B, which in turnwould limit the potential for private land acquisition bylimiting the pool of public disposal lands necessary tomaintain the required public/private land ownershipratio in the planning area. Under Alternative E, therewould be little to no land acquisition, and the majorityof the public lands would be retained and only consid-ered for disposal on a case-by-case basis.

Management Goal 2—Meet public needs for land useauthorizations, such as rights-of-way, leases, andpermits.

Assumptions

Section 503 of the FLPMA provides for the designationof right-of-way corridors and encourages the use ofrights-of-way in common to minimize environmentalimpacts and the proliferation of separate rights-of-way.BLM policy encourages prospective applicants tolocate their proposals within existing corridors. How-ever, when right-of-way corridor proposals are inconflict with SMA's, such as WSA’s and ACEC’s, theseareas should be avoided.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

There would be no impacts to the continued designa-tion of existing right-of-way corridors. However, thoseareas identified as exclusion or avoidance areas (MapL-2 of the Draft RMP/EIS) would restrict the locationof new rights-of-way and other land use authorizations.

Management of wildlife, fish, or their habitat couldimpact new rights-of-way and other land use authoriza-tions. In order to protect certain habitats, rights-of-waymay not be granted or may have to be rerouted, makingthem more costly and resulting in additional distur-bance to the landscape.

Management of special status plant or animal species,and cultural and paleontological resources could placerestrictions on the location of rights-of-way and other

land use authorizations. Rights-of-way may not begranted or have to be rerouted, resulting in additionaldisturbance to the landscape.

Management of some existing ACEC’s and all WSA’sas avoidance or exclusion areas, respectively, wouldhave a minimal impact on the placement of new rights-of-way, since most of the planning area would still beopen to new rights-of-way.

Managing areas as VRM Class I would eliminate theplacement of rights-of-way and other land use authori-zations for powerlines and pipelines, since theseactions would be a visible change to the landscape.Since VRM I areas coincide primarily with existingWSA’s, the location of new rights-of-way would alsobe excluded by the wilderness IMP (USDI-BLM1995b). These types of activities would have to berelocated to other areas, which could result in longerlines, additional cost, and greater total disturbance tothe landscape.

Alternative B

This alternative would voluntarily restrict the locationof facilities if applicants are encouraged to locatewithin designated corridors. Centralizing could makethe facilities more vulnerable to terrorist activities, butwould also confine surface and visual disturbance toexisting corridors and rights-of-way.

Impacts from management of special status species,cultural and paleontological resources, wildlife, fish,and their habitat would be the same as Alternative A.

There would be one additional SMA (Connley Hills)that would further restrict the location of new rights-of-way in a small portion of the planning area (Map L-6 ofthe Draft RMP/EIS). Two existing right-of-wayavoidance areas present in Alternative A would beremoved. WSA’s would continue to managed as right-of-way exclusion areas.

Management of VRM Class I areas would impactrights-of-way the same as Alternative A.

Alternative C

All linear rights-of-way for electrical transmission linesgreater than 69 kilovolts, all mainline fiberopticsfacilities, and all pipelines greater than 10 incheswould be confined to designated corridors. This wouldcentralize all major energy-related transmission facili-ties, making them more vulnerable to terrorist activi-ties, but would confine surface and visual disturbance

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM141


4 - 142

to existing corridors. This alternative would designateall existing electrical transmission lines, except thesouth corridor, identified in the “Western UtilitiesCorridor Study” (Western Utility Group 1993) andsome county roads as rights-of-way corridors andwould reduce the minimum standard corridor width to1,000 feet (Map L-7 of the Draft RMP/EIS).

The impacts associated with management of specialplant and animal species, fish and aquatic habitat,cultural and paleontological resources, and VRM ClassI areas would be the same as Alternative A.

Most big game winter range and all greater sage-grousehabitat would become right-of-way avoidance areas.More existing and proposed SMA's, compared to bothAlternatives A and B, would be considered right-of-way exclusion areas. This would effectively limit thelocation of new rights-of-way or other land use authori-zations in most of the planning area to existing corri-dors.

Alternative D

The impacts associated with management of specialplant and animal species, fish and aquatic habitat,cultural and paleontological resources, VRM Class Iareas, and WSA’s would be the same as Alternative A.

The overall impacts would be greater than AlternativesA or B, but less than Alternative C because greatersage-grouse breeding habitat and existing and proposedACEC/RNA’s would be considered right-of-wayavoidance areas (Map L-8).

Alternative E

This alternative would not meet management goalobjectives since new rights-of way would be excludedfrom the entire planning area.

Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A and B would be the least restrictive ofall the alternatives. Alternative B would designate allexisting transmission lines, except the south corridor,in the “Western Utilities Corridor Study” (WesternUtility Group 1993) and some county roads as right-of-way corridors and would establish a minimum standardcorridor width of 2,000 feet. Alternative C would bethe most restrictive of all the alternatives, exceptAlternative E, which considers the entire planning areaas a right-of-way exclusion area. Alternative C wouldinclude most big game winter range and all greater

sage-grouse habitat as a right-of-way avoidance areaand mandates the location of all new large energy-related transmission facilities within designatedcorridors. It also would reduce the minimum standardcorridor width to 1,000 feet. Alternative D would placeall ACEC/RNA’s and all greater sage-grouse breedinghabitat into right-of-way avoidance areas. UnderAlternative E, the entire planning area would beconsidered a right-of-way exclusion area. Managementgoals would be met under all alternatives, exceptAlternative E.

Management Goal 3—Acquire public and adminis-trative access to public land where it does not cur-rently exist.

Assumptions

Section 205 of the FLPMA authorizes the Secretary ofthe Interior to acquire lands and interest in landsconsistent with the mission of the Department ofInterior and with applicable land use plans. Anyacquired interest in land would be managed for thepurpose for which it was acquired or in the samemanner as adjacent or comparable public land. Allroadways/improvements constructed as a result of theacquisition of lands or interest in lands would besubject to NEPA analysis prior to actual construction.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

This action would ensure the continued access topublic land for administrative purposes, therebyallowing management of resources on all parcels ofpublic land. Constructing new roads around privatelands where easement acquisition is not feasible wouldprovide management the flexibility to create access topublic lands, as necessary.

Alternative B

The emphasis would shift from providing access foradministrative purposes to acquiring access to publiclands high in commodity value. This would allowincreased access for management, extraction, or use ofcommodity resources on public lands. This wouldemphasize constructing new roads around private landsto facilitate commodity development and would foregoopportunities to access other public land with signifi-cant resource values.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM142


4 -143

Alternative C

The BLM would acquire access where public demandand administrative need exists and construct roadsaround private land, if necessary, to secure access.Emphasis for access acquisition would be for theprotection of natural values.

Alternative D

Access would be acquired where public demand andadministrative need exists. New roads would beconstructed around private land, if necessary, to secureaccess. Emphasis for access acquisition would be toprovide access to public lands containing high resourcevalues.

Alternative E

New access would only be acquired and road construc-tion performed, as prescribed and mandated by law orfor public health and safety.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative A is a continuation of present management.Access acquisition would emphasize providing accessto BLM-administrative facilities and program-relatedactivities. Alternative B would provide for acquiringaccess to public lands high in commodity value.Alternatives C and D would provide for acquiringaccess to protect natural values and to areas containinghigh resource values. Alternative E would provide foracquiring no new access unless mandated by law. Allalternatives would provide for the option of construct-ing new roads around private lands when easementacquisition is not feasible. Management goals could bemet under all alternatives. However, under AlternativeE, meeting the goal would be met only where access isrequired by law or for public safety.

Management Goal 4—Utilize withdrawal actionswith the least restrictive measures necessary toaccomplish the required purposes.

Assumptions

Section 204 of FLPMA gives the Secretary of theInterior the authority to make, modify, extend, orrevoke withdrawals, and mandates review of existingwithdrawals. The Department of the Interior Policy(DM 603) requires that: (1) all withdrawals be kept toa minimum, (2) lands shall be available for other publicuses to the fullest extent possible, and (3) a current and

continuing review of existing withdrawals shall beinstituted.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

Alternative A is a continuation of the present situation.Withdrawals have been periodically reviewed in thepast and revoked when no longer needed. This practicewould continue.

Alternative B

This alternative would revoke the most existing with-drawals and be the least restrictive and least impactingon commodity or recreation related activities. How-ever, it would afford the least protection of thoseresources where withdrawal may be deemed necessary.

Alternative C

Most existing withdrawals would remain. Red KnollACEC would be proposed for withdrawal. This wouldrender approximately 11,600 additional acres unavail-able for operation under the public land and mininglaws, but the area would still be available for mineralleasing.

Alternative D

Most existing withdrawals would remain. Partialwithdrawal of the Red Knoll ACEC would renderapproximately 4,600 acres unavailable for operationunder the public land and mining laws but would bestill be available for mineral leasing.

Alternative E

The remainder of the planning area would be with-drawn from the public land, mining and mineral leasinglaws. This alternative would provide the most protec-tion to natural resource values.

Summary of Impacts

In accordance with Department of Interior policy,management goals would be achieved under Alterna-tives A, C, and D. Alternatives B and E would beinconsistent with the management goals and Depart-ment of Interior policy. Alternative B would not allowany new lands to be withdrawn unless required by law,and would revoke all existing water reserves. UnderAlternative C, the entire Red Knoll ACEC would be

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM143


4 - 144

withdrawn from the public land and mining laws.Under Alternative D, less than half of the Red KnollACEC would be withdrawn. Alternative E wouldwithdraw the entire planning area, rendering it unavail-able for operation under the public land, mining, andmineral leasing laws. This alternative would providethe most resource protection.


Generally, the BLM and other Federal land manage-ment agencies operate under a no net loss policy inregard to land tenure adjustments. Therefore, thesecondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts relative toManagement Goal 1 are considered negligible. MostFederal land management agencies having land tenureadjustment programs strive to maintain the existingprivate/public land ownership ratio within their respec-tive jurisdictional areas. State land managementagencies may not operate under a no net loss policy,and if so, the disposal of state lands without replace-ment would increase the private land base within theplanning area.

With the exception of Alternative E, the secondary,indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with thelocation of rights-of-way (Management Goal 2) wouldbe similar for all the alternatives. Alternatives A–Dwould not prevent the location of new rights-of-way,but would restrict their location in certain areas toprotect resource values. Excluding or avoiding certainareas from the location of rights-of-way could lessenthe impact to a particular resource of high public value,but would not lessen the physical alteration of thelandscape necessary to accommodate rights-of-way.The cumulative impact associated with rights-of-waywould be a function of demand, the number, and acresoccupied. Alternatives A–D would not affect thedemand for or number of rights-of-way but onlyrelocate the physical impact of new rights-of-wayauthorized. The more rights-of-way granted by landmanagement agencies (Federal and state), as well asprivate easements, the more cumulative impact wouldoccur on the landscape. Alternative E would not allowthe location of new rights-of-way in the planning area,and therefore, secondary, indirect, and cumulativeimpacts would be negligible.

The secondary, indirect, and cumulative impactsassociated with the acquisition of access rights (ease-ments) (Management Goal 3) and the holders of suchrights would include Federal and state land manage-ment agencies, as well as private entities. AlternativesA–D would not increase the demand for access acquisi-tion but would establish the motivation for future

acquisitions. The more easements acquired, through allsources, the more potential for road construction, andconsequently, the more cumulative impact to thelandscape. Alternative E would only allow accessrights to be acquired as mandated by law or necessaryto protect public health and safety. The secondary,indirect, and cumulative impacts would be considerednegligible.

The BLM is the only Federal agency with the authorityto withdraw public lands (Management Goal 4);therefore, all withdrawal requests from other Federalagencies would be processed by the BLM. The level ofcumulative impact associated with withdrawals wouldbe relative to the number of acres withdrawn, therestrictiveness of the withdrawal, and the public’sposition on the issue. Public lands are withdrawneither to set an area aside for a specific use or to affordvaluable resources additional protection. Generally,withdrawals exclude land from appropriation under thepublic land, mining, and mineral leasing laws. Thiswould impact commodity production and other human-related uses of the area.

Roads/Transportation

Management Goal—Maintain existing roads on theplanning area transportation plan and other roads toprovide administrative or public access to public land.Construct new roads using best management prac-tices (BMP’s) and appropriate mitigation to provideadministrative, permitted, and recreational access asneeded. Close roads that are not longer needed orthat are causing resource damage.

Assumptions

• Based on past and present road maintenancebudgets, approximately 100 miles of roads wouldbe maintained each year, regardless of the alterna-tive.

• Not all roads on the transportation plan would bemaintained over the life of the plan.

Analysis of Impacts

Alternative A

The continuation of existing management would haveno impact on the maintenance of existing roads. Anaverage of approximately 100 miles of roads wouldcontinue to be maintained each year. The total number

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM144


4 -145

of miles actually maintained annually would be basedon the amount of funding received in the road mainte-nance budget. Roads not maintained would deteriorate,which could result in resource damage, such as erosion.Non-maintained roads could also be used less sincethey would be more difficult to drive, thereby provid-ing less access to the planning area.

New roads would be constructed on a case-by-case, as-needed basis. Construction of roads around privatelands to access BLM-administered lands would providelegal public and agency access. This could reduceconflicts with private landowners and reduce damageto private lands. New roads could be constructedacross BLM-administered land by other land holdersunder a rights-of-way grant to access non-Federal land.Total new road construction would not exceed 20 milesover the life of the plan.

Roads would continue to be closed on a case-by-casebasis to prevent major resource damage. Roads, trails,or ways permanently closed in the past would continueto be closed. Another 164 miles of roads and trailswould continue to be seasonally closed in deer winterrange (Table 4-4). This would limit motorized accessprimarily in some SMA's, but would be a relativelyminor impact when compared to the access provided byapproximately 5,000 miles of roads and trails thatremain open on BLM lands within the planning area.

Alternative B

Impacts of road maintenance and new road construc-tion would be similar to Alternative A. Priorities formaintenance would be those roads that would facilitatecommodity production. Any new roads constructed onBLM-administered land, whether constructed by theBLM, another agency, or a private individual, would beconstructed using appropriate BMP’s (Appendix D) toprotect adjacent land and resources. Total new roadconstruction would not exceed 30 miles.

The impacts of road closures would be the same asAlternative A (Table 4-4).

Alternative C

The priorities for road maintenance would be thoseroads that are causing resource damage such as erosion.As a result, resource damage caused by roads woulddecrease. Construction of new roads around privatelands to access BLM-administered lands would providelegal public and agency access. This could reduceconflicts with private landowners and reduce damageto private lands. New road construction, whether for

BLM needs or to access non-Federal land, would likelynot exceed 20 miles over the life of the plan. Any newroads constructed on BLM-administered land would beconstructed using appropriate BMP’s (Appendix D) toprotect soil, watershed, riparian areas, and otherresources. New roads would not be constructed in ornear riparian conservation areas. This would limit, to asmall extent, the placement of new roads.

There would be a concerted effort to close unneededroads or roads damaging other resources. As a result,road closures would be greatest under this alternative.Approximately 211 additional miles of roads and trailswould be permanently closed in SMA's. A total ofabout 239 miles of roads and trails would be seasonallyclosed in mule deer winter range (Table 4-4). Roadsclosed but not obliterated could still be used forauthorized or permitted purposes. Roads closed andrehabilitated, either naturally or artificially, would beclosed to future traffic. This would limit motorizedaccess more than Alternatives A and B, primarily inSMA's, but would be a relatively minor impact whencompared to the access provided by approximately5,000 miles of roads and trails that would remain openon BLM lands within the planning area.

Alternative D

The impacts of road maintenance, construction, androad and trail closures would be similar to AlternativeC. However, new permanent road and trail closureswould total about 58 miles, primarily in SMA's.Seasonal road and trail closures would total about 288miles in mule deer winter range (Table 4-4; MapsSMA-5 to SMA-31). This would limit motorizedaccess more than Alternatives A and B, and slightly lessthan Alternative C, but would be a relatively minorimpact when compared to the access provided byapproximately 5,000 miles of roads and trails thatwould remain open on BLM lands within the planningarea.

Alternative E

Impacts would be minimal, since maintenance wouldoccur only to protect human health and safety or asrequired by law. This criteria would apply to very fewroads in the planning area. New roads would not beconstructed unless required by law or to provide accessto non-Federal property. Such construction would notexceed 20 miles over the life of the plan. Any newroads constructed on BLM-administered land, whetherconstructed by the BLM, another agency, or a privateindividual, would be constructed using appropriateBMP’s (Appendix D) to protect soil, watershed,

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM145


4 - 146

riparian areas, and other resources.

Roads, trails, or ways permanently closed in the pastwould continue to be closed. The impacts on accesswould be similar to Alternative A. The permanentclosure of about 5 miles of existing roads and trails(Table 4-4) would be a relatively minor impact whencompared to the access provided by approximately5,000 miles of roads and trails that would remain openon BLM lands within the planning area. With theremoval of livestock grazing and range improvements,a number of unneeded roads, ways, and trails could beclosed in the future.

Summary of Impacts

Impacts would be similar under all alternatives, withthe fewest impacts occurring under Alternative E andthe most potentially occurring under Alternative B.Priorities for maintenance would vary across thealternatives, but would depend primarily on the annualroad maintenance budget. Not all roads would bemaintained over the life of the plan under any alterna-tive. As a result, some roads could deteriorate to thepoint of causing resource damage or being impassable.

New road construction would be greatest under Alter-native B and would not exceed 30 miles under any ofthe other alternatives. In Alternatives B–E, newconstruction would be done using appropriate BMP’s(Appendix D) to protect adjacent resources.

The management goal would be met under all thealternatives except Alternative E.

Road closures would occur under all alternatives withthe most miles of closure occurring under AlternativeC. Most of these closures would be associated withSMA's.


Roads that are not maintained over the life of the planbecause of lower priorities could deteriorate to thepoint that they would be impassable, thereby reducingaccess to some parts of the planning area. Often thesetypes of roads eventually cause resource damage, suchas erosion.

New road construction could open parts of the planningarea that currently do not have access. This couldresult in use by recreationists that could result inwildlife disturbance, soil and vegetation disturbance,erosion, and loss of solitude in an area.

The Fremont National Forest has an active, ongoingprogram of closing roads that are not needed forcommercial or administrative purposes or that may becausing resource damage. This program, coupled withroad closures on BLM lands, could have a significantpositive impact on particular watersheds by reducingaccess, resulting in less compaction, less vegetationdisturbance, and less erosion. These effects would bemost beneficial in those watersheds shared by both theBLM and the Fremont National Forest.

Chap4_1003.p65 11/7/2002, 4:39 PM146

environmental consequences chapter 4 — environmental ......wild horse management areas pose...

Documents