FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
RABBIT BASIN (00516) AND ABERT SEEDING (00522) ALLOTMENTS
GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL
DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2013-0003-EA
The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Lakeview Resource Area (BLM), has analyzed several
alternative proposals related to renewing term grazing permit number 2601272, maintaining existing range
improvements, and constructing new range improvements within the Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments.
The Rabbit Basin Allotment is located approximately 14 air miles north of Plush, Oregon (EA Map 1). There are
approximately 32,270 acres of BLM-administered land and 400 acres of other land within the allotment. Abert
Seeding Allotment is located approximately 60 air miles north of Lakeview, Oregon (EA Map 1). There are
approximately 9,005 acres of BLM-administered lands within the three pastures analyzed in this EA.
The attached environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that analyzed the potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts of four alternatives. The alternatives analyzed included No Action (continue
current grazing), Management Changes and Project Development, Reduced Preference, and No Grazing (see pages
8-15 of attached EA).
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations state that the significance of impacts must be determined
in terms of both context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). The context of the proposed project is the Rabbit Basin
(00516) and Abert Seeding (00522) Allotments. For this reason, the analysis of impacts in the attached
Environmental Assessment (EA) is focused appropriately at this scale. The CEQ regulations also include the
following ten considerations for evaluating the intensity of impacts:
1)
Yes
Would any of the alternatives have significant beneficial or adverse impacts (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)? ( )
(X) No
Rationale: Based on the analysis contained in the attached EA, none of the four alternatives would have either
significant beneficial or adverse impacts on the human environment. There are no prime or unique farmlands,
riparian areas, perennial streams, fisheries, water quality, forest/woodlands, federally listed plant or animal species,
wild horse management areas, wild and scenic rivers, significant caves, designated wilderness areas, other areas with
wilderness characteristics, or hazardous waste sites located in the project area. No measureable impacts would
occur to air quality, climate, floodplains, land tenure, or mineral and energy resources (page 16).
The potential impacts to soils, biological soil crusts, upland vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, special status species,
livestock grazing management, Native American concerns, cultural resources, recreation, visual resources,
wilderness study areas, areas of environmental concern, and social and economic values anticipated by the various
alternatives have been analyzed in detail within Chapter 3 of the attached EA and found not to be significant (pages
15-60).
2)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on public health and safety (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(2)? ( ) Yes (X ) No
Rationale: None of the four alternatives analyzed in detail in the attached EA would have significant impacts on
public health or safety because the project area is not located near any populated rural or urban area. For this reason,
there would also be no impacts to low income or minority populations. Further, there are no known hazardous waste
sites in the project area. There would be no measureable impacts to air quality within and surrounding the project
area. There are no perennial streams or surface drinking water sources located in the project area (Table 3-1, page
16).
3)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on unique geographic characteristics
(cultural or historic resources, park lands, prime and unique farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, designated
wilderness or wilderness study areas, or ecologically critical areas (ACECs, RNAs, significant caves)) (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(3)? ( ) Yes (X ) No
Rationale: There are no park lands, prime or unique farmlands, wetlands or riparian areas, wild and scenic rivers,
significant caves, designated wilderness areas, or RNAs located in the project area (Table 3-1, page 16). There is
approximately 470 acres of the Abert Rim WSA/ACEC located in the southern portion of the Abert Seeding
Allotment. Impacts to these special management areas were evaluated in the attached EA and found to be minor
(pages 52-55).
4)
Would any of the alternatives have highly controversial effects (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise planning, analyzing impacts, and implementing range management
actions such as those proposed by the four alternatives addressed in the attached EA. The potential impacts of these
range management actions on soils, biological soil crusts, upland vegetation, wildlife, special status species,
livestock grazing management, Native American concerns, cultural resources, recreation, visual resources, or social
and economic values can be reasonably predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. The attached
EA analyzed these impacts (pages 15-60). The nature of these impacts is not highly controversial, nor is there
substantial dispute within the scientific community regarding the nature of these effects.
The public has been notified of its opportunity to review and comment on the analysis of effects. The BLM is not
currently aware of any potential highly controversial effects, as defined under 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4), but will
review any comments received and address any substantive comments prior to signing this FONSI.
5)
Would any of the alternatives have highly uncertain effects or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(5)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise planning, analyzing impacts, and implementing range management
actions such as those proposed by the four alternatives addressed in the attached EA. The potential impacts of these
range management actions on soils, biological soil crusts, upland vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, special status
species, livestock grazing management, native American concerns, cultural resources, recreation, visual resources,
WSA, ACEC, or social and economic values can be reasonably predicted based on existing science and professional
expertise. The attached EA analyzed these impacts (pages 15-60). The nature of these impacts is not highly
uncertain nor does it involve unique or unknown risks.
6)
Would any of the alternatives establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(6)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise planning, analyzing impacts, and implementing range management
actions such as those proposed by the four alternatives addressed in the attached EA. None of the alternative actions
represents a new, precedent-setting range management technique or would establish a precedent for future similar
actions with potentially significant effects.
7)
Are any of the alternatives related to other actions with potentially significant cumulative impacts (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(7)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: Based on the analysis contained within the Cumulative Effects section of Chapter 3 of the attached EA,
none of the four alternatives would have significant cumulative effects, even when added to the effects of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (pages 56-60).
8)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on scientific, cultural, or historic resources,
including those listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)?
( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: There are no known areas of native American religious concern or important traditional use areas
located within either allotment. Potential impacts to cultural resources have been analyzed in Chapter 3 of the
attached EA and found not to be significant (pages 42-46).
9)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species or their
critical habitat (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(9)? ( ) Yes
(X) No
Rationale: There are no threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat within the allotments (Table
3-1, page 16).
10)
Would any of the alternatives have effects that threaten to violate Federal, State, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(10)? ( ) Yes
(X) No
Rationale: All of the four alternatives analyzed in the attached EA comply with all Federal, State, and local
environmental laws or other environmental requirements, including the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that any action that BLM implements must also conform
with the current land use plan and other applicable plans and policies. The purpose and need for the proposed action
conforms with the management direction contained in the Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of
Decision. The alternatives that were analyzed in the EA conform to the management direction requirements of this
plan and the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands
Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington, the Greater SageGrouse Conservation Strategy and Assessment for Oregon, the Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies
and Procedures, and the grazing regulations (43 CFR Part 4100) in varying degrees. Conformance with this
direction will be addressed in more detail within the proposed decision as this represents important decision factors
that must be considered in making the final decision (EA pages 3-8).
Finding
On the basis of the analysis contained in the attached EA, the consideration of intensity factors described above, and
all other available information, my determination is that none of the alternatives analyzed would constitute a major
federal action which would have significant adverse or beneficial impacts on the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is unnecessary and will not be prepared.
________________________________
Thomas E. Rasmussen, Field Manager
Lakeview Resource Area
_________________
Date
RABBIT BASIN (00516) AND
ABERT SEEDING (00522)
ALLOTMENTS
GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2013-0003-EA
Lakeview Resource Area
Bureau of Land Management
1301 South G Street
Lakeview, Oregon 97630
June 2013
RABBIT BASIN AND ABERT SEEDING ALLOTMENTS
GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL
ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2013-0003-EA
CHAPTER I: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A.
Introduction
The Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Environmental
Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential effects of renewing term grazing permit #2601272 for a
ten-year period. This permit addresses grazing management within the Rabbit Basin Allotment
(#00516) and a portion (three pastures: Center East, Center West and South) of the Abert Seeding
Allotment (#00522). This EA is a site-specific analysis of potential impacts that would result with
the implementation of the proposed alternatives. This EA serves as the analytical basis for
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as well as making the
determination as to whether any significant impacts to the human environment would result from
the proposal.
Rabbit Basin Allotment
The Rabbit Basin Allotment is located approximately 14 air miles north of Plush, Oregon (Map 1).
Elevation across the allotment ranges from 4,541 feet to 5,367 feet above sea level. There are
approximately 32,270 acres of BLM-administered land and 400 acres of other land within the
allotment. The allotment is divided into two pastures: Hogback Pasture which is approximately
7,573 acres and Sunstone Pasture which is 24,696 acres (Map 1). The allotment is grazed under
one permit (#2601272). Under this grazing permit, the current season of use for the allotment is
from October 17 through April 15 with 1,846 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of active use, and 0
AUMs suspended use.
Rabbit Basin Allotment is an "Improve" category allotment, which means that a high level of
management effort should be given to maintain condition and/or affect change. In 2003, an
Interdisciplinary Team (ID) conducted a Rangeland Health Standard assessment within the Rabbit
Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments. The ID team found that the allotments and pastures analyzed
in this EA are meeting rangeland health standards (BLM 2003c; 2013a). The findings of these
assessments are summarized in Table 3-10 and are incorporated in their entirety herein by
reference.
Abert Seeding Allotment
Abert Seeding Allotment is located approximately 60 air miles north of Lakeview, Oregon (Map
1). Elevation across the allotment ranges from 4,600 feet to 5,600 feet above sea level. The
allotment is divided into five pastures: Highway, Leehmann, Center East, Center West, and South.
Two grazing permits exist for this allotment; for the purposes of this EA, only the Center East,
Center West and South Pastures will be evaluated, and may be referred to hereafter as the Abert
2
Seeding Allotment. The three pastures are grazed under the same permit (#2601272).
There are approximately 9,005 acres of BLM-administered lands within the three pastures
analyzed in this EA. The current season of use runs from March 1 through June 30, with 1,831
AUMs of active use and 0 suspended use. An Allotment Management Plan (AMP) for the Abert
Seeding Allotment was originally written in 1968, and was updated in 1976 (BLM 1968, as
amended 1976).
Abert Seeding Allotment is a "Maintain" category allotment, which means that a moderate level of
management effort should be given to maintain condition and/or affect change. In 2003, an
Interdisciplinary Team (ID) conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment within the allotment. The
ID team found that the pastures analyzed in this EA are meeting Rangeland Health Standards
(BLM 2003c; 2013b). The findings of this assessment are summarized in Table 3-11 and are
incorporated in their entirety herein by reference.
B.
Purpose and Need for Action
The grazing permit for the two allotments expired in 2013, at which time the permit renewal
application was submitted for consideration by the permittee. The primary purpose of this analysis
is to respond to the permittee’s permit renewal application and consider whether to reissue, modify,
or not reissue the 10-year term livestock grazing permit #3601272 associated with the Rabbit Basin
and Abert Seeding Allotments in accordance with 43 CFR Part 4130. When issued, grazing
permits must also address appropriate terms and conditions designed to “achieve management and
resource condition objectives for the public lands… and to ensure conformance with part 4180”
(43 CFR Part 4130.3).
C.
Decisions to be Made
The authorized officer will decide whether or not to renew the Term Grazing Permit, and if so,
under what terms and conditions. Decisions including action and no action alternatives would be
in effect for a ten year period. The authorized officer will also determine the need for proposed
water developments associated with the Rabbit Basin Allotment.
D.
Decision Factors
Decision factors are additional criteria used by the decision maker to choose the alternative that best meet
the purpose and need for the proposal. These include:
a) How well does the decision conform to laws, regulations, and policies related to
grazing use and protecting other resource values?
b) How well does the decision conform to the resource management and/or allotment
management plans?
c) How well does the decision promote maintenance of Rangeland Health Standards?
d) How well does the decision conform with ODFW 2005 sage-grouse guidelines?
e) How well does the decision conform with IM 2012-043 regarding interim Sage-grouse
management?
3
E.
Consistency with Laws and Regulations
This EA has been prepared in conformance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Grazing permits are issued or renewed in accordance with the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act
(1934), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 1976), Public Rangelands
Improvement Act (1978), and applicable grazing regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 4100.
In order for an applicant to lawfully graze livestock on public land, the party must obtain a valid
grazing permit or lease. The grazing regulations, 43 CFR 4130.2(a), state “grazing permits or
leases shall be issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands
under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated as available for
livestock grazing through land use plans.” The Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of
Decision has designated these allotments as available for livestock grazing (BLM 2003b). The
permit renewal applicant (current permittee) controls the base property associated with the grazing
preference on the two allotments and has been determined to be a qualified applicant.
A performance review of the permittee’s past use was completed and BLM found the permittee’s
record of performance, pursuant to 43 CFR 4110.1(b), to be substantially in compliance. This
conclusion was based on: grazing utilization at acceptable levels (95% of the last 20 years on both
allotments), bills were paid on time, actual use information was turned in yearly, use was within
permitted dates (100% of the last 20 years on the Rabbit Basin Allotment; 79% of the last 23 years
in the Abert Seeding Allotment), forage consumption was within the permitted AUMs (90% of the
last 10 years in the Rabbit Basin Allotment; 100% within the Abert Seeding Allotment), permit
terms and conditions were adhered to, base property requirements were met, and no history of any
trespass livestock or unauthorized use has occurred. This performance review is available in the
range administration files.
Conformance with Land Use Plans
The Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision (BLM 2003b, as maintained) is the
governing land use plan for the area and provides the following goals and management direction
related to livestock grazing use:
Livestock Grazing Management Goal - “provide for a sustainable level of livestock grazing
consistent with other resource objectives and public land-use allocations (Page 52, as
maintained).
Management Direction –
“The current licensed grazing levels (Appendix E1) will be maintained until analysis or
evaluation of monitoring data or rangeland health assessments identify a need for adjustments to
meet objectives. Applicable activity plans (including existing allotment management plans,
agreements, decisions and/or terms and conditions of grazing use authorizations) will be
developed, revised where necessary, and implemented to ensure that resource objectives are met.
The full permitted use level for each allotment has been and continues to be analyzed through
individual allotment assessments, such as rangeland health and livestock grazing guidelines….”
4
(Page 52, as maintained).
The Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments are currently open or allotted to grazing use,
and is allocated for follow forage allocations listed in Table 5 of the RMP (Page 48, as
maintained).
Operation and Maintenance Actions
“Maintenance of existing and newly constructed facilities or projects will occur over time… Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, routine maintenance of existing…water control
structures…, reservoirs, wells, pipelines, waterholes, fences, cattle guards, seedings, … and
other similar facilities/projects” (Page 100).
Appendix E1 – Allotment Specific Management Direction
Rabbit Basin Allotment (Page A-86, as maintained)
Livestock distribution/management - Improve livestock management and distribution
through improved management practices, installation of livestock management facilities (such
as fences and water sources), and/or other actions as opportunities arise.
Improve/maintain range condition - Use management practices and/or better animal
distribution; develop range improvements when appropriate: adjust permitted use as needed.
Maintain/improve forage conditions – Continue to manage for forage production in seeded
areas through season of use adjustments, possible vegetation treatments, fencing, water
developments, and/or other actions.
Wildlife/wildlife habitat – Implement interim greater sage grouse guidelines. Follow the
greater sage-grouse Livestock Grazing guidelines (pages 75-76 of ODFW 2005), where
appropriate. (See the sage-grouse sections below).
Pronghorn winter range – Monitor utilization of browse in winter range areas. Avoid
livestock utilization levels that reduce the long-term viability of browse plants.
General – Maintain current allocation of 1,846AUMs for livestock and 60 AUMs for wildlife.
Wildlife includes 55 AUMs for deer and pronghorn, and 5 for other wildlife.
Abert Seeding Allotment (Page A-93, as maintained)
Livestock distribution/management - Improve livestock management and distribution
through improved management practices, installation of livestock management facilities (such
as fences and water sources), and/or other actions as opportunities arise.
Improve/maintain range condition - Use management practices and/or better animal
distribution; develop range improvements when appropriate: adjust permitted use as needed.
5
Maintain/improve forage conditions – Continue to manage for forage production in seeded
areas through season of use adjustments, possible vegetation treatments, fencing, water
developments, and/or other actions.
Revise Allotment Management Plan objectives – Bring forward objectives from existing
allotment management plans; revise objectives where needed.
Wildlife/wildlife management – Implement interim greater sage grouse guidelines. Follow
the greater sage-grouse Livestock Grazing guidelines (pages 75-76 of ODFW 2005), where
appropriate. (See the sage-grouse sections below).
Special management areas – Adjust allotment management, including levels and areas of
authorized use, seasons of use, and grazing system, if required by future ACEC management
plan.
General –Maintain current allocation of 2,619 AUMs (Abert Seeding Allotment - Center
East, Center West, and South Pastures = 1,831 AUMs) for livestock and 110 AUMs for
wildlife. Wildlife includes 50 AUMs for bighorn sheep; 55 AUMs for deer and pronghorn and
5 for other wildlife.
F.
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
The final decision must also conform to the following plans or policies, which direct and provide
a framework for management of BLM lands/resources within Lakeview Resource Area:

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management for Public
Lands Administered by the BLM in the States of Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997) The Rabbit Basin and (three pastures of) Abert Seeding Allotment met all applicable
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management. The
Rangeland Health assessment was conducted in 2003 and updated in 2012 for both
allotments (BLM 2003c; 2013a; 2013b).
▪
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2005) This document (page 75) states “Where livestock grazing management results in a level
of forage use that is consistent with RMP, Allotment Management Plans (AMP), Terms
and Conditions of Grazing Permits or Leases, other allotment specific direction, and
regulations, no changes to use or management are required if habitat quality meets
Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines.” The Rabbit Basin and (applicable pastures
of) Abert Seeding Allotments met all applicable Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM
2003c; 2013a; 2013b).
▪
Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011) –
This represents current BLM Washington Office interim policy for sage-grouse habitat
management until such time as plan amendments can be completed throughout the range
of the species that address a comprehensive conservation strategy. This policy addresses
proposed grazing permit renewals and proposed water developments.
6
Permit Renewal
Plan and authorize livestock grazing and associated range improvement projects
on BLM lands in a way that maintains and/or improves Greater Sage-grouse and
its habitat. Analyze through a reasonable range of alternatives any direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of grazing on Sage-grouse and its habitats
through the NEPA process:





Incorporate available site information collected using the Sage-Grouse Habitat
Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2010) when evaluating existing resource
condition and developing resource solutions,
Incorporate management practices that will provide for adequate residual plant
cover (e.g., residual grass height) and diversity in the understories of sagebrush
plant communities as part of viable alternatives. When addressing residual cover
and species diversity, refer to the ESD (ecological site data) and “State and
Transition Model,” where they are available, to guide the analysis.
Evaluate and implement grazing practices that promote the growth and persistence
of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Grazing practices include kind and numbers of
livestock, distribution, seasons of use, and livestock management practices needed
to meet both livestock management and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives.
Evaluate the potential risk to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats from existing
structural range improvements. Address those structural range improvements
identified as posing a risk during the renewal process.
Balance grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats to promote the
production and availability of beneficial forbs to Greater Sage-Grouse in meadows,
mesic habitats, and riparian pastures for Greater Sage-Grouse use during nesting
and brood-rearing while maintaining upland conditions and functions. Consider
changes to season-of-use in riparian/wetland areas before or after the summer
growing season.
To ensure that the NEPA analysis for permit/lease renewal has a range of
reasonable alternatives:


Include at least one alternative that would implement a deferred or rest-rotation
grazing system, if one is not already in place and the size of the allotment warrants
it.
Include a reasonable range of alternatives (e.g., no grazing or a significantly
reduced grazing alternative, current grazing alternative, increased grazing
alternative, etc.) to compare the impacts of livestock grazing on Greater SageGrouse habitat and land health from the proposed action.
Fences

To improve visibility, mark existing fences that have been identified as a collision
risk. Prioritizing fences within 1.25 miles of a lek, fences posing higher risks to
Greater Sage-Grouse include those:
On flat topography;
Where spans exceed 12 feet between T-posts;
Without wooden posts; or
7
Where fence densities exceed 1.6 miles of fence per section (640 acres).
Water Developments

NEPA analysis for all new water developments must assess impacts to Greater
Sage-Grouse and its habitat.
Install escape ramps and a mechanism such as a float or shut-off valve to control the
flow of water in tanks and troughs.
Design structures in a manner that minimizes potential for production of mosquitoes
which may carry West Nile virus.


CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives 1 through 4 have been fully analyzed in Chapter III of this EA. Following the
public review period for this document a proposed decision will be made by the Field Manager
that may choose to proceed with any one of the alternatives analyzed or a combination of
portions of multiple alternatives.
A.
Actions Common to Grazing Alternatives (1-3)
1.
Grazing Management Flexibility
Uncertainties exist in managing for sustainable ecosystems. Therefore, changes to the
proposal may be authorized for reasons such as, but not limited to:

Adjust the rotation/timing of grazing based on previous year's monitoring and
current year's climatic conditions, within permitted AUMs and permitted season of
use. An example of this would be; to turn livestock out later in the season on a
year with a wet cold spring; or to bring livestock off the allotment early as
conditions warrant this need.

Drought causing lack of available water in certain areas originally
scheduled to be used. An example would be resting a pasture that had
low water and shifting livestock use to the pasture that had water.
Conversely in wet years, livestock could be moved to areas near more
dependable water sources

Changes in use periods to balance utilization levels per pasture. An example of this
would be to shorten the time period or number of livestock in a pasture that had
65% average utilization and or increase the time period and number of livestock in
another pasture that had 30% average utilization if the target utilization in both
pastures is 50%.
Flexibility in grazing management would be authorized within the permit dates and
within active permitted AUMs so long as:

Changes in rotations would continue to meet resource objectives.
8
2.

Flexibility is dependent upon the demonstrated stewardship and cooperation of
the permittee.

Rangeland monitoring is a key component of flexibility in grazing
management. As monitoring indicates changes in grazing management are
needed to meet resource objectives, they are implemented annually working
with the permittee.
Monitoring
Monitoring by BLM staff, in coordination with the livestock operator, of the success in
meeting allotment-specific resource objectives would take place following
implementation. Pace 180° methodology (Technical Reference 4400-4; BLM 1984)
and permanent photo points would be used to measure the relative frequency of
occurrence of key forbs, shrubs, and perennial grass species, to assess trend in
rangeland condition. Observed Apparent Trend would be assessed at each upland trend
plot. Upland trend data would be collected and analyzed on 10-year intervals.
Annual utilization studies for each pasture grazed by livestock along with multiple-use
supervision reports would be collected by BLM staff. The Key Forage Plant Method or
similar methodology would be used to measure utilization in each pasture. Target
utilization levels for key forage plant species are shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Key Species and Target Utilization Levels by Allotment
Rabbit Creek Allotment
Pasture
Key
Crested WheatgrassSpecies
Crested Wheatgrass/Great Basin Wildrye
Hogback
Sunstone
Utilization Target
50%
50%
Abert Seeding Allotment
Pasture
Center West
Center East
South
Key
Crested WheatgrassSpecies
Crested Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass
Utilization Target
50%
50%
50%
During each allotment visit, monitoring for noxious weed establishment would occur, as
well as observations of overall rangeland condition. Adjustments to timing of grazing
and pasture use sequence to ensure/promote achievement of Rangeland Health
Standards, and to meet other resource objectives, may be implemented based on a
review of this annual data.
Two new monitoring sites were established in 2012 and would be used for future
monitoring.
3.
Other Terms and Conditions
Mandatory stipulations, as required by state or federal policy, would be included in the
permit. Typical items include; payment of fees, submission of actual use reports,
administrative access across private land, compliance with Rangeland Health Standards,
9
and maintenance of range improvements.
4.
Trailing
Trailing use will occur between allotments along the Hogback Road (County Road 3-10).
Livestock will be trucked to one of the allotments, and then trailed to the other. Trailing
livestock would typically be a one day event, and would occur through one other allotment
(Juniper Mountain Allotment, Flint Hills Pasture). On occasion, livestock may be trailed
along the Hogback Road south to private property near Plush. Livestock would be trailed
through the East Pasture of the Coyote-Colvin Allotment.
B.
Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative would consist of renewing the existing livestock grazing permit
(#2601272) for both allotments for a period of 10 years, continuing the current grazing
management, and continuing the current permitted season of use from October 17 through April 15
(on Rabbit Basin Allotment) and March 1 through June 20 (on Abert Seeding Allotment). Forage
allocations would also remain the same, up to 1,846 AUMs of active preference on the Rabbit
Basin Allotment, and 1,831 AUMs of active preference on the Abert Seeding Allotment (and 0
AUMs suspended use for both allotments) (Table 2-2). The permit would be issued with the same
terms and conditions as the expiring permit. This definition for the No Action Alternative is
consistent with BLM (2000) and CEQ (1981) guidance.
Table 2-2. Current Livestock Grazing Permit #2601272
Allotment/
Number
Livestock Numbers
(Cattle)
Active
Use (AUMs)
Suspended
Use (AUMs)
Rabbit Basin (#00516)
310
1,846
0
Abert Seeding (#00522)
497
1,831
0
Season of Use
Winter/Spring
(10/17-4/15)
Spring/Summer
(3/1-6/20)
Rabbit Basin Allotment
Livestock grazing within the Rabbit Basin Allotment is defined in the Lakeview RMP/ROD as a
spring grazing system (Table 5, page 48, as maintained). The two pastures in the Rabbit Basin
Allotment would continue to be used every year, rotating the spring use. One year the Sunstone
Pasture would be used during the winter, and the Hogback Pasture during the winter and spring;
the opposite would occur on the year following.
Abert Seeding Allotment
Livestock grazing within the Abert Seeding Allotment is defined in the Lakeview RMP/ROD as a
rest rotation grazing system (Table 5, page 48, as maintained). The Abert Seeding Allotment
would continue to be used under a rest-rational grazing system. This system consists of resting
one pasture and grazing two pastures each year. This rotation system would allow a full year of
rest for each pasture every third year.
Livestock grazing use would also continue to follow applicable direction in the Abert Seeding
10
Allotment Management Plan (AMP; BLM 1976). Actual use billing would continue to be the
billing method used under this alternative.
C.
Alternative 2 -Management Changes and Project Development
This alternative would include renewing the permit (#2601272) and broadening season of use
(permit dates) for both allotments. Table 2-3 shows the proposed permit dates for both allotments
in comparison to the existing permit dates. If adopted as the final decision, the Lakeview
RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b) would be updated through plan maintenance to reflect these changes.
Table 2.3. Proposed Management Changes for Alternative 2
Allotment
Proposed Date
Existing Permit
Changes (Alt.
Dates (Alt.1)
2)
Rabbit Basin
10/15-5/1
10/17-4/17
Abert Seeding
12/1-6/20
3/1-6/20
¹ AUMs would remain same under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Active Use¹
1,846
1,831
Suspended
Use¹
0
0
Livestock grazing management would be designed to provide periodic growing season rest for key
plant species. Use periods in each pasture may vary annually in order to provide for periods of
rest. Livestock numbers may vary annually, as outlined above under Actions Common to Grazing
Alternatives. However, total permitted AUMs of active use and suspended use would remain the
same as Alternative 1.
Rabbit Basin Allotment
Each pasture would be provided with spring rest every other year. For example, if the Sunstone
Pasture was grazed between 3/1-5/1, it would be used between 11/1-2/28 the following year. The
utilization standard of 50% (defined in the Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5, page A-147) would
remain applicable. This alternative would also include the extension of the Rabbit Basin well
pipeline and associated storage tank, as described below.
Proposed Range Improvements and Maintenance:
Rangeland improvement activities would include extending the existing Rabbit Basin Well
Pipeline, installing a 10,000 gallon storage tank, installing troughs, and conducting maintenance
on existing range improvements on both allotments.
Upon issuance of a final decision adopting this alternative, cooperative agreements between the
permittee and BLM would be completed to address each partner's responsibilities for labor,
construction, maintenance, and/or supplies. See Map 4 for the location of existing range
improvements and refer to Map 5 for proposed range improvement locations.
Rabbit Basin Pipeline, Storage Tank, and Water Troughs
The first segment of the Rabbit Basin Pipeline would be extended from the existing
Rabbit Basin Well southwest approximately 2.5 miles toward the Rabbit Hills following
existing roads where possible (see Map 5). The second segment of pipeline would join
11
the first segment, and then extend approximately one mile up into the Rabbit Hills
(following the road). The pipeline would then follow the existing fence line northeast
for approximately one half mile. The pipeline would end at a proposed 10,000 gallon
storage tank.
The purpose of the storage tank is to gravity feed proposed water troughs so the existing
pump at the well head would not need to run constantly. The placement of the storage
tank would be in proximity to two adjacent allotments. These allotments are permitted
to two separate operators. However, these operators would like to plumb water troughs
for each of their allotments from the proposed storage tank. The portions of pipeline
and troughs that would potentially be constructed in these adjacent allotments will be
analyzed in separate NEPA documents for the respective permit renewals.
Additional troughs would be added to the new pipeline approximately every mile (up to
four troughs). The pipeline itself would be buried and plumbing would be placed below
the troughs to avoid freezing. New troughs would be outfitted with small animal/bird
escape ramps as well as floats to prevent water over flow.
General Project Design Elements for Proposed Range Improvements:
(1)
No range improvement projects would be constructed within 0.6-mile of known sagegrouse lek sites.
(2)
There are no known noxious weed sites or populations within proposed range improvement
locations. The risk of noxious weed introduction would be minimized by ensuring all
equipment (including all machinery, 4-wheelers, and pickup trucks) is cleaned prior to
entry to the area, minimizing disturbance activities, and completing follow-up monitoring,
to ensure no new noxious weed establishment. Weed populations discovered in or adjacent
to the allotment would be treated using appropriate methods, such as those described in the
Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program (BLM 2004a).
(3)
Reseeding may take place in areas disturbed by construction/installation of rangeland
improvement projects (the new pipeline and storage tank). Mixtures of non-native and
native grass, forb, and shrub seed may be applied to designated areas with ground-based
methods. The mixture would include nonnative species such as crested wheatgrass
(Agropyron cristatum), and native species including basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus),
squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and native forbs. Crested wheatgrass may be used in the
seed mix because it is drought tolerant, competitive with invasive species, has a long seed
viability period, and aggressive germination characteristics.
(4)
Pipelines: To reduce surface pipeline contrast with the landscape, which create an
“industrial appearance”, pipelines would be buried, preferably in or adjacent to the
roadway, where possible.
(5)
Color/paint water tanks and troughs: use paint color(s) which allows the facility to blend
into the background. All new permanent facilities at this site would be painted the same
color(s). Consult Outdoor Recreation Planner to aid in proper selection of paint color and
hue.
Additional Mitigation Measures to Consider:
12
(1)
Consider burying the proposed water tank, so as to not be seen from outside the allotment
or from the valley bottom.
Abert Seeding Allotment
The forage allocation for this allotment would remain at 1,831 active AUMs. Each pasture would
be provided with growing season rest every third year. Growing season rest would include
complete rest of the pasture, or use the following winter (after a spring/summer use grazing
treatment). The utilization standard of 50% (defined in the Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5,
page A-147) would remain applicable.
This alternative would continue to follow the Abert Seeding AMP (BLM 1976). After-the-fact
billing would continue to be authorized under this alternative.
Permit Terms and Conditions (both allotments):
The permit would be issued for both allotments with similar terms and conditions as the other
grazing alternatives. However, one additional term and condition would be added to the permit:
Each pasture would only be used once per grazing year. For example: if a pasture was grazed in the
winter, it could not be grazed that same spring.
Project Maintenance (both allotments):
Pipeline and Trough, Well, Reservoir and Waterhole Maintenance
Future pipeline maintenance would include (but would not be limited to) fixing/replacing
leaking sections of pipeline, valves/fittings, and troughs. Air valves may need to be
fixed/replaced as well. The proposed storage tank would be maintained, as necessary.
Well maintenance would include, but would not be limited to, re-plumbing or re-wiring the
well, replacing the pump, casing, valves/fittings, plumbing associated with the well.
Maintenance may also include deepening the well, if needed.
Waterhole, reservoir, and trough maintenance is not currently needed; however, it would likely
be needed during the 10 year permit lifetime. Reservoir maintenance would include the
cleaning and maintenance of a given reservoir to ensure continued function. This may include,
but is not limited to, the application of a native or natural clay liner or dam reconstruction.
Waterhole maintenance would include cleaning the existing waterhole while maintaining its
existing size, and placing the removed material on top of existing berms or disturbed areas.
Trough maintenance would include repair and replacement.
Fence Maintenance
Cooperative agreements have been signed by the permittee and BLM assigning fence and corral
maintenance responsibilities in the Rabbit Basin Allotment to the permittee. Fence and corral
maintenance responsibilities in the Abert Seeding Allotment are assigned to the permittee and
agreed to by the permittee and the BLM in the Abert Rim Seeding AMP (BLM 1976).
13
D.
Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
This alternative would reduce the active preference on both allotments to the previous ten-year
actual use average. Permitted season of use would remain as it currently is (see Table 2-2).
However, with a reduced active preference, there would be either a reduced number of livestock,
or a reduced season of use on administered Public Lands. Both of these options, or a
combination of the two would be permitted. The proposed change is shown in Table 2-4. The
grazing systems and terms and conditions of the permit would remain the same as Alternative 1.
There would be no new range improvements proposed under this alternative, however, the
maintenance of existing range improvements would be conducted as needed, similar to the
maintenance described for Alternative 2.
Table 2-4. Reduced Active Preference for Alternative 3
Allotment
Existing Active Use
Proposed Changes to
(AUMs) for
Active Use (AUMs) for
Alternative 1
Alternative 3*
Rabbit Basin
Abert Seeding
1,846
1,831
Suspended Use for
Alternative 3
952
645
984
1,186
* Based on actual average use over the last 10 years.
Rabbit Basin Allotment
The average actual use (for the last ten years) in the Rabbit Basin Allotment has been 952 AUMs,
which is 894 AUMs below the current active preference of 1,846 AUMs. This alternative would
place the 894 AUMs in suspended use, reducing the active preference to 952 AUMS. This equates
to approximately a 48% reduction in active preference.
Abert Seeding Allotment
The average actual use (for the last ten years) in the Abert Seeding Allotment has been 645 AUMs,
1,186 AUMs below the current active preference 1,831 AUMs. This alternative would place 1,186
AUMs in suspended use and reduce active preference to 645 AUMs. This equates to
approximately a 65% reduction in active preference.
This alternative would continue to follow the Abert Seeding AMP. After-the-fact billing would
continue to be authorized under this alternative.
E.
Alternative 4 -No Grazing (Complete Removal of Livestock Grazing)
Under this alternative, the current permit would not be renewed and livestock grazing would not be
authorized on public lands within the Rabbit Basin or the (three pastures of the) Abert Seeding
Allotments. Owners of livestock grazing on private land in-holdings would be required to keep
livestock off public land by either herding or constructing fences to prevent trespass. Existing
range improvements within the interior of the allotment would no longer be maintained for
livestock grazing management purposes. The existing well, pipelines, and troughs would no longer
be maintained for the purposes of livestock grazing. However, the allotment/pasture boundary
fences could still be maintained in the future to allow livestock grazing to continue in surrounding
14
allotments/pastures where livestock use is authorized and keep cattle out of pastures where it is not
authorized. This alternative is being considered to provide a full range of alternatives and comply
with grazing management permit renewal guidance (BLM 2000, 2008b).
F.
Alternatives Considered but not Fully Analyzed
Spring Grazing
This alternative would provide 1,846 AUMs active preference on the Rabbit Basin Allotment, and
1,831 on the Abert Seeding Allotment in the spring (3/1-5/15) season for both allotments. To use
both allotments during the spring for a shorter season with the same number of AUMs, livestock
numbers would be increased. This would decrease flexibility for the permittee, and would
decrease the likelihood of any pasture being rested. Also, spring grazing would reduce the time on
both allotments, and leave the operator without livestock forage in the winter and early summer.
Due to the nature of the existing vegetation, soils, and the permittee’s livestock operation, adopting
a spring grazing system would not be an appropriate grazing management strategy on these
allotments. Therefore, it was not evaluated further in this EA.
Alternate Route for Proposed Pipeline
An alternate route was considered for the Rabbit Basin Allotment, the result would not meet the
purpose and need of the applicant. The applicant requires a pipeline to service the two neighboring
allotments to the southeast. Alternate route considered would not accomplish this. Therefore, it
was not evaluated further in this EA.
CHAPTER III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
An ID Team has reviewed and identified issues and resources potentially affected by the
alternatives. Table 3.1 below lists the resources/uses that either are not present or will not be
affected by any of the proposed alternatives. These resource/uses will not be discussed or
further analyzed in this EA
The following Affected Environment sections describe the current environmental or resource
conditions within the allotments. The Environmental Consequences sections describe
potential changes to the environment or resources that may result from implementation of the
alternatives including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
15
Table 3-1. Resources or Uses that would not be Affected
Elements of the Human
Environment
Rationale
Air Quality (Clean Air Act)
Not
Affected
Environmental Justice
(Executive Order 12898)
Not
Present
Fire and Fuels Management
Fisheries
Forest/Woodlands
Flood Plains (Executive Order
13112) and Hydrology
Hazardous or Solid Waste
Lands
Minerals and Energy
Prime or Unique Farmlands
Riparian/Wetlands (Executive
Order 11990)
Not
Affected
Not
Present
Not
Present
Not
Affected
Not
Present
Not
Affected
Not
Affected
Not
Present
None of the alternatives would have measureable impacts to air quality or
significant discharges of regulated air pollutants.
None of the alternatives would have disproportionately high or adverse effects
on minority populations or low-income populations as such populations do not
exist within the allotment area.
No fire or fuel treatments are being proposed in this EA.
No fish habitat exists within either allotment.
Not present within the allotments.
No construction within, or other modification of flood plains, are proposed under
any of the alternatives. Therefore, there would be no floodplain or related
hydrologic impacts.
No such sites or issues are known within the allotments.
None of the alternatives analyzed would have any effects on current land status or
land tenure.
None of the alternatives analyzed would have any effects on mineral or energy
resources or uses.
No such lands have been identified in the allotments.
Not
Present
These allotments have been evaluated for riparian areas by the Resource Area
Fisheries Biologist, as well as other IDT members. No riparian areas are present
on BLM lands in Rabbit Basin or Abert Seeding Allotments. Wetlands are
addressed in the Wetland Vegetation section.
Threatened and Endangered
Plants and Animals
Not
Present
No known federally listed plant or animal species or their habitat are found
within the allotments.
Wild Horses (Wild Horse and
Burro Act)
Water Quality (Clean Water
Act)
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Not
Present
Not
Present
Not
Present
Not
Present
The allotments are located outside of designated wild horse herd management
areas.
There are no perennial streams or municipal drinking water sources in the
allotment.
Wilderness Characteristics
There are no Wild or Scenic Rivers within the allotments.
With the exception of a small area in the southern portion of allotment 00522
(which encompasses a portion of the Abert Rim WSA; refer to wilderness
section), BLM's original wilderness inventory did not find wilderness
characteristics to be present within these allotments (BLM 1979a, 1979b, 1979c,
1980a, 1980b, 1989b, 1991). Since 2007, the BLM has been conducting
wilderness inventory updates following current inventory guidance (BLM 2007c,
2008c, 2012a). In this process, an inter-disciplinary team reviewed the existing
wilderness inventory information contained in the BLM’s wilderness inventory
files, previously published inventory findings (USDI-BLM 1979f, 1979g, 1979h,
1980a, and 1980b), and citizen-provided wilderness information (ONDA 2005).
BLM conducted field inventory, completed route analysis forms, made unit
boundary determinations, and subsequently evaluated wilderness character within
each inventory unit. BLM has completed wilderness character inventory updates
for all lands within the allotments. While ONDA found wilderness characteristics
to be present in the eastern portion of allotment 00522 (ONDA 2005; p. 121-133),
BLM did not find wilderness characteristics to be present in either allotment
(BLM 2008c, 2011b, 2012d, 2012f). BLM hereby incorporates these findings by
reference in their entirety. Published wilderness inventory updates are available
on BLM’s website at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php. Based upon the
results of these inventory updates, there are no lands with wilderness
characteristics in either allotment. Therefore, there would be no impacts to such
values.
16
A.
Climate
Affected Environment:
The climate in the vicinity of the Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments is variable, but
typical of the Northern Great Basin or high desert system. Mean annual precipitation ranges from
6-10 inches. Precipitation occurs mostly in the form of snow during December through March
with spring rains common. The soil temperature regime is frigid. Mean annual air temperatures
range from 40 to 43 degrees F. The frost-free time period is from 50 to 80 days. The period of
optimum plant growth is from April through June. The potential effects of the alternatives on
climate change are summarized in Table 3.1 above.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-4
Based on analyses contained in several recent permit renewal EAs (BLM 2012a, 2012b), the
continued utilization of up to 3,677 AUMs of forage would have no scientifically verifiable effects
on regional or global climate change, nor would it have any significant effects on either
greenhouse gas emissions or carbon sequestration processes. Therefore, this issue will not be
analyzed further.
B.
Soils and Biological Soil Crusts
Affected Environment:
Soil data was compiled using Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) data on file at the Lakeview District
Office. This ESI data represents a combination of soil and vegetation data collected by BLM and
NRCS staff. This data is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety and is summarized in this
chapter and in Appendix B.
Biological soil crusts (BSCs) such as mosses, lichens, micro fungi, cyanobacteria and algae play a
role in a functioning ecosystem. In addition to providing biological diversity, BSCs contribute to
soil stability through increased resistance to erosion and nutrient cycling (Belnap et al 2001).
Lichen species diversity is poorly known in the Pacific Northwest (Root et al. 2011). Further,
identification of BSCs at the species level is not practical for fieldwork, as it is very difficult and
may require laboratory culturing (Belnap et al 2001). For these reasons, BLM began collecting
BSC cover data during the North Lake ESI process. Crust cover data was collected for the two
allotments and is summarized in Appendix B. The inventory crew ranked crust cover on a relative
scale of 0 to 10 as follows:
0= no crust cover
1= clearly a crust is present
2= just Cyanobacteria present
4= lichens and mosses covering 1-5% of the ground
6= lichens and mosses covering 5-10% of the ground
8= lichens and mosses covering 10-20% of the ground
10= lichens and mosses covering greater than 20% of the ground
17
Rabbit Basin Allotment
There are a variety of soil complexes present within Rabbit Basin Allotment. Within Hogback
Pasture, three soil types comprise greater than 80% of the area (see Appendix B, Table B-1; Map
7): Enko McConnel complex, Cleet, and Old Camp Felcher complex. The first two soil types are
typical of basins and swales, well drained, and alluvium derived from mixed volcanic rock. They
are a gravelly loamy sand texture. The third soil type is found on plateaus and hill slopes. It is
colluvium derived from volcanic rock. It is also a well-drained, very cobbly loam to sandy loam in
texture. Observed apparent trend (OAT) data was used to determine trend indicators correlated to
soil stability. These indicators are: surface litter, pedestals, and gullies. Within the Hogback
Pasture, OAT data collected in 2010 indicated a stable condition; OAT data collected in 20102
indicates an upward trend.
Within the Sunstone Pasture, the Calderwood McConnel complex soil type comprises about 37%
of the area (see Appendix B, Table B-2; Map 7). The remaining 63% of the pasture is comprised
of various soil complexes. The Calderwood McConnel complex is found on plateaus and terraces.
This complex is derived from colluvium and/or alluvium, exhibits well drained soils, and are
gravelly sand to sandy loam. OAT data collected in the Sunstone Pasture in 1995 indicated a
downward trend, primarily due to decadent Wyoming sagebrush in the overstory and cheatgrass in
the understory (see Appendix B, Table B-6). This vegetative component reduces the perennial
root system in the community and their ability to hold soils in place. OAT data collected in 2005
indicates a stable trend. Data collected in 2012 indicates an upward trend in this pasture.
Trend data has been collected in in this pasture from 1985 to 2012 (see Appendix B, Table B-18).
The cover of cheatgrass has declined from 13% in 1985 to less than 1% in 2012. There has been a
correlating increase in perennial grasses over this same time period, including slender wheatgrass
(allowing for natural fluctuation in relation to annual precipitation). The increase in perennial
plant cover increases the effective root zone within the soil and the ability for these root systems to
hold soil in place. Wyoming sagebrush has continued to increase, and the site could benefit from a
treatment to reduce the cover of sagebrush. As of the 2012 trend evaluation in this pasture, soils
are stable within the Sunstone Pasture; i.e. the majority of litter is collecting in place, there is little
evidence of new pedestaling, or new gullies within the allotment (See Appendix B, Table B-18).
In the Hogback Pasture, about 46% of the acreage has crust cover ranging from 1-10%. About
27% has a crust cover present, but no percent ground cover estimate was made. Another 27% was
undetermined. In the Sunstone Pasture, about 77% of the area has a crust cover ranging from 120%. About 11% had cyanobacteria present, but no percent ground cover estimate was made. The
remaining 12% was either undetermined or had a crust cover present, but no percent ground cover
estimate was made (see Appendix B, Tables B11 and B12). The BSC percent cover for this
allotment is within the expected range for the diverse soil types and soil textures found throughout
the allotment (Belnap et al 2001, Page 51, Table 4.1). BSC cover data has also been collected in
some of the frequency trend plot re-reads. This data was collected beginning in 2010. This data
shows a 1 percent BSC cover. This data will be used as baseline data to monitor BSC trend in the
future.
18
Abert Seeding Allotment
There are a variety of soils complexes present within the Abert Seeding Allotment. One soil
complex dominates the majority of the allotment, and is a dominant type of all three pastures
analyzed in this EA. The Raz-Poorjug complex comprises greater than 50% of the Center East and
Center West Pastures. This soil type or complex makes up a smaller portion of the South Pasture,
but when combined with the other Raz complexes, it makes up approximately 35% of this pasture.
This soil complex is typical of lava plateaus 4,500 – 5,340 feet. The soils are alluvium, colluvium,
and residuum derived from volcanic rock such as basalt. These soils are a gravelly sandy loam to
cobbly loam, and are well drained (see Appendix B Tables B1-B3).
Observed apparent trend studies began in the Abert Seeding Allotment in 2010. Prior to 2010
photo monitoring sites were used to monitor changes in vegetation growth. OAT ratings show an
average score of 25/30 which represents a stable trend overall. Plant vigor represented an average
score of 7 out of 10 with crested wheatgrass monocultures representing the key forage species.
Seedlings of key forage species were rated at a 6 out of 10 overall with crested wheatgrass
monocultures representing the key forage species. Crested wheatgrass is a perennial bunchgrass
with a deep extensive fibrous root system that aids in erosion control. This score also accounts for
presence of cheatgrass, an invasive non-native species. Cheatgrass is an annual with sparse,
shallow root development. Cheatgrass and its shallow roots may contribute to increased erosion
potential. Surface litter was given an average rating of 5/5 with little or no movement of litter and
little visible bare ground. The category of pedestaling was given an average score of 4/5. This
score represents the commonality of fine or sandy soil and also the natural pedestaling of bunch
grasses. Gullies were rated as 5/5 or Not Applicable due to the lack of gullies across the allotment.
Removing the “gullies” category and adjusting the score was found to produce the average same
result overall.
In the Center East Pasture, 100 % of the acreage contains 1-10% crust cover. In the Center West
Pasture, about 67% of the area contains 1-5% crust cover. The remainder contains no crust cover.
A portion of this pasture has been seeded to crested wheatgrass following wildfire. The crust
cover presumably has not had adequate time to reestablish (these surveys were conducted during
the mid-1990s) following the fire. In the South Pasture, about 82% of the area contains 5-20%
crust cover. Most of the remaining acreage (14%) had cyanobacteria present, but no percent
ground cover estimate was made (see Appendix B Tables B13-B15). The BSC percent cover for
this allotment is within the expected range for the diverse soil types and soil textures found
throughout the allotment (Belnap et al 2001, Page 51, Table 4.1). BSC cover data was collected
on one frequency trend plot re-read. This data was collected beginning in 2010. This data shows a
3 percent BSC cover for the plot. This data will be used as baseline data to monitor BSC trend in
the future in this allotment.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3:
A couple of studies have examined biotic soil crust cover and composition at several locations in
central and eastern Oregon (Ponzetti 2000, Ponzetti and McCune 2001). One of the sites examined
was the CCC exclosure, located about 19 miles north of the allotments. (This exclosure was built
19
by the CCC in 1938 and has been used periodically as a rangeland study site. No authorized
livestock grazing has occurred in the exclosure since 1938). The study compared species richness
of biotic crusts inside and outside of several exclosures to provide a grazed-verses-ungrazed
comparison. The studies found that all of the study sites had between one and six more taxa
inside the exclosures than in the grazed pastures, with the exception of the CCC exclosure, which
had three more species in the adjacent grazed transect. Generally, total crust cover was inversely
related to vascular plant cover, as there was a positive relationship between crust cover and
available soil surfaces. Ponzetti and McCune (2001) generally found a lower cover of biotic
crusts, lichens, and species richness in grazed areas. However, they also found that the
differences in crust cover and species composition between study sites were most strongly related
to soil pH, electrical conductivity, and the relative calcium carbonate content of the soil. Thus, soil
chemistry and climate differences appeared to be stronger factors affecting crust cover and species
composition than livestock exclusion (or grazing). Generally, livestock do not graze on BSCs.
The primary impact to BSCs from livestock is associated with hoof trampling. In this respect, the
impacts to BSCs and soils are generally inter-related. Therefore, BLM assumes that, for purposes
of this analysis, the impacts to BSCs can generally be described by quantifying the associated
impacts to soils.
The impacts of livestock grazing on soils and BSCs within the Lakeview Resource Area were
analyzed in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003a) and that analysis is incorporated
herein by reference in its entirety. In summary, livestock use would continue to impact area soils
and BSCs due to compaction around waterholes and along livestock trails (pages 4-35 to 4-36).
However, the rest-rotation (Abert Seeding) and alternating spring grazing systems (Rabbit Basin)
utilized in these two allotments are designed to reduce or mitigate these impacts. These existing
grazing systems would continue to be employed under Alternatives 1-3.
Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action
Soils and BSCs would continue to be impacted in livestock concentration areas near water sources
and cattle trails (Map 4). Livestock tend to concentrate within a quarter of a mile around existing
water sources (a quarter mile buffer around a water source represents approximately 120 acres).
There are 22 existing water developments within the two allotments: 1 reservoir, 6 water troughs, 1
well, 13 waterholes, and 1 guzzler. Therefore, approximately 2,640 acres (22 x 120 acres) around
water sources would be impacted by concentrated grazing use under Alternatives 1.
Cattle trails tend to be located along fence lines and near water sources. These trails are typically
less than 5 feet wide. There are approximately 68.3 miles of allotment and pasture division
fencing located within the two allotments. This equates to about 41.4 acres (68.3 mi. x 5 ft. x
5,280 ft. per mi./43,560 ft.2 per acre) of disturbance associated with existing fence lines and
livestock trailing. BLM does not have a quantifiable means of estimating disturbed acres
associated with cross-country livestock trailing to water sources, but based on estimates associated
with fencing, believes that it represents a very small percentage of the allotments.
In total, approximately 2,681 acres (6.5%) of the soils and BSCs within the two allotments would
be impacted by concentrated livestock use. The effects of hoof action on soil and BSCs
throughout the majority of the allotments (where lighter dispersed grazing use occurs) would
remain relatively minor. It is possible that if the permittee utilized full active AUMs as permitted,
20
concentrated livestock use would increase. This would have an impact to BSC as well as soil
erosion and compaction. However, greater livestock numbers and or season length may cause
greater livestock distribution as livestock sought out forage further from current available water.
As both allotments currently have either a rest rotation grazing system or alternating spring grazing
system (spring rest every other year), soils and BSCs would have some time to recover through
rest, deferment, and natural processes such as frost-heave and crust recruitment from adjacent
areas. Both allotments are currently meeting rangeland health standards 1 and 3 (Tables 3-10 and
3-11; BLM 2003c, 2003e, 2013a, 2013b), which relate to upland watershed health and ecological
processes and are expected to continue to do so over the 10-year life of the permit.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
The impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 3.
However, water locations and livestock use patterns would shift slightly under this alternative.
This alternative would also give the permittee flexibility to graze some cattle in each pasture
(rotation) during the dormant winter season. At this time of year, soils are often frozen and BSCs
are often under snow and hydrated. This would reduce the effects of livestock trampling.
Memmot (1998) found livestock had less impact to BSCs in cold desert rangelands, when grazed
during the winter dormant season, compared to grazing during the growing season
Under this alternative, there would be an addition of up to four water troughs with the installation
of proposed pipeline and storage tank. There would be some additional surface disturbance to
soils and BSCs from vehicle traffic during construction and future maintenance of the new range
improvements. Increased concentrated livestock disturbance would also occur in the vicinity of
the proposed water troughs due to hoof action. The total acreage impacted by concentrated
livestock use at the 22 existing water improvements (2,640 acres) would be similar to Alternative
1. The four proposed water developments would cause an additional 480 acres additional
concentrated associated with livestock disturbance (4 troughs x 120 acres).
The total area of disturbance associated with concentrated livestock use is estimated to be 3,161
acres (7.7%) of analysis area (2,640 acres around existing water developments, 41.4 acres
associated with fence lines and livestock trailing, and 480 acres around proposed range
improvements).
The additional water developments would likely reduce the severity of hoof impacts at any given
existing watering location due to livestock being more evenly dispersed across more watering sites
each year. This, coupled with annual deferment and rotation of the livestock, would allow some
additional recovery time for soils and BSCs around water developments through natural processes.
These processes include frost heaving, recruitment from surrounding areas, and plant maturation
and reproduction (through pasture deferment and rest).
There would be an additional temporary disturbance associated with 4.0 miles of pipeline
installation amounting to approximately 4.8 acres. Surface disturbance associated with the
proposed storage tank would be less than 0.25 acre. Construction and installation of pipeline and
storage tanks involves trenching and burying of the pipeline and installation of the storage tank.
21
Disturbed areas would then be reclaimed with native and other suitable seed mix. Disturbance
associated with the pipeline and the immediate area around the storage tank would be reclaimed
over time and, therefore, would be temporary in nature. The surface area that the tank would
occupy would be less than 0.25 acres on a permanent basis.
The effects of hoof action on soil and BSCs throughout the majority of the allotment (where light
dispersed grazing use occurs) would remain relatively minor. Through proper range management
the effects that occur in concentration areas (hoof divots, trails, etc.) would have some time to
recover through rest, natural processes such as frost-heave, crust recruitment from adjacent areas,
and annual adjustments such as salt and water placement in each pasture (see Map 5). Both
allotments are currently meeting rangeland health standards 1 and 3 (Tables 3-10 and 3-11; BLM
2003c, 2003e, 2013a, 2013b), which relate to upland watershed health and ecological processes
and would be expected to continue to do so over the 10-year life of the permit under this
alternative.
Effects of Alternative 3:
Many of the effects on soils and BSCs would be similar to Alternative 1. However, active
preference would be decreased under Alternative 3 by 65% in the Abert Seeding Allotment and
48% in the Rabbit Basin Allotment. The current permittee, has been grazing (actual use on
average) in the recent past near the active preference levels proposed in Alternative 3 (see Tables
B-16 and B-20a). Therefore, it is not likely there would be much difference in concentrated
livestock use in either of these allotments compared to what currently occurs under Alternative 1.
However, the impacts of Alternative 3 on soils and crusts would be much less than Alternative 1 if
the permittee chose to graze the two allotments at full permitted use levels under Alternative 1.
As both allotments currently have either a rest rotation grazing system or alternating spring grazing
system (spring rest every other year), soils and BSCs would have some time to recover through
rest, deferment, and natural processes such as frost-heave and crust recruitment from adjacent
areas. Both allotments are currently meeting rangeland health standards 1 and 3 (Tables 3-10 and
3-11; BLM 2003c, 2003e, 2013a, 2013b), which relate to upland watershed health and ecological
processes and would be expected to continue to do so over the 10-year life of the permit under this
alternative.
Alternative 4: No Grazing
Under the No Grazing Alternative, little change to soils would occur on the allotments as a whole
in the short-term (up to 5 years). Most of the concentrated livestock use areas (2,681 acres)
associated with existing water sources and cattle trails would reclaim naturally with vegetation and
BSCs from surrounding areas over the long term (5-10 years). Some of these trails may persist
due to continued use by large wildlife such as antelope and deer. It is likely that interspace areas
(bare spots between grass/shrub species) may be reduced across the allotments due the lack of
cattle grazing. However, this change would likely be undetectable over the short-term. Both
allotments are currently meeting rangeland health standards 1 and 3 (Tables 3-10 and 3-11; BLM
2003c, 2003e, 2013a, 2013b), which relate to upland watershed health and ecological processes
and would be expected to continue to do so over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
22
C.
Wetland Vegetation
Affected Environment:
The Rangeland Health Assessment for the Rabbit Basin Allotment noted that, based on a previous
lentic PFC inventory (BLM 2003d), there were about 318 acres of palustrine wetlands located
within the allotment. However, the assessment also noted there were no perennial streams with
associated lotic wetland or riparian habitat. The Rangeland Health Assessment noted that these
lentic wetland areas were rated at Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and were, therefore
meeting Rangeland Health Standard 2 (related to riparian/wetland function). Livestock grazing did
not appear to be a factor limiting riparian/wetland function (Table 3-10; BLM 2003c, 2013a).
There are no perennial streams with associated riparian habitat or either lentic or lotic wetland
areas within the Abert Seeding Allotment (Table 3-11; BLM 2003d, 2003e, 2013b).
Environmental Consequences:
Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action
Since the existing palustrine wetlands in the Rabbit Basin Allotment are in PFC and livestock
grazing does not appear to be a factor limiting riparian/wetland function (BLM 2003c, 2003d,
2013a), continuing current grazing management would be expected to maintain this condition over
the 10-year permit lifetime. If full active AUM’s as currently authorized were to be used on an
annual basis, it is possible that this condition would not be maintained.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Change and Project Development
Under this alternative, the impacts to palustrine wetland habitat in the Rabbit Basin Allotment
would generally be similar to Alternative 1. The existing wetland condition (PFC) would be
maintained or improved slightly due to the additional dispersion and rest provided.
Effects of Alternative 3 – Reduced Grazing
Under this alternative, the impacts to palustrine wetland habitat in the Rabbit Basin Allotment
would generally be similar to Alternative 1. The existing wetland condition (PFC) would be
maintained or improved slightly due to the additional dispersion and rest provided.
Effects of Alternative 4 - No Grazing
Under this alternative, the existing palustrine wetland habitat condition (PFC) in the Rabbit Basin
Allotment would be maintained or improved due to the removal of livestock grazing.
D.
Upland Vegetation
Affected Environment:
Vegetation data was compiled from Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) data on file at the Lakeview
23
District Office. The data for north Lake County was collected by BLM staff between the early
1990s and 2001. This data is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety and is summarized in
this chapter and in Appendix B.
Rabbit Basin Allotment
The original Rabbit Basin Allotment Rangeland Health Assessment was conducted in 2003 (BLM
2003c). This assessment included both Sunstone and Hogback Pastures of the allotment. Each
pasture has one trend plot. RB-02 was established in the Sunstone Pasture in 1985. RB-03 was
established in the Hogback Pasture in 1985 (BLM 2012e).
OAT data collected in the Sunstone Pasture in 1995 indicated a downward trend primarily due to
decadent Wyoming sagebrush in the overstory and cheatgrass in the understory (see Appendix B,
Table B-6). Trend data has been collected in this pasture from 1985 to 2012 (see Appendix B,
Table B-18). The cover of cheatgrass has declined from 13% in 1985 to less than 1% in 2012.
There has been a correlating increase in perennial grasses over this same time period, including
slender wheatgrass (allowing for natural fluctuation in relation to annual precipitation). Wyoming
sagebrush has continued to increase, and the site could benefit from a sagebrush treatment to
reduce the cover of sagebrush.
As of the 2012 trend evaluation in this pasture, soils are stable within Rabbit Basin AllotmentSunstone Pasture; i.e. the majority of litter is collecting in place, there is little evidence of new
pedestaling, or new gullies within the allotment (See Appendix B, Table B-18). This provides for
a stable vegetative community appropriate for the area. OAT data collected in 2005, indicates a
stable trend, data collected in 2012 indicates an upward trend in this pasture.
Abert Seeding Allotment
The three pastures within Abert Seeding Allotment analyzed in this EA have 6 established trend
studies, Center East Pasture (AS-12), Center West Pasture (AS-02), and South Pasture (AS-03,
AS-08, AS-10, AS-11)(BLM 2012e). Some of the earliest trends established in these pastures date
back to 1985 (AS-02). The most recent monitoring study was established in the Center East
Pasture (AS-12) in 2012. Photo monitoring and Pace 180 vegetation studies were completed at
trend monitoring sites in 2010 and 2012 within this allotment (AS-12 established in 2012). The
data is presented in Appendix B Table 20b.
The allotment is dominated by Agropyron cristatum, crested wheatgrass, as the key forage species.
The average ground cover of all vegetative species was 50% within the allotment. Of that number,
53% represented crested wheatgrass and 4% represented Bromus tectorum , cheatgrass. Common
vegetative species found amongst a typical wheatgrass seeding consisted of Chrysothamnus
viscidiflorus, rabbitbrush and cheatgrass. Bare ground was often very abundant in crested
wheatgrass seedings with an average score of 22% ground cover. Vegetative litter accounted for
22% of ground cover due to the abundance of crested wheatgrass feed left over from the previous
growing season.
The observed apparent trend from monitoring efforts in this allotment depicts a stable to upward
trend for the three pastures being analyzed in the Abert Seeding Allotment. Three Line Intercept
24
transects were placed in the South pasture at trend site AS-11 in order to estimate percent shrub
cover. Artemisia tridentata, big sagebrush, and rabbitbrush were estimated to occupy 14% and
7%, of the cover, respectively.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3
The impacts of continuing grazing under both rest rotation and spring grazing systems on the
upland plant communities within the Lakeview Resource Area have previously been analyzed in
the Draft Lakeview RMP/EIS and Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS. This analysis is
incorporated herein by reference in its entirety (BLM 2001, Appendix E2; and 2003a, pages 4-2 to
4-14). In summary, under a spring grazing system, key species would be maintained or improved
over time as plants have adequate time and soil moisture to reach full growth, produce seed, and
replenish reserves (BLM 2003a, Table 4-1, page 4-5). A rest-rotation grazing system would
significantly improve the composition of the key herbaceous species and promote seed production,
root growth, plant vigor, and litter accumulation (BLM 2003a, Table 4-1, page 4-6).
Alternative 1 - No Action
Approximately 2,681 acres (6.5%) of the upland vegetation communities within the two allotments
would continue to be impacted by concentrated livestock use (near cattle trails and water sources).
Impacts to vegetation across the majority of the two allotments (93.5%) would be dispersed and
much less concentrated. Periodic rest would provide for a diversity of residual grass cover heights
across the allotment. Grazing at light to moderate intensities would likely continue across the
majority of the allotments (see Table B-16 and B20a).
Current livestock management would continue to allow some recovery time after each grazing
period. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 describe timing of grazing in relation to critical growing seasons of
Table 3-2. Grazing Seasons for Alternative 1 - Rabbit Basin Allotment
Time Period¹
Fall
Winter
Spring
MidSummer
Importance to Plant
health
Sunstone Pasture odd
year
Hogback Pasture odd
year
Hogback Pasture even
year
Sunstone Pasture even
year
Important
growth and
seed
production
period for
shrubs.
Plant dormant
period
Late-Summer
Important plant growth
and seed production
period for grasses and
forbs
Grasses and
forbs typically
dormant until
fall rains.
Graze
Rest
Graze
Graze
“
“
Graze
Rest
“
“
Graze
Graze
“
“
¹ Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5: Grazing Systems within the Planning Area, Page A-142
25
Not Permitted
Table 3-3. Grazing Seasons for Alternative 1 - Abert Seeding Allotment
Time Period¹
Fall
Winter
Spring
MidSummer
Importance to Plant
health
Center East Pasture
year 1
Center West Pasture
year 1
South Pasture
year 1
Center East Pasture
year 2
Center West Pasture
year 2
South Pasture
year 2
Center East Pasture
year 3
Center West Pasture
year 3
South Pasture
year 3
Important
Plant
growth and
dormant
seed
period
production
period for
shrubs.
Not Permitted
“
Important plant growth
and seed production
period for grasses and
forbs
Rest
“
Graze
Late-Summer
Grasses and forbs
typically dormant
until fall rains.
Not Permitted
“
“
“
“
Graze
Graze
Rest
Graze
Graze
Graze
“
“
Rest
grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Under these grazing seasons, plants would be able to complete their
growth cycle, and remain viable and healthy after each grazing period (Appendix E5, BLM 2003a,
p. A-169). The current vegetation communities, described in Appendix B, contain a diversity of
native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that would be maintained with the current grazing system. Both
allotments are currently meeting rangeland health standards 1, 3, and 5 (Tables 3-10 and 3-11;
BLM 2003c, 2003e, 2013a, 2013b), which relate to upland watershed health, ecological processes,
and plant communities, and would be expected to continue to do so over the 10-year permit
timeframe.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
In the short-term, the impacts of this alternative on upland plant communities would generally be
similar to those described for Alternative 1.
In the Rabbit Basin Allotment, there would be some additional short-term surface disturbance to
upland vegetation from vehicle traffic during construction and future maintenance of the proposed
pipeline, storage tank, and additional water troughs. In the long-term, however, water locations
and livestock use patterns would shift slightly under Alternative 2. Under this alternative, there
would be an addition of four water troughs associated with the proposed pipeline and storage tank.
Increased concentrated disturbance would also occur in the vicinity of the new water troughs due
to cattle hoof action being concentrated in these areas. The total area of concentrated livestock use
26
is estimated to be 3,161 acres (7.7%) of analysis area. The additional water developments (See
Map 5) would likely reduce the severity of hoof impacts at any given watering location due to
livestock being more evenly dispersed across more watering sites in a given year. This, coupled
with pasture rotation and proposed winter use (Table 3-5), would allow some recovery time from
the effects that occur in concentration areas (hoof divots, trails, etc.) through rest, natural processes
such as frost-heave and vegetation regrowth, and annual adjustments such as salt and water
placement in each pasture.
This alternative would extend the season of use in the Abert Seeding Allotment to allow rotational
grazing during the winter months (Table 3-6). The additional flexibility under this alternative
would allow a portion of the AUMs to be used when plants are in their dormant stage. Grazing
during plant dormancy is considered to have the least impact to rangeland grasses, forbs, and
shrubs of all possible grazing strategies. The Lakeview RMP/ROD states “Grazing during this
treatment will occur when most plant species are dormant. Most plants will have completed their
life cycles and stored maximum carbohydrates for the next growing season.” (BLM 2003b, page
A-142). The plant material removed is the previous year’s growth. For perennial grasses and
forbs, this material is primarily dead plant material that would be shed and decompose. This
allotment is comprised primarily of crested wheatgrass seedings. Every year, one of the pastures is
completely rested from grazing as part of a three-pasture rest-rotation system. This provides for
complete rest of a pasture every three years. This system would continue under this alternative.
Coupled with the current rest-rotation, the additional decrease in growing season use proposed
with the extension into winter use would improve plant vigor and diversity over time.
Both allotments are currently meeting rangeland health standards 1, 3, and 5 (Tables 3-10 and 311; BLM 2003c, 2003e, 2013a, 2013b), which relate to upland watershed health, ecological
processes, and plant communities, and would be expected to continue to do so over the 10-year
permit timeframe.
Table 3-5. Grazing Seasons for Alternative 2 - Rabbit Basin Allotment
Time Period¹
Fall
Winter
Spring MidSummer
Importance to Plant
health
Sunstone Pasture
odd year
Hogback Pasture
odd year
Hogback Pasture
even year
Sunstone Pasture
even year
Important
growth and
seed
production
period for
shrubs.
Plant dormant
period
Late-Summer
Important plant growth
and seed production
period for grasses and
forbs
Grasses and forbs
typically dormant
until fall rains.
Graze
Rest
Graze
Graze
“
“
Graze
Rest
“
“
Graze
Graze
“
“
¹ Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5: Grazing Systems within the Planning Area, Page A-142
27
Not Permitted
Table 3-6. Grazing Seasons for Alternative 2 - Abert Seeding Allotment
Time Period¹
Fall
Winter
Spring MidSummer
Importance to Plant
health
Center East Pasture
year 1
Center West Pasture
year 1
South Pasture
year 1
Center East Pasture
year 2
Center West Pasture
year 2
South Pasture
year 2
Center East Pasture
year 3
Center West Pasture
year 3
South Pasture
year 3
Important
Plant dormant
growth and
period
seed
production
period for
shrubs.
Not Permitted
Rest
“
“
Late-Summer
Important plant growth
and seed production
period for grasses and
forbs
Graze
Grasses and
forbs typically
dormant until
fall rains.
Not Permitted
“
“
“
“
Graze
Graze
Rest
Graze
Graze
Graze
“
“
Rest
¹ Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5: Grazing Systems within the Planning Area, Page A-142
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
Under this alternative, either cattle numbers or season of use would be reduced compared to
Alternative 1. It is likely that use patterns and concentrations areas would be less under this
alternative than if full active AUM’s were used as permitted under the No Action Alternative.
Approximately 2,681 acres (6.5%) of the vegetation communities within the two allotments would
continue to be impacted by concentrated livestock use (near cattle trails and water sources).
Impacts to vegetation across the majority of the two allotments (93.5%) would be dispersed and
much less concentrated. Periodic rest would provide for a diversity of residual grass cover heights
across the allotment. Grazing at light to moderate intensities would likely continue (see Tables 3-7,
3-8, B-16, and B-20a).
Both allotments are currently meeting rangeland health standards 1, 3, and 5 (Tables 3-10 and 311; BLM 2003c, 2003e, 2013a, 2013b), which relate to upland watershed health, ecological
processes, and plant communities, and would be expected to continue to do so over the 10-year
permit timeframe.
28
Table 3-7. Grazing Seasons for Alternative 3 - Rabbit Basin Allotment
Time Period¹
Fall
Winter
Spring Mid-Summer
Importance to Plant
health
Sunstone Pasture odd
year
Hogback Pasture odd
year
Hogback Pasture even
year
Sunstone Pasture even
year
Important
growth and
seed
production
period for
shrubs.
Plant dormant
period
Important plant growth
and seed production
period for grasses and
forbs
LateSummer
Grasses and
forbs typically
dormant until
fall rains.
Graze
Rest
Not Permitted
Graze
Graze
“
“
Graze
Rest
“
“
Graze
Graze
“
“
¹ Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5: Grazing Systems within the Planning Area, Page A-142
Table 3-8. Grazing Seasons for Alternative 3 - Abert Seeding Allotment
Time Period¹
Fall
Winter
Spring
MidSummer
Importance to Plant
health
Center East Pasture
year 1
Center West Pasture
year 1
South Pasture
year 1
Center East Pasture
year 2
Center West Pasture
year 2
South Pasture
year 2
Center East Pasture
year 3
Center West Pasture
year 3
South Pasture
year 3
Important
Plant dormant
growth and
period
seed
production
period for
shrubs.
Not Permitted
“
“
LateSummer
Important plant growth
and seed production
period for grasses and
forbs
Rest
Graze
Grasses and
forbs typically
dormant until
fall rains.
Not Permitted
“
“
“
“
Graze
Graze
Rest
Graze
Graze
Graze
“
“
Rest
¹ Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5: Grazing Systems within the Planning Area, Page A-142
29
Alternative 4 - No Grazing
Under this alternative, grazing would be limited to wildlife species and would not likely utilize all
available forage on the allotments. Succession would likely favor shrub species over the long-term
(greater than 10 years). Due to a lack of defoliation of grass species, older plant leaves would be
favored, which function at a less than maximum photosynthetic level. Increased shrubs and older
grasses could change the structure of the plant communities. Plant regrowth could be restricted by
previous year’s growth, causing decreased evapotranspiration rates (Manske2001, McNaughton
1979).
Older vegetation and higher shrub populations would favor an increase in above-ground biomass.
However, with a lack of livestock on the allotment there would be a decreased need for forage
production for animals and communities would change accordingly. Both allotments are currently
meeting rangeland health standards 1, 3, and 5 (Tables 3-10 and 3-11; BLM 2003c, 2003e, 2013a,
2013b), which relate to upland watershed health, ecological processes, and plant communities, and
would be expected to continue to do so over the 10-year permit timeframe. Therefore, the
allotments would continue to provide healthy, productive, and diverse plant populations and
communities. The vegetative community is likely to become more at risk to a future wildfire, as
ungrazed herbaceous material accumulate and woody shrubs increase.
E.
Noxious Weeds
Affected Environment
Hoary cress (Lepidium draba) has been inventoried in the Rabbit Basin Allotment. Cheatgrass
(Bromus tectorum) and tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) are also present in the area. The
small infestation of Hoary cress is the population of most concern in the Rabbit Basin allotment.
Hoary cress has generally occurred on roadsides and near waterholes, it has not expanded into
upland areas at present. These scattered weed locations are monitored and treated as necessary, in
accordance with an on-going integrated weed management program (see BLM 2004).
The Abert Seeding Allotment has documented occurrences of Mediterranean sage
(Salvia aethiopis). Treatment is ongoing and includes annual treatment using approved herbicides
and biological control measures including the use of a Mediterranean sage crown/root weevil
(Phrydiuchus tau).
These monitoring and treatment activities would continue in the future regardless of the alternative
selected for future implementation and, therefore, represent more of a cumulative effect than a
direct effect.
Current noxious weed sites in the Lakeview Resource Area are associated primarily with existing
roads and drainages (BLM 2004), demonstrating that vehicle and water transport are currently
more significant methods of weed spread than current livestock grazing management practices.
Environmental Consequences
Effects of Alternative 1– No Action
30
Known weed sites would continue to be inventoried, monitored, and treated as outlined in the
current Integrated Weed Management Program (see BLM 2004). Since existing management
would not change under this alternative, the low level of risk of this weed species expanding or
new species invading the allotments would not change over the 10-year life of the permit. The
impacts of this on-going weed treatment program are described in detail in the previous weed
treatment EA (BLM 2004), are summarized in the cumulative effects section, and will not be
repeated here.
Effects of Alternative 2 Implementation of this alternative would have a slight increased risk of spreading invasive species
within the Rabbit Basin Allotment as the proposed range improvements would create new
disturbance that may increase the risk of new species becoming established or existing weed
populations expanding into the newly disturbed areas. The area disturbed would be reseeded after
project construction and monitored for potential weed invasion. If weeds are discovered, they
would be treated in accordance with the current integrated weed treatment program.
Effects of Alternatives 3 and 4
Implementation of these alternatives would have little or no effect on the on-going treatment of
known weed sites under the integrated weed treatment program. Reducing or eliminating grazing
could decrease the risk of new weed invasion due to decreased disturbance and decreased potential
vectors for weed spread in the allotments. Existing weed populations would likely be stable or
decrease slightly under these alternatives.
F.
Wildlife
Affected Environment:
Wildlife habitat is defined largely by the existing soils, topography, and vegetation communities
within the allotments. These are described previously in the Wetland Vegetation and Upland
Vegetation sections. The Rangeland Health Assessments for both the Rabbit Basin and Abert
Seeding Allotments determined that Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5, which relate to
ecological processes and wildlife habitat were being met in 2003 (BLM 2003c, 2003e) and are still
being met at the present time (BLM 2013a, 2013b).
Water available to wildlife within the allotments is limited to natural sources, water developments
for cattle (waterholes, reservoirs, and developed springs) and guzzlers (water catchments)
constructed specifically for wildlife. Wildlife guzzlers have been constructed for wildlife use in
areas where natural water is limited. One guzzler is located in the south end of the Abert Seeding
Allotment. Several other guzzlers are located within a few miles of the allotments. Competition for
water can occur between wildlife and livestock in areas where water is scarce.
Mammals
The allotments fall within the larger Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2,955
31
square mile Juniper big game habitat management unit. The mule deer and pronghorn antelope
populations are relatively stable within this unit. Habitat quantity and quality do not appear to be
limiting big game population size or health within the unit. Deer and pronghorn populations
continue to fluctuate at or slightly above ODFW’s population management objectives for the unit
(ODFW 2003). The allotments comprise a small percentage of the unit and provides habitat
capable of supporting mule deer and pronghorn antelope. Of this Herd Unit, the area within the
allotments provide spring-fall habitat for mule deer, including fawning habitat. There are currently
60 AUMs allocated for mule deer, pronghorn, and other wildlife species within the Rabbit Basin
Allotment (BLM 2003b, pages A-87). There are currently 110 AUMs allocated for mule deer,
pronghorn, California bighorn sheep, and other wildlife species within the Abert Seeding
Allotment (BLM 2003b, pages A-93). Based on previous consultation with ODFW biologists, this
forage allocation is adequate to support big game populations within the allotments.
California bighorn sheep habitat occurs within the Abert Seeding Allotment. The ODFW
describes the existing bighorn habitat as adequate for future population expansion. The only
limitations in bighorn habitat within the Abert Seeding Allotment are limited perennial water sites
and unrestricted movement to and from these water sources.
Other mammals observed in the two allotments are jackrabbits, cottontails, coyotes, ground
squirrels, chipmunks, marmots, bobcats, mountain lions, badgers, bats, and other common shrubsteppe mammal species. In some areas porcupines and bears have been seen.
Birds
Some migratory birds use all habitat types in the allotments for nesting, foraging, and resting as
they pass through on their yearly migrations (Table 3-9). There has been no formal monitoring of
migratory birds on these allotments. Common species observed or expected to occur based on
species range and vegetation in the allotments are included in the following table (birds identified
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended). Migratory game bird species
identified by the USFWS that represent species whose population is below long-term averages or
management goals, or for which there is evidence of declining population trends, and may be
present in the allotments, are also included in the following table.
Birds of Conservation Concern for the Great Basin Region that may inhabit the allotments are also
included in Table 3-9. A mix of big and low sagebrush communities comprise the dominant
vegetation across the allotments. Waterfowl may frequent the allotments during migration and a
few pairs may breed on the private reservoirs in the area. The 1988 amendment to the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to “identify
species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional
conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973.” Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC 2008) is the most recent effort to
carry out this mandate.
Partners in Flight use the focal species approach to set biological objectives and link priority
species with specific conservation recommendations. It is a multi-species approach in which the
ecological requirements of a suite of focal species are used to define an 'ideal landscape' to
maintain the range of habitat conditions and ecological processes required by land birds and many
32
Prairie Falcon
Ferruginous Hawk
Golden Eagle
Sage Sparrow
Greater Sage
Grouse
Peregrine Falcon
Loggerhead Shrike
Swainson’s Hawk
Sage Thrasher
Bald Eagle
Burrowing Owl
Brewer’s Sparrow
Pygmy Rabbit
Kit Fox
Pallid Bat
Townsend’s Bigeared Bat
Northern Harrier
Cliff-open habitat
Sagebrush-shrub
steppe
Elevated nest
sites in open
country
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
dominated
rangelands
Cliff-open habitat
Open
country/scattered
trees/shrubs
Open Habitat
Sagebrush-shrub
steppe
Wetlands/River
Systems/Lakes
Grasslands-shrub
steppe
Sagebrush
clearings in
bitterbrush
Sagebrush with
deep soils
Arid shrub-steppe
Arid
regions/rocky
outcroppings
Lava fields
/Rocky Cliffs
/Abandoned
Structures
Wetlands/Ponds/
Riparian Areas
*FC
**SS
S
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
516,522
516,522
x
x
x
**SS
S
516,522
x
516,522
x
516,522
516,522
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
**SS
S
**SS
S
**SS
S
516,522
516,522
516,522
x
x
Allotments with
Known Habitat
or Potential
Habitat
Eagle Act
Game Birds
Below Desired
Condition
Focal Species
Migratory Birds
Birds of
Conservation
Concern
Species Status
General Habitat
Species and
Designation
Table 3-9. Wildlife Species with Special Management Considerations
516,522
516, 522
516,522
**SS
S
x
*FC – Federal Candidate Species
**SSS – Special Status Species
other species. Focal species are considered most sensitive to or limited by certain ecological
processes (e.g. fire or nest predation) or habitat attributes (e.g. patch size or snags). The
requirements of a suite of focal species are then used to help guide management activities.
Amphibians and Reptiles
There are also numerous amphibian and reptile species that occur within the allotments including
fence lizards, sagebrush lizards, gopher snakes, rattlesnakes, horned–lizards, and many other
common shrub–steppe species.
33
G.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Affected Environment:
The Bureau policy and guidance on special status species is to conserve those species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend (BLM 2001c). Other than the Greater Sage-grouse (Federal
Candidate Species), there are no known wildlife species classified as federally-listed Threatened or
Endangered, proposed or candidate species, or proposed or designated critical habitat within the
project area.
Both allotments provide habitat for the Greater sage-grouse. The Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final
EIS (BLM 2003a) Map W-1 shows areas defined as sage-grouse habitat as of spring 2002. The
data displayed in the map is considered to be a “broad-brush” habitat map subject to
refinement/update with new information over time. As noted in the footnotes of Map W-1, the
habitat data represented “the best data currently available” and this data was expected to be
refined or updated over time. Since the map was published, a cooperative habitat mapping effort
with ODFW has occurred throughout eastern Oregon resulting in updated sage-grouse habitat and
lek location data.
Knick and Connelly (2011) contains a compilation of recent sage-grouse research which addresses
a variety of issues related to management of the species at the range-wide scale (often referred to
as the “Monograph”). Information from the Monograph was synthesized for application at the
regional scale (Oregon) within the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy
for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitats (ODFW 2011).
Based on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) most recent sage-grouse lek data,
there are no known active sage grouse leks found within either allotment, however, sage grouse
have been seen historically using portions of the Rabbit Basin Allotment at different times of the
year. The nearest active lek is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the Abert Seeding
Allotment boundary. The nearest active lek is located approximately 5 miles east of the Rabbit
Basin Allotment boundary.
ODFW (2011) developed a habitat dataset that identifies the most productive landscapes for sagegrouse as either “core habitat” or “low density habitat”. Since that time, the BLM, in coordination
with ODFW, have refined this dataset. At this point in time, core habitat has become synonymous
with what BLM is currently calling “preliminary priority habitat” (PPH). This habitat is defined as
areas that have the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse
populations. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
BLM is currently calling low density habitat has as “preliminary general habitat” (PGH). This is
defined as areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat. This
mapping exercise considered a landscape approach to wildlife conservation prioritizing sagegrouse habitats and was based upon sage-grouse distribution and abundance in association to
nearest lek and not on actual vegetation. The main objective of the exercise was to protect the
most important breeding or nesting areas. When analyzing ODFW’s refined sage-grouse habitat
data for the allotments, approximately 844 acres (3%) of the Rabbit Basin Allotment rate as PPH
and about 2,963 acres (9%) as PGH. In the Abert Seeding Allotment approximately 955 acres
(10%) rate as PPH and 3,302 acres (36%) as PGH.
34
Sage-grouse habitat quality was reassessed for this EA using the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment
Framework (Stiver et. al. 2010). At the Third Order scale (sage-grouse home range scale) habitats
are limited within the allotments. Connelly et al. (2004) found most sage-grouse nest within 4
miles of a lek. Based on the distance from the nearest active lek and the sagebrush cover heights
associated with the current dominant vegetation types, approximately 480 acres (4%) of the Abert
Seeding Allotment rates as marginal yearlong habitat. The remaining11,717 acres (96%) of the
allotment rates as unsuitable habitat. This is due to the lack of sagebrush cover and native
perennial grasses that occur within the crested wheatgrass seeding. Approximately 25,321 acres
(78%) of the Rabbit Basin Allotment contains marginal nesting, summer habitat, and yearlong
habitat. Approximately 6,951 acres (22%) of the Rabbit Basin Allotment contains unsuitable
habitat. Neither allotment contains suitable nesting or brood-rearing habitat (Map 8).
The allotments lie within the northern range of the kit fox, a bureau sensitive species, in Oregon.
No kit fox have been documented within the Lakeview Resource Area; however, potential habitat
does exist.
While potential habitat for pygmy rabbits (BLM sensitive species) was identified in the
Rangeland Health Assessments (BLM 2003c, 2003e), this species has since then been confirmed
in a few locations within the allotments to date.
Peregrine falcons (BLM sensitive Species) have been observed in the general area due to releases
from the Summer Lake hack site; however, no nesting has been documented within either the
allotments.
Golden and bald eagles are 2 species given special protection under the Bald Eagle Protection Act
of 1940 (as amended). Currently, there are no known nests or nesting habitat for bald eagles
within either allotment. They are suspected to be occasional visitors to the area. There are no
confirmed golden eagle nests found within the allotments.
Special status bats may occur within the allotments, but likely only involve occasional migrating
individuals or animals foraging or passing through from adjacent habitat. There are no known
caves, adits, shafts, or outbuildings on the BLM portion of the allotments capable of providing
hibernacula for bats. Habitat is unknown on adjacent private lands. Due to the low potential for
occurrence and lack of roosting/resting habitat, none of the alternatives would likely have any
measurable impacts to bats. Therefore, they are not carried forward for further analysis.
Environmental Consequences: (Wildlife and Special Status Wildlife Species)
Effects Common to All Alternatives
ODFW (2011; page 13) cites two unpublished studies that documented sage-grouse mortality
associated with fencing as a risk factor in winter habitat in Wyoming and near lek sites in Idaho.
IM No. 2012-043 recommends marking fences within 1.25 mile of leks with anti-strike markers
(reflectors). Based on the closest active leks being over 1.25 mile away from existing or proposed
fences associated with the two allotments, the risk of fence collision mortality would be low and
anti-strike markers would not be required to comply with ODFW’s latest management guidelines.
35
Another risk factor identified in the Monograph, the Oregon Strategy, and the 12-Month Finding is
West Nile virus spread by mosquitoes around standing water (Knick and Connelly 2011, ODFW
2011, USFWS 2010). Sage-grouse are susceptible to West Nile Virus (Clark et al. 2006) and
mortality may be as high as 100 percent (Naugle et al. 2004) in certain areas. The virus is
primarily transmitted by infected mosquitoes, and was first detected in southeastern Oregon near
Burns Junction in 2006, and then later near Crane and Jordan Valley that same year. Across the
species range, total mortalities attributable to West Nile Virus have markedly declined since 2003.
The virus has not been detected near the allotments or in southeast Oregon since the first
observations in 2006 (DeBess 2009). Existing water troughs within the allotments (Map 4) are
designed to minimize overflow and reduce the potential for the production of mosquitoes. Though
Alternative 2 would install more water troughs for livestock and wildlife use, the effects to sagegrouse would not have any substantially different effects as compared to the other alternatives.
Therefore, the risk of virus spread or associated mortality would be low and identical under all
alternatives.
Effects of Alternatives 1 and 2
An estimated 2,681 acres (6.5%) of predominantly sagebrush habitat types within the allotments
would continue to be impacted by livestock trailing and concentration near existing water sources.
The majority of these acres lie within marginal and unsuitable sage-grouse habitat. The remainder
of the vegetation and associated habitats within the allotments would continue to be impacted to a
very minor degree by dispersed grazing use.
Due to the lack of suitable habitat within the allotments, continuing grazing under these two
alternatives would have minor effects on sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing/summer habitat
within the allotments. In the long-term, the diversity of native plants and residual cover
currently classified as marginal habitat for sage-grouse would be maintained or improved under
the livestock management associated with Alternatives 1 and 2. The presence of herbaceous
vegetation within each pasture would not increase the available vertical or horizontal screening
cover, but would retain forbs and habitat for insects, which are important to sage-grouse during
the spring and summer months (Drut et al. 1994, Gregg and Crawford 2009). Continued grazing
would have little effect on suitable or marginal quality winter habitat
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action
Current grazing management has achieved Rangeland Health Standard 5 for wildlife habitat.
Approximately 2,681 acres (6.5%) of the wildlife habitat within the allotments would continue to
be impacted by concentrated livestock use (near cattle trails and water sources), while impacts to
habitat across the majority of the allotments (93.5%) would be dispersed and much less
concentrated. The existing vegetation communities contain a diversity of native grasses, forbs, and
shrubs that would be maintained across the allotments through continuation of the current rest
rotation grazing system. (Refer to the Upland Vegetation section). In particular, the allotments
have adequate habitat to support an appropriate assemblage of migratory birds and current
livestock grazing does not appear to be affecting this habitat.
36
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
The impacts of this alternative on wildlife habitat in the allotments in general would be somewhat
less than Alternative 1. The vegetation within the Abert Seeding Allotment would continue to rest
one pasture each year, allowing complete pasture rest one year out of three. Extending the use
period in the winter months in this allotment would allow AUM”s to be utilized during the plants
dormant season. Winter use would reduce impacts to vegetation during the growing season and
possibly increase diversity over time and benefit wildlife habitat. Water improvements in the
Rabbit Basin Allotment would increase livestock distribution. This allotment would continue to be
a spring grazing system. In this allotment, the spring use is rotated between the two pastures on an
annual basis. Over time it is though that better livestock distribution may improve vegetation
diversity and benefit wildlife habitat.
The existing vegetation communities contain a diversity of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that
would be maintained across the allotments through continuation of a rest rotation/spring grazing
system (Refer to the Upland Vegetation section). Rangeland Health Standard 5 would continue to
be met and the allotments would continue to provide adequate quality wildlife habitat that is
capable of supporting an appropriate assemblage of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. The
effects of this alternative may improve sage-grouse habitat over time due to potential less use
during vegetation growing season coupled with better livestock distribution. This alternative
would provide adequate habitat for sage-grouse in the short and long-term.
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
The impacts of this alternative on wildlife habitat in the allotments in general would be somewhat
less than Alternatives 1 and 2 due to the 50% reduction in active grazing preference. The
vegetation within the allotments would see less use under this alternative, however would not
allow use during the winter months that are provided under Alternative 2. Reduced preference
may allow for vegetation improvement, however, no problems have been cited with existing
Rangeland Health Standards. The existing vegetation communities contain a diversity of native
grasses, forbs, and shrubs that would be maintained across the allotments through continuation of a
rest rotation/spring grazing system. (Refer to the Upland Vegetation section).
H.
Livestock Grazing Management
Affected Environment
The Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments are categorized as an “M” or “maintain” category.
This category was determined by a set of criteria:






Present range condition satisfactory
Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential, and are producing near
their potential (trend is moving in that direction)
No serious resource-use conflicts exist
Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investments
Present management appears satisfactory
Other criteria appropriate to area
37
The majority of livestock water from wells and associated pipelines in each allotment. The wells
and pipelines provide livestock with reliable sources of water. With a reliable source of water
present, the allotment can be grazed during the winter, spring and summer, and is not dependent on
annual precipitation.
Rabbit Basin Allotment
The two pastures of the Rabbit Basin Allotment are used every year, rotating spring use. One year
the Sunstone Pasture is used during the winter, and the Hogback Pasture during the winter and
spring; the opposite occurs the following year.
The average actual use (for the last ten years) is 952 AUMs, well below active 1,846 AUMs. Out
of the last ten years, there was one year where the average utilization exceeded the utilization
standard of 50% (defined in the Lakeview RMP/ROD, Appendix E5, A-147). The exceeded
standard was localized and occurred on seeded crested wheatgrass. During this same year, use on
native grass in this pasture was light.
In the use records for the allotment, records indicate that the allotment has been used only a couple
of times in recent years near the authorized active AUM’s. 87% of the active AUM’s were used in
2003 and the utilization average for the allotment was 39%. 86% of the active AUM’s were used
in 2011 and the average utilization for the allotment was 35%. Both of these utilization levels are
below the standard of 50%. It is thought that even if full use of active AUM’s was made on a
regular basis, the 50% standard would continue to be obtained.
Abert Seeding Allotment
The Abert Seeding Allotment has been used on a rest rotational grazing system consisting of
resting one and grazing two pastures each year. This rotational system allows a full year of rest for
each pasture every third year.
The average actual use (for the last ten years) is 645 AUMs, well below the active 1,831 AUMs.
Out of the last ten years, there were four years when the average utilization exceeded the
utilization standard of 50% in at least one of the three pastures (see Environmental Consequences,
for analysis).
In the use records for the allotment, records indicate that the allotment has been used only a couple
of times near the authorized active AUM’s in recent years. 62% of the active AUM’s were used in
1995 and the utilization average for the allotment was 61%. 62% of the active AUM’s were used
in 2000 and the average utilization for the allotment was 52%. The moderate category for
utilization is 40-60% with the midpoint of 50%. The 1995 reading exceeds the moderate category.
The utilization records indicate that use was made in early spring, utilization measurements were
also conducted early (early May). It was noted that there was adequate soil moisture to 12 inch
depth. Therefore, growth/regrowth would likely have occurred. The records also state that this
was prior to the pasture division fence between the Center East and Center West Pastures. It was
apparent that distribution problems were occurring and the pasture fence was installed. It is
thought that with proper distribution, full active AUM’s could be used in this allotment and
continue to obtain moderate utilization standard.
38
Historically (as recent as 1975), permitted use allowed for winter use of AUMs not used during
the growing season. Grazing during the winter season in this allotment was discontinued in the
mid-1980s. A rotation was implemented in 1976, to address herbicide treatments that were
determined to reduce broadleaf competition in the established seedings. There is no indication
that winter grazing presented any ecological problems in this allotment. At that time, the
permittee no longer required the flexibility provided with winter grazing, and therefore this was
voluntarily discontinued.
Rangeland Health
In 2003, an Interdisciplinary Team (ID) conducted a field assessment Rangeland Health within the
Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments. The ID team found that all applicable standards were
being met. In 2012, an ID Team conducted a Rangeland Health assessment for these same
allotments and pastures. This ID Team found that the Rabbit Basin Allotment and Abert Seeding
Allotment (applicable pastures Center East, Center, West and South) are meeting Rangeland
Health Standards. The 2003 Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) and updates are summarized in
Tables 3-10 and 3-11 below, and are incorporated in their entirety herein by reference (BLM
2003c; 2003e; 2013a; 2013b; available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php).
Rabbit Basin Allotment
The original Rabbit Basin Allotment Rangeland Health Assessment was conducted in 2003. This
assessment included both Sunstone and Hogback Pastures of the allotment. Each pasture has one
trend plot. RB-02 was established in the Sunstone Pasture in 1985. RB-03 was established in the
Hogback Pasture in 1985 (BLM 2012e).
Rabbit Basin was split into two pastures in 2003. The actual use and utilization data from 19922002 can be compared to the total AUMs from 2003-2012. The average actual use from 20032011 was 952 AUMs (Sunstone-557; Hogback-395), and target utilization level of 50% was
exceeded only once in Hogback Pasture. The exceeded standard was localized and occurred on
seeded crested wheatgrass. During this same year, use on native grass in this pasture was light.
The total active AUMs have been exceeded one time out of the last 10 years, and use has always
been within permit dates. The permittee has turned in actual use each year for the last 10+ years.
The RB-2 plot was established in the Sunstone Pasture of the Rabbit Basin Allotment in 1985.
Although high scores were not given for vigor, trend photos and consecutive notes were made
about tall and abundant green growth, especially Basin Wildrye. The percent bare ground has
decreased and litter and vegetation cover has increased. The percent composition varies widely
each year. Some cheat grass and mustard is present at this site, but overall this pasture is in stable
condition.
The RB-3 plot was established in the Hogback Pasture of the Rabbit Basin Allotment in 1985. A
wildfire occurred in 1983 and resulted in planting of a crested wheatgrass seeding with cheat grass
present throughout and very little forbs or grass diversity. The trend data and photo analysis
39
Table 3-10. Rabbit Basin Allotment Rangeland Health Summary
Standard
2003
Assessment
2013
Assessment
Update
Comments
1. Watershed
Function –
Uplands
Met
Met
The 2003 Rangeland Health Assessment stated that 28% of the
allotment in the moderate Erosion Condition Class and that the loamy
sand and sandy loam soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion.
RB-02 of the Sunstone Pasture has a strong diverse plant cover
whereas RB-03 of the Hogback Pasture has good plant cover but is
mostly crested wheatgrass and cheat grass. There is good plant vigor
and plants are able to complete their reproductive cycle following
grazing use each fall and winter, and are provided with periodic spring
rest. Organic matter in the form of plant litter is accumulating and
being incorporated into the soil. Available trend data shows that plant
cover is increasing and the amount and distribution of bare ground is
decreasing and is within the range of variability expected for the
ecological sites found in the allotment.
2. Watershed
Function
Riparian/
Wetland
Areas
Met
Met
The 2003 Rangeland Health Assessment stated that 318 acres of
palustrine wetlands are found in this allotment and were rated at
Proper Functioning Condition.
Met
Met
According to the 2003 Rangeland Health Assessment, 60% of the
allotment is in an early seral stage. This is observed in the crested
wheatgrass seeding found at RB-3 in Hogback Pasture. A stronger
plant composition is found at RB-2 in Sunstone Pasture. Available
trend data shows that organic matter is accumulating in the form of
litter and is being incorporated into the soil in both pastures. Plant
roots appear to be occupying the soil profile, stabilizing the soil.
__
__
3. Ecological
Processes
4. Water
Quality
5. Native,
T/E, and
Locally
Important
Species
Met
Met
There are no Oregon listed water quality limited streams in this
pasture (Rangeland Health Assessment, 2003).
The allotment is supporting numbers of mule deer and pronghorn
antelope identified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) management plans. There are no special status plants
present within this allotment. No special status plants are known to
occur on the Rabbit Basin Allotment. Locally Important Plants
species include Lewisia rediviva and Lomatium nevadense, both
known to have cultural uses.
indicates a stable trend at this site. Percent bare ground has decreased and the percent litter has
increased over time.
Abert Seeding Allotment
The original Rangeland Health Assessment was conducted in 2003. At this time, the three pastures
analyzed in this EA were meeting all standards for Rangeland Health. In 2012, an interdisciplinary
team reassessed these pastures within the Abert Seeding Allotment. The three pastures analyzed in
this EA are still meeting all standards (there are two other pastures that are grazed by a different
operator under a separate permit, these two pastures will be analyzed in a separate EA, and not
addressed further in this document).
The permittee operating in the Center East, Center West, and South Pastures of the Abert Seeding
have applied for and used an average of 36% of the available active AUM’s in the past ten years.
The average percent utilization by pasture (for years used, not counting years when pasture is
40
Table 3-11. Abert Seeding Allotment Rangeland Health Summary
Standard
1. Watershed
Function –
Uplands
2. Watershed
Function
Riparian/
Wetland
Areas
3. Ecological
Processes
4. Water
Quality
5. Native,
T/E, and
Locally
Important
Species
2003
Assessment
2013
Assessment
Update
Center West,
Center East,
South,
Leehmann
Pastures are
meeting
Standards.
200 acres of
the
Highway1
Pasture not
meeting
Standards.
Center East,
Center West,
South, and
Leehmann
Pastures are
meeting
Standards.
Not
Applicable
Center West,
Center East,
South,
Leehmann
Pastures are
meeting
Standards.
200 acres of
the
Highway1
Pasture not
meeting
Standards.
Not
Applicable
All Pastures
are meeting
Standards.
Livestock
Grazing
(Recommend
ation is to
reduce spring
grazing in
pasture not
meeting
standard).
----
Comments
The three pastures (Center East, Center West, and South) of the Abert
Seeding Allotment being evaluated under this EA are meeting
standards. Plant composition and community structure of grasses,
forbs, and shrubs are what is expected for the site. There is good plant
vigor and plants are able to complete their reproductive cycle
following the grazing rotation. Organic matter in the form of plant
litter is accumulating and being incorporated into the soil. Available
trend data shows that plant cover and the amount and distribution of
bare ground is within the range of variability expected for the
ecological sites found in the applicable pastures of the allotment.
There are no perennial streams or wetlands within this allotment.
Center East,
Center West,
South, and
Leehmann
Pastures are
meeting
Standards.
The three pastures (Center East, Center West, and South) of the Abert
Seeding Allotment being evaluated under this EA are meeting
standards. There is diverse plant composition and community
structure across the allotment. Organic matter is accumulating in the
form of litter and is being incorporated into the soil. Plant roots
appear to be occupying the soil profile, and there is good plant
composition and community structure throughout the allotment.
Livestock
Grazing
(Recommend
ation is to
reduce spring
grazing in
pasture not
meeting
standard).
----
There are no perennial streams or wetlands within this allotment
All Pastures
are meeting
Standards.
The Abert Seeding Allotment is meeting this standards. Peregrine
falcons and ferruginous hawk nesting habitat is available on the
allotment. Big horn sheep habitat exists within the allotment, as well
as pronghorn antelope and mule deer. Restoration work would be
needed to return areas previously burnt by wildfire to shrub covered
sage-grouse habitat. However, some areas are nearing natural
recovery to nesting habitat. There are no major conflicts between
wildlife species mentioned above and livestock grazing.
1
The 200 acres in the Highway Pasture has a reduced perennial grass understory which may be attributed to yearly spring grazing, and reducing the
amount of spring grazing is recommended; However, the Highway Pasture is not being analyzed under this EA. This pasture is used by another
permittee and will be addressed when that permit comes up for renewal.
completely rested) for this same period of time is Center East Pasture 38%, Center West Pasture
51%, and South Pasture 44% (see Appendix B, Table B-20a). There are six trend plots
established within these three pastures. Observed apparent trend conducted during the ESI in the
41
mid-1990s found a downward trend for the majority of sites in these three pastures. This could be
attributed to the recent wildfires and seedings prior to this inventory. Re-reads of these trend
locations in 2010 and 2012 indicate that for all three pastures represented by these six trend
studies, a stable to upward trend now exists. For a specific discussion of monitoring results for
these two allotments, see Chapter 3, Section D Upland Vegetation. Empirical data is also available
in Appendix B, Table B-20.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3
Under the Alternatives 1-3, the allotment would continue to be used during the winter and spring.
Each pasture would receive spring rest every other year. This allotment would continue to meet
Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Management under the current
management. Multiple use objectives from the land use plan (see Chapter I) would continue to be
met on the allotment. For these reasons, this alternative would be consistent with the Lakeview
Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision (BLM 2003b), the grazing regulations, and
FLPMA.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Change and Project Development
Adjusting permit dates (for both allotments) proposed under this alternative would be consistent
with the allotment-specific management direction found in Appendix E1 of the Lakeview Resource
Management Plan/Record of Decision (BLM 2003b). For these reasons, this alternative would be
consistent with the management direction within the Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record
of Decision (BLM 2003b), the grazing regulations, and FLPMA.
Rabbit Basin Allotment
This alternative would increase flexibility within the allotment by extending the permit dates on
both ends. Each pasture would receive spring rest every other year, allowing plants to complete
their reproductive life cycles. The extension of the pipeline would deliver water to an area
currently lacking adequate water, thus increasing livestock distribution within the Sunstone
Pasture. Active permitted AUMs would remain the same (as the no action), 1,846, on the
allotment. As stated under the affected environment, the average actual use is below the active
permitted use, providing the permittee with the ability to use additional AUMs on years with high
precipitation/forage growth. It is thought that with increased livestock distribution, vegetation
diversity may improve over time.
Abert Seeding Allotment
This alternative would increase management flexibility within the allotment by extending the
permit dates into the winter. Pastures would continue to receive complete rest every three years.
Active permitted AUMs would remain the same (as the No Action Alternative), 1,831, on the
allotment. AUM’s would be available for use during the dormant season. Utilization was
exceeded in at least one pasture 4 years out of the past 10 years. Allowing a portion of AUMs to
be used during the dormant season would aid in reducing use during the growing season. There is
42
a correlation of years when the standard was exceeded to drought years. During drought years,
there is typically not enough soil moisture to allow for re-growth following grazing. During
drought years, utilization would be conducted early enough in the season that livestock off dates
could be adjusted before utilization standard is exceeded. Once 50% utilization is reached,
livestock would be moved to another pasture, or to private or leased land.
Winter is the dormant season for perennial plants in the Great Basin. Under the proposed season
extension, proposed grazing during the dormant season would occur December 1–February 28.
Grazing during this treatment will occur when most plant species are dormant. Most plants will
have completed their life cycles and stored maximum carbohydrates for the next growing season.
Grazing perennial grasses and forbs during this period removes primarily the previous season’s
dead plant material. Grazing during this season aids reproduction and seedling establishment as
livestock help scatter and plant seeds (BLM 2003b). As some use would be shifted from grazing
during the growing season to grazing during the dormant season, it is thought that this alternative
may increase vegetation diversity.
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
Effects would be similar to Alternative 1, however there would be no range improvements in
Rabbit Basin Allotment, and there would be decreases in grazing preference in both allotments.
Grazing AUM preference would be decreased by 65% in Abert Seeding Allotment and 48% in
Rabbit Basin Allotment. This would reduce livestock numbers and/or season of use. Long term
economic impacts to the permittee would likely occur under this alternative. Flexibility currently
available to the permittee would no longer ba available.
Effects of Alternative 4 - No Grazing
Under this alternative, grazing would no longer be permitted within either allotment (only the
applicable three pastures of the Abert Seeding Allotment. The permittee would need to replace
158 AUMs of lost forage (approximately 55,853 lbs.) with private land forage or hay in the general
vicinity. The additional cost to replace this forage would be an impact to the permittee. These
impacts are discussed further in the Social and Economic section.
Existing range improvement projects within the allotments would not be maintained for livestock
grazing purposes. Allotment boundary fences would need to be maintained by the BLM or
adjacent permittees to keep livestock from adjacent allotments from trespassing inside the
allotments.
This alternative would not be consistent with the primary Livestock Grazing Management Goal of
providing “for a sustainable level of livestock grazing consistent with other resource objectives
and public land-use allocations” (Page 52, as maintained). Further, the alternative would not be
consistent with the current grazing management direction for the Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding
Allotments, which are open and available to grazing use (Page 47, Table 5; and Map G-3, as
maintained).
43
I.
Native American Traditional Uses
Affected Environment:
Rabbit Basin Allotment
The Rabbit Basin Allotment is located within a pre-contact and modern American Indian
traditional use area. Some members of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community have ancestors that
used the Rabbit Basin portion of the Warner Valley during their seasonal economic activities. The
allotment would have had a variety of plants and animals which were traditionally used by them.
Within the larger Warner Valley area, some areas were used for religious activities. However,
specifically within the Rabbit Basin Allotment, BLM is not aware of any specific locations of
religious or cultural importance. Statements from current members of the Fort Bidwell Indian
Community indicate that they consider all manifestations of the Native American past to be of
importance and sacred (personal communications during the Ruby Pipeline Project with Tribal
members).
Abert Seeding Allotment
The Abert Seeding Allotment is located within a pre-contact and modern American Indian
traditional use area. Some members of the Klamath Tribes have ancestors that used the area
during their seasonal economic activities. The area would originally have had a variety of plants
and animals which were traditionally used by them. Within the broader Abert Basin area, it is
known that some areas were used for religious activities. Other than a small portion of the
allotment within the Abert Rim ACEC, BLM is not aware of any specific locations in this
allotment of religious or cultural importance (refer to ACEC section later in this chapter).
Statements from current members of the Klamath Tribes indicate that they consider all
manifestations of the Native American past to be of importance and sacred (personal
communications during the Ruby Pipeline Project with Tribal members).
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-4
None of the alternatives would change the nature of the traditional use sites in the Rabbit Basin or
Abert Seeding Allotments, if present. There is currently no known use of these areas for collecting
of any type of plants or of any known religious uses. The proposed range developments in the
Rabbit Basin Allotment are site-specific and may be within an area of importance to the Fort
Bidwell Indian Community, but none have been identified by them at this time. These proposed
developments are outside of the area of importance to the Klamath Tribes.
J.
Cultural Resources
Affected Environment:
Only about 2 to 5% of the two allotments have had a Class III cultural survey performed.
Surveys have been done on and around water developments, power line right-of-ways, roads, and
44
other proposed developments in the general area. The fact that cultural surveys have not been
completed on 100% of the allotments represents a resource for which there is “incomplete or
unavailable information”. According to the CEQ’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1502.22),
when an agency is evaluating impacts and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the
agency must make clear that such information is lacking. Further, if the information “cannot be
obtained because the cost of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known,
the agency shall include…. (1) a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2)
a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating
reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts….; (3) a summary of the existing credible
scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant
impacts… and (4) the agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or
research methods generally accepted in the scientific community…”. The DOI NEPA regulations
state that these costs are not just monetary, but can also include “social costs, delays, opportunity
costs, and non-fulfillment or non-timely fulfillment of statutory mandates” (43 CFR Part 46.125).
The costs of obtaining a comprehensive survey of cultural resources across the two allotments is
estimated at $800 to $1080 per acre (or approximately $33,020,000 to $44,577,000 total) and
would be exorbitant.
The two allotments have a moderate probability for containing high value archaeological resources
because they are fairly well watered and historically had areas suitable for hunting or the collection
of edible grass seed crops, various roots, and berries. Based on past cultural surveys, five sites
have been documented in the two allotments. Four sites are prehistoric sites related to stone tool
manufacture and maintaining hunting tools. One site is more complex and also involves plant food
processing and a longer term encampment. Based upon analysis of the known sites located in the
area, the allotments appear to have been used for plant gathering and hunting, especially in the last
2,000 to 4,000 years. Some evidence of occupation during 8,000 to 10,000 years before present
(BP) is also indicated by the sites presently known.
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1- No Action
Based on field observations by BLM cultural resources staff over the last 38 years on known
cultural resource sites in the Lakeview Resource Area, livestock can impact cultural materials
located in the top 12 inches of the soil profile. These effects include ground cover removal, surface
scuffing, and hoof shear. The reoccurring cycle of ground disturbance, removal of vegetative
cover, along with water and wind erosion can lead to continued loss of soil and further exposure of
a given site, and loss of vertical context within the site. Cultural materials within the top 12 inches
of soil can be exposed to trampling damage, resulting in reduced site integrity. The deepest
disturbance is typically seen at sites located in livestock congregation areas (near water sources
and trailing areas) where concentrated hoof shear is common. Large wildlife (antelope, mule deer)
also utilize livestock trails to access water sources and may contribute to the trampling effects
observed in concentration areas. Generalized dispersed grazing, with light hoof shear and surface
scuffing, can result in light (2 inches) to moderate (6 inches) depth of impacts to some sites.
All five documented sites in the allotments have been impacted in varying degrees from surface
scuffing (2 inches deep) to hoof shear (12 inches deep) by livestock use. However, the severity
45
and extent of impacts have not been quantified. One site has also been affected by road
construction and use. The most common impacts to these documented sites have been livestock
trampling, wind erosion, and sheet wash erosion from rain.
Based on the analysis described in the Soils section, approximately 2,681 acres (6.5%) of the
allotments would continue to be impacted by concentrated livestock use (near water sources and
cattle trails) under Alternative 1. Any undocumented cultural sites located in these areas would
have the highest potential to continue to be impacted by hoof shear and trampling. Undocumented
sites located across the remainder of the allotment would continue to be impacted by dispersed
grazing use, including light hoof shear and surface scuffing, as well as erosion from wind and
water.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
Increasing livestock distribution throughout the allotments under Alternative 2 would not likely
increase the effects on cultural resources substantially across the majority of the allotments. There
would be approximately 4.8 acres of additional surface disturbance associated with pipeline
construction and maintenance. During project design, the proposed pipeline was relocated from its
original proposed location to avoid impacting known existing cultural resources. Surveys for
cultural sites have been completed for the proposed range improvement locations. No cultural
sites eligible for National Register were discovered during these surveys. Based on these results,
the construction of the proposed development would have not impacts on cultural resources.
New livestock congregation areas (approximately 480 acres) would arise due to up to 4 new water
trough placements, resulting in increased disturbance from cattle hoof action concentrated in these
areas. The total acreage impacted by concentrated livestock and wildlife use would be
approximately 3,161 acres (7.7%) of the area. Sites located across the remainder of the allotment
would continue to be impacted by dispersed grazing use, including light hoof shear and surface
scuffing, as well as erosion from wind and water.
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
Spreading livestock distribution more evenly over the allotments and reducing livestock numbers
under Alternative 3 would reduce potential impacts on cultural sites compared to the No Action
Alternative. There would be less trampling impacts, particularly in existing livestock
concentration areas. Sites located across the remainder of the allotment would continue to be
impacted by dispersed grazing use (light hoof shear and surface scuffing), but to a lesser degree
than Alternative 1. Impacts associated with wildlife use and erosion from wind and water would
probably be reduced over time, as ground cover improves around some concentrated use areas.
Effects of Alternative 4 - No Grazing
Removal of livestock grazing would eliminate most trampling effects on cultural sites across the
allotments. Trampling effects associated with large wildlife would continue. Impacts associated
with erosion from wind and water would continue in the short-term, but would be reduced over
time, as ground cover improves around concentrated use areas.
46
K.
Recreation
Recreation within the Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments are managed for multiple
activities, opportunities, and experiences (see map R-3, BLM 2003b). Recreation within the
majority of both allotments is managed for Semi-Primitive Motorized experiences (28,035 acres;
68%). Such areas possess a moderate probability of experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and
self-reliance in outdoor skills. User interaction is low, but there is evidence of other users and few
isolated structures.
Recreation along Hogback and Sherlock Gulch Roads, the main access routes within the
allotments, are managed for Roaded Natural experiences (8,004 acres; 19%). Such areas possess
an equal probability of experiencing other user groups, as well as isolation from the sights and
sounds of others. There is an opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural
environment, but primitive types of recreation are not as important. User interaction is low to
moderate. Resource modifications and utilizations are evident, but harmonize with nature.
Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible.
Recreation along Highway 395 and within the Sunstone Public Collection Area (SPCA) is
managed for Rural recreational activities, opportunities, and experiences (5,215 acres; 13%). The
probability of experiencing other users is prevalent, as is the convenience of developed sites.
Moderate to high user interaction is acceptable. Activity factors are generally more important than
the setting of the physical environment. Resource modification and utilization practices are
designed to emphasize recreation activities. Facilities are often provided and are typically geared
toward motorized use, with parking available.
The SPCA, located within the Rabbit Basin Allotment, is a four square mile area designated
primarily for recreational rock-hounding activities. It includes a developed recreation site with a
vault toilet, shade shelters, picnic tables, primitive campsites with fire rings, and numerous roads
and trails. This area receives moderate use primarily in the spring and early summer, with
continued low visitation into late fall (approx. 2-3,000 visits/year). Approximately one third of all
visits are multi-day camping trips, while the majority of visits stem from day use
Both allotments provide some opportunities for solitude, where a visitor could avoid the presence
of others. Topographic screening can be found both in the southern half of the Abert Seeding
Allotment, within the Coleman Hills, and in the southeastern corner of the Rabbit Basin Allotment,
within the Rabbit Hills.
Both allotments are open to Off-Highway Vehicle use on roads, trails, and cross-country travel,
except for approximately 470 acres of the Abert Seeding Allotment, which lies within the Abert
Rim Wilderness Study Area (WSA), where use is Limited to Designated Roads and Trails, (see
map R-7, BLM 2003b).
The primary recreation activities in these allotments are upland game bird (e.g., chukar and quail)
and big game (e.g., mule deer and pronghorn antelope) hunting, and rock hounding. Other
recreation activities may occasionally occur in these allotments including: OHV riding, wildlife
viewing, photography, camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and target shooting.
47
Environmental Consequences:
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action
The No-Action Alternative would continue to have both positive and negative impacts to
recreation opportunities, activities, and experiences across the allotments. Current recreation
activities and opportunities, including hunting for upland game bird and big game, rock hounding,
OHV, wildlife viewing, photography, camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding and target
shooting, would likely remain relatively constant over the 10 year life of the permit.
Pockets of solitude and naturalness, would continue to provide for some primitive recreation
opportunities in the Rabbit Hills and the Abert Rim WSA. Generally, the individual recreation
experience or expectation varies from one user group or individual to another. Existing water
developments, such as waterholes, reservoirs, and guzzlers would continue to provide benefits to
users viewing or hunting wildlife. Conversely, areas within close proximity to existing water
developments, fences, and mining disturbances would continue to negatively impact or displace
recreation experiences for those seeking primitive and unconstrained recreation, or a high degree
of solitude and naturalness.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
Season of Use
Season of use changes within Alternative 2 would negatively impact recreational experiences and
opportunities across the allotments for some user groups. Changes to season of use within the
Rabbit Basin Allotment would have low negative impacts (approx. 2 week increase), while the
Abert Seeding Allotment would have moderate negative impacts (up to 3 month increase)
specifically for those users seeking less user interaction and higher degrees of solitude and
naturalness. These impacts would be due to the increased human activity that would be expected in
the allotments related to livestock management activities (checking on water developments,
monitoring livestock use, etc.). The increased season of use would reduce the number of days
these user groups could recreate free from the sights and sounds of cattle.
Developments
The impacts of existing water developments on recreational experiences would be similar to
Alternative 1. Generally, impacts to recreation associated with the establishment of the new
pipeline and troughs would be either moderately beneficial or highly detrimental, depending on the
perspective of a given user group. Increased access to water would benefit recreational users
pursuing wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities. Conversely, areas within close proximity to
water developments would also be undesirable for those seeking isolation, closeness to nature, or
natural experiences, due to the negative physical and visual impacts of the facilities themselves and
increased use of the area by permittees and livestock. These developments would also change the
area’s recreational setting from pastoral to a more agricultural setting and shift recreational use
toward wildlife-dependent activities, and away from experiences that rely on a natural appearing
landscape.
48
The new pipeline and associated troughs would extend into one of only two pockets of solitude
and relative naturalness within the Abert Seeding Allotment. While, the proposed pipeline would
follow an existing primitive route where possible, this route has been seeded over and portions
have effectively reclaimed with vegetation as a result. Thus, installing the pipeline would reestablish the route and make a more pronounced unnatural hard impact line of disturbance.
Furthermore, placement of the water tank on a prominent saddle would make the tank visible from
within the valley and far outside the Rabbit Basin Allotment to the north. Thus, placement of a
pipeline and water tank in this location would have high localized impacts to opportunities for
solitude and naturalness. These impacts would be reduced somewhat by painting of the troughs to
blend into the surroundings. These impacts could be further reduced by burying the water tank, so
as to not be seen from outside the allotment or from the valley bottom. Additionally, impacts
could be completely mitigated by modifying the pipeline to terminate in the mouth of the valley
bottom outside of the Rabbit Hills (T. 34S, R. 24E, Sec. 4) and burying the water tank in this same
location.
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
Alternative 3 would moderately benefit recreation opportunities within the two allotments. This
alternative would reduce the active preference of AUMs (65% for Abert Seeding; 48% for Rabbit
Basin) compared to the No-Action Alternative, along with reducing the associated impacts of
concentrated trampling around water developments and cattle trails. Thus, it would moderately
benefit those recreation user groups seeking natural or solitude experiences.
Effects of Alternative 4 - No Grazing
The No-Grazing Alternative would enhance some recreation activities, opportunities, and
experiences in these allotments, while possibly diminishing others. Those seeking a more natural
or primitive recreation experience would be able to find a moderately enhanced experience due to
the permanent absence of the sights and sounds of cattle, the improved ecological condition of the
allotments (particularly around cattle trails and watering areas), and the potential for existing
livestock facilities to begin to blend into the landscape due to lack of maintenance. Conversely,
this alternative may reduce opportunities and experiences for wildlife viewers and hunters
compared to Alternative 1, if water developments become less effective at trapping and holding
water for wildlife due to lack of maintenance over the 10-year analysis period.
L.
Visual Resources
Affected Environment:
Abert Seeding Allotment
Topographically, the Abert Seeding Allotment is dominated by Coleman Hills to the south and
Abert Rim to the east. Coleman Hills (5,659 ft.) gently slopes into Coleman Flat to the north, while
multiple meandering drainages slope south to the northern end of Abert Lake (4,267 ft.). Views
looking out from the allotment include: Abert Lake to the southwest, Jug Mountain to the west,
Venator Butte to the northwest, and Juniper Mountain to the northeast. In two of the pastures,
crested wheatgrass is dominant. However, in the South Pasture, big sagebrush and native
49
perennial grass comprise some of the dominant vegetative communities. (Vegetation is described
in more detail in the Upland Vegetation section above and Tables B-8 – B10).
Observable developments in the area of the three pastures analyzed in this permit renewal include
approximately 22 miles of motorized roads/primitive routes, 2.5 miles of reclaiming routes, 1 mile
of cat line, 8 miles of federal highway, 8 miles of pipeline, 28.4 miles of fence, 1.75 miles of major
utility line, 1 reservoirs, 9 waterholes, 5 water troughs, 1 well, 1 wildlife guzzler, 1 open gravel pit
and 1 mineral material storage site, 15 small abandoned mine sites (trenches and prospects), 2
crested wheatgrass seedings (1,433 acres) and 3 cattle guards.
Rabbit Basin Allotment
Topographically, the Rabbit Basin Allotment is dominated by the Rabbit Hills (5,689 ft.) along the
southeastern boundary, with the majority of the allotment comprised of the wide-open flats of
Rabbit Basin to the north. Views looking out from the allotment are limited due to the bowl shape
of the basin. Features that can be seen in the distance include: Coyote Hills to the south, Hart
Mountain to the southeast, and Poker Jim Ridge to the east. Vegetation in the allotment is diverse,
consisting of Wyoming sagebrush, slender wheatgrass, and cheatgrass. (Vegetation is described in
more detail in the Upland Vegetation section above and Tables B-6 – B-7).
Observable developments in the area include approximately 132 miles of roads/motorized
primitive routes, 1.25 miles of reclaiming routes, 8.5 miles of trails, 6.5 miles of cat line, 2.7 miles
of pipeline, 43 miles of fence, 3 waterholes, 2 water troughs, 1 reservoir, 1 well, 1 open mineral
pit, 2 crested wheatgrass seedings (5,513 acres), and 6 cattle guards. In addition, there are over 200
sunstone mining claims in the northern half of the allotment, with many outbuildings/structures,
and large pieces of equipment. (Refer to the Recreation section above for list of recreation
developments in the SPCA).
An updated Scenic Quality Inventory for the north Rabbit Basin Canyon was conducted in May of
2013. This inventory found that the scenic quality for this localized area was rated as an area of
high scenic quality due to landscape character and associated landform, vegetation, color, adjacent
scenery, scarcity (refer to project record).
Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotments are managed according to Visual Resource
Management classes VRM I, VRM III, and VRM IV (Table 3-12). Abert Rim WSA is managed
as VRM I. A corridor between highway 395 and Abert Rim is managed as VRM III and all the
remaining area is managed as VRM IV.
Table 3-12. Visual Resource Management Classes in the Allotments
Allotment
Abert Seeding
Rabbit Basin
VRM I*
(acres/%)
779/ 9%
-
VRM III***
(acres/%)
2,803/ 30%
-
VRM IV****
(acres/%)
5,625/ 61%
32,106/ 100%
*VRM I management objectives are to “preserve the existing character of the landscape … level of change should be very low and must not attract
attention.”
***VRM III is to “partially retain the existing character of the landscape, moderate levels of change are acceptable.”
****VRM IV is managed to allow for “major modifications to the landscape,” though “every effort should be made to … minimize disturbances and
design projects to conform to the characteristic landscape” (BLM 2001, page 290).
50
Environmental Consequences:
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action
The No Action Alternative would continue to have low to moderate impacts to the existing visual
quality of the allotments due to the observable developments (listed above) and disturbances
associated with concentrated livestock use scattered across both areas. However, the visual
resource objectives for VRM classes I, III, and IV would continue to be achieved.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
The impacts of existing disturbances on visual quality would be similar to Alternative 1. However,
Alternative 2 would have additional impacts to visual quality within the Rabbit Basin Allotment
due to the development of a water tank, pipeline, and associated troughs (Map 5).
The pipeline would be buried, which would reduce visual contrast or an “industrial” appearance,
and water troughs would be painted to fit in with surrounding colors of the landscape to reduce the
visibility of the structure from a distance (refer to visual resource BMPs in Chapter 2). While, the
proposed pipeline would follow an existing primitive route where possible, this route has been
seeded over and portions have effectively reclaimed with vegetation. Thus, installing the pipeline
along this route would re-establish the route and make a more pronounced unnatural hard impact
line of disturbance. Additionally, placement of troughs within the bottom of a scenic draw in
Rabbit Hills, would have high localized impacts to the visual character within this pocket of higher
scenic quality. Impacts from these developments would be magnified by the form and lines of the
landscape drawing the human eye to man-made structures and to the cattle-trampled areas around
them, thus, making them visually obtrusive focal points.
Furthermore, placement of the water tank on a prominent saddle would make the tank visible from
both within the valley and far outside the Rabbit Basin Allotment to the north. Thus overall,
placement of a pipeline and water tank in this location would also have substantial visual impacts
to a localized area with a high scenic quality rating.
While the project would be located in a VRM IV area, which allows for major modifications of the
landscape, VRM IV management objectives also direct that “every effort should be made to …
minimize disturbances and design projects to conform to the characteristic landscape” (BLM 2001,
page 290). Given that the recent scenic quality rating indicates that this localized area has a high
scenic quality rating, additional mitigations (above those included as BMPs in Chapter 2) should
be considered to minimize visual disturbances by designing the pipeline, water troughs, and water
tank to conform to the existing landscape to the extent possible. These impacts would be reduced
somewhat by painting of the troughs to blend into the surroundings. These impacts could be
further reduced by burying the water tank, so as to not be seen from outside the allotment or from
the valley bottom. Additionally, impacts could be completely mitigated by modifying the pipeline
to terminate in the mouth of the valley bottom outside of the Rabbit Hills (T. 34S, R. 24E, Sec. 4)
and burying the water tank in this same location. If the mitigation described is applied in the final
decision, Alternative 2 would meet visual resource management objectives for VRM class I, III,
and IV within both allotments.
51
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
Alternative 3 would provide low to moderate benefit for visual resources within the two
allotments. This alternative would reduce the active preference of AUMs (65% for Abert Seeding;
48% for Rabbit Basin) compared to the No-Action Alternative, along with reducing the associated
impacts of concentrated trampling around water developments and cattle trails. Thus, it would
benefit visual quality by maintaining low or moderate levels of impacts compared to a fully
implemented Alternative 1. Visual characteristics of line, form, color, and texture would remain
relatively the similar to historic conditions. Thus, Alternative 3 would meet visual resource
management objectives for VRM classes I, III, and IV.
Effects of Alternative 4 - No Grazing
The No Grazing Alternative would moderately enhance visual resources within the Rabbit Basin
and Abert Seeding Allotments. Over the 10-year analytical timeframe, visual quality would
improve as ecological conditions slowly restored livestock concentration areas around water
developments and cattle trails. Visual quality would be further improved as existing developments
within the allotments reclaim (due to lack of maintenance) or are removed and actively
rehabilitated. Visual resource management objectives for VRM classes I, III, and IV would
continue to be achieved.
M.
Wilderness
Affected Environment:
There are no designated wilderness areas within either allotment. However, approximately 470
acres (5.2%) of the Abert Seeding Allotment falls within the Abert Rim Wilderness Study Area
(WSA) (Map 9). The 23,760 acre Abert Rim WSA (OR-1-101) was studied under section 603 of
the FLPMA and was addressed in the Final Oregon Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement
(BLM 1990). Abert Rim WSA is generally in a natural condition and possesses outstanding
opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Additionally, the WSA has
several supplemental values including the rim’s status as one of the largest continuous fault scarps
in North America; designation as an archeological district on the National Register of Historic
Sites and Places due to high archeological values along Lake Abert; an isolated group of ponderosa
pines known, as Colvin Timbers, representing the northernmost extension of the species in the
Warner Mountains; habitat for California bighorn sheep, mule deer, prairie falcon, golden eagle,
great-horned owl, and red-tailed hawk (BLM 1989, 1991).
Existing WSAs must be managed in accordance with the Management of Wilderness Study
Areas manual so as not to impair suitability for preservation as wilderness (BLM 2012b).
Generally, wilderness values must be protected or enhanced in WSAs. Preservation of
wilderness values is the primary consideration when evaluating a proposed action or use that
may affect those values. To this end, all proposals for uses and/or facilities within WSAs must
be reviewed to determine whether the proposal meets the non-impairment criteria. The nonimpairment criteria requires that the proposed use/facility be temporary and not degrade
wilderness values so far as to significantly constrain the area’s wilderness suitability for
preservation as wilderness.
52
The only permitted exception to the non-impairment criteria are: (1) emergency (wildfire/search
and rescue), (2) reclamation activities to minimize impacts created by violations and
emergencies, (3) uses and facilities which are considered grandfathered or valid existing rights
under the IMP, (4) uses or facilities that clearly protect and enhance the area’s wilderness values,
and (5) reclamation of pre-FLPMA impacts.
The manual specifically identifies grazing as a “grandfathered use” as an exception to the nonimpairment criteria and permits this use to “continue in the same manner and degree as on that
date (October 21, 1976), even if this impairs wilderness suitability”. The “manner and degree”
of grazing use is further defined as “the physical and visual impacts that use was having on the
area on October 21, 1976” (BLM 2012b, Page 1-12). Grandfathered grazing use is further
defined as the grazing management practices (e.g. level of use, season of use, etc.) authorized
during the 1976 grazing fee year (BLM 2012b, Page 1-18).
Environmental Consequences:
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action
Range records show a total of 1,831 AUMs were allocated to cattle in the allotment in 1968 and
that level of active preference has remained constant to date. The season of use for the allotment
at that time was generally April through June, but flexibility in the season of use and additional
temporary non-renewable AUMs could be authorized through the Annual Operational Plan.
Actual use reports, billing, and operational plans for this allotment between 1968 and the mid1980s show grazing use occurred during the winter season in years when AUMs were not fully
used during the spring season. Approximately 5.2% of the Abert Seeding Allotment falls within
the Abert Rim WSA. Therefore, the “grandfathered” or existing grazing use that occurred in this
portion of the WSA at the time FLPMA was signed in 1976 is estimated at 95 AUMs (5.2%) of
the total AUMs of forage for the allotment, and occurred during both winter and spring grazing
seasons. According to BLM range staff, livestock rarely utilize this portion of the WSA as it
lacks access to naturally existing or developed water sources and much of it is fairly inaccessible
due to its position at the southern tip of the allotment on Abert Rim’s steep escarpment (Map 9).
Under this alternative, the permitted season of use for the Abert Seeding Allotment would
continue to be March 1st – June 20th. This is 90 days or 45% less time than that which was
occurring in 1976. The allotment as a whole would continue to be managed for the same
number of historic livestock AUMs (1,831), of which about 95 would continue to be allocated to
the WSA portion of the allotment. For these reasons, continued grazing under the No Action
Alternative would have negligible negative impacts to wilderness values within the WSA. This
level and type of grazing use meets the definition of a grandfathered use and meets exception 3
to the non-impairment criteria described above.
Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
While Alternative 2 would increase the season of use (to about 202 days) for the Abert Seeding
Allotment compared to Alternative 1, it would still occur during the same season of use (winter
and spring) which was occurring in 1976. The allotment as a whole would continue to be
53
managed for the same number of historic livestock AUMs (1,831), of which about 95 would
continue to be allocated to the WSA portion of the allotment. For this reason, grazing under this
alternative would have negligible negative impacts to the wilderness values within the WSA
similar to Alternative 1. This level and type of grazing use meets the definition of a
grandfathered use and meets exception 3 to the non-impairment criteria described above, similar
to Alternative 1.
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
This alternative would reduce the active preference for the Abert Seeding Allotment to 645
AUMs (65% reduction of the full permitted use allowed under Alternative 1). Likewise, the
AUMs associated with the WSA portion of the allotment would be reduced by 65%. The season
of use would be similar to Alternative 1 and less than that which was occurring in 1976. This
alternative would positively benefit wilderness values compared to Alternatives 1 or 2 due to
reduced levels of livestock use and associated impacts. This level and type of grazing use meets
the definition of a grandfathered use and meets exception 3 to the non-impairment criteria
described above.
Effects of Alternative 4 -No Grazing
The No Grazing Alternative would eliminate livestock grazing use from about 470 acres of the
Abert Rim WSA. The sights and sounds of cattle use would be eliminated, and any cattle trails or
trampled areas around livestock concentration areas (if present in the WSA) would recover over
the 10-year analysis timeframe. Nevertheless, the removal of cattle from the allotment would only
benefit a small portion of the Abert Rim WSA. Cattle would continue to be grazed on other
allotments encompassing about 55% of the WSA. However, overall, this management action
would result in the greatest degree of preservation of wilderness values of all the alternatives
analyzed and would meet the non-impairment criteria.
N.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Affected Environment:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are defined as areas where special management
attention is required to protect, and prevent irreparable damage to: important historic, cultural, and
scenic values, fish, or wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect human
life and safety from natural hazards. The Abert Rim ACEC consists of approximately 18,000 acres
(Map 9) and contains several relevant and important resource values including archaeological sites,
cultural plants, and wildlife habitat (BLM 2003a). Approximately 470 acres of the ACEC lie
within the Abert Seeding Allotment. The area is considered by local Native Americans to be a
traditional cultural property used for various purposes. California bighorn sheep (special status
species) occur in the ACEC. The quantity and quality of sheep habitat has declined over the last
century due to expanding juniper woodlands. This expansion of juniper woodlands has decreased
the availability of forage for bighorn sheep and has increased cover for large predators (BLM
2001).
54
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3
The RHA found that Abert Seeding Allotment, which contains a portion of the Abert Rim ACEC,
is currently meeting all five health standards relating to vegetation, ecological condition, and
wildlife habitat (Table 3-11; BLM 2003c, 2013b). Continued grazing at the levels and season of
use identified under these three alternatives would generally have no additional effects on the
relevant and important resource values beyond those that may have occurred in the past. In
addition, land within the ACEC would continue to meet rangeland health standards over the 10year life of the permit. As noted above, bighorn sheep habitat in the area appears to be affected by
juniper expansion rather than livestock management activities. Impacts to native American
traditional uses and archeological sites are described previously in this chapter and will not be
repeated here.
Effects of Alternative 4 -No Grazing
Removal of livestock grazing would have minor beneficial impacts on the relevant and important
resource values within the Abert Rim ACEC portion of Abert Seeding Allotment. The allotment
would be expected to continue meeting all 5 rangeland health standards over the 10-year analytical
timeframe. Impacts to traditional uses, wildlife, and cultural resource values associated with this
alternative are described further in those sections of this chapter and will not be repeated here.
O.
Social and Economic Values
Affected Environment:
The economy of Lake County is based primarily on agriculture, timber, livestock, and government
sectors. Livestock grazing and associated feed production industries are major contributors to the
economy of Lake County. The most common is the raising of cattle and calves for beef. In 2009,
an estimated 96,500 head of cattle and calves were in Lake County, Oregon (Oregon Agricultural
Information System 2010). In 2009, Lake County ranchers sold an estimated $28,000,000 worth of
cattle and calves or related beef products from public lands. The two allotments analyzed in this
EA, support approximately 807 cattle on an average annual basis for approximately 5 months of
the year. Approximately 672 calves can be produced annually (assuming 16 bulls and 85%
calving rate). Ranching is also important as a social lifestyle within Lake County.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-4
Public lands in and around the allotment would continue to contribute social amenities such as
open space and recreational opportunities. These amenities encourage tourism in the surrounding
region and provide economic benefits to nearby communities such as Lakeview, Plush, and Burns,
though the specific contribution of the allotment cannot be accurately estimated.
55
Effects Common to Alternatives 1–3
Under these alternatives, the Federal Government would continue to collect grazing fees (total
both allotments) for up to 3,677 AUMs; $1.35/AUM = $4963.95) from the permittee. This
commodity use of public lands would continue to generate revenues for the Federal government on
an annual basis. The rancher/permittee would continue to produce approximately 672 calves each
year, contributing less than 1% to the total county-wide cattle production.
The pipeline construction and storage tank installation proposed under Alternative 2 could
potentially provide a one-time influx of approximately $32,000 in income to surrounding
businesses and communities from project construction activities.
Effects of Alternative 4 - No Grazing
A minimum annual loss of $4963.95 would occur to the Federal government due to the loss of
grazing fee collections associated with this allotment. This would also result in the loss of
suitable grazing land for the local rancher/permittee. The rancher would then have to find suitable
pasture to graze his livestock elsewhere in the surrounding region or feed additional hay. This
would result in additional costs to the rancher. The average pasture rate for private land forage in
Oregon is $14.80 Per AUM. The additional annual cost to the rancher would be approximately
$49,455.65 ((3677 AUMs * $14.80) - $4,963.95)). If the rancher could not secure other suitable
pasture land or could not afford these increased costs, then approximately 672 cattle would no
longer be produced in Lake County, resulting in less than a 1% annual reduction in county-wide
cattle production. Although this is a small percentage of the total livestock production, the real loss
would be in the loss of one small operating ranch.
P.
Cumulative Effects
Analysis Scale and Timeframe
For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative impacts are generally addressed at the allotment
scale. The reasons for choosing this analysis scale include the fact that issuing a permit is a
decision that affects the entire allotment and BLM has a good idea of other potential reasonably
foreseeable actions that may occur within the allotment due to management direction identified in
the Lakeview RMP/ROD (Appendix E, BLM 2003b). However, the analysis spatial scales could
vary somewhat depending upon the resource value/use being addressed. The timeframe of
analysis is defined as the same 15-20 year expected life of the Lakeview RMP/ROD. The reason
for choosing this timeframe is because this represents the same analysis timeframe considered in
the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003a) and portions of that analysis may be
appropriate for tiering purposes.
Known Past Activities
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued cumulative impact guidance on June 24,
2005, that states the “environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking,” and
review of past actions is required only “to the extent that this review informs agency decisionmaking regarding the proposed action.” Use of information on the effects of past action may be
56
useful in two ways: one is for consideration of the proposed action’s cumulative effects, and
secondly as a basis for identifying the proposed action’s direct and indirect effects.
The CEQ stated that “[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by
focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details
of individual past actions.” This is because a description of the current state of the environment
(ie. affected environment section) inherently includes the effects of past actions. Further, the
“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to
determine the present effects of past actions.” Information on the current environmental condition
is more comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a useful starting point for a cumulative
effects analysis than attempting to establish such a starting point by adding up the described effects
of individual past actions to some environmental baseline condition in the past that, unlike current
conditions, can no longer be verified by direct examination.
The second area in which the CEQ guidance states that information on past actions may be useful
is in “illuminating or predicting the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action. The usefulness
of such information is limited by the fact that it is anecdotal only, and extrapolation of data from
such singular experiences is not generally accepted as a reliable predictor of effects”.
The Department of Interior issued some additional guidance related to past actions which state,
“when considering the effects of past actions as part of a cumulative effects analysis, the
Responsible Official must analyze the effects in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and in
accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, such as ‘‘The
Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in
Cumulative Effects Analysis’’ dated June 24, 2005, or any superseding Council on Environmental
Quality guidance (see 43 CFR 46.115)”.
Based on this guidance, BLM has summarized known disturbances that have occurred within the
allotments as part of past or on-going management activities. These include: livestock grazing and
management, road construction and maintenance, range improvement project construction and
maintenance, both salable (rock) and locatable (sunstone) mining, and dispersed recreational
activities such as hunting and rock-hounding.
The allotments have historically been grazed by cattle. Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1935,
grazing on public lands was essentially uncontrolled. After the Taylor Grazing Act, allotments
were established tied to private base property owned by a permittee, and were initially under the
management responsibility of the Grazing Service. Under the Grazing Service and then under the
new BLM in 1946, the number of grazing livestock was generally higher and the pattern of grazing
use was generally more intense than what occurs today.
Based on a GIS analysis of the Rabbit Basin Allotment, approximately 132 miles of
roads/motorized primitive routes have been constructed or created within the allotment
representing about 16 acres of disturbance. Approximately 43 miles of fence (26 acres) currently
exist within this allotment (Map 4). Other past and present actions within the allotment have
included a number of small sunstone mines and claims (locatable mineral and collectable gem)
(estimated at 200 acres of current surface disturbance). (A large percentage of the routes within
this allotment are attributed to the mining and sunstone collection activities) (see Map 1). One
57
developed recreation site also exists within the SPCA and covers about 2 acres. There is 1 open
salable mineral pit (8.7 acres) and 2 crested wheatgrass seedings (5,513 acres). There are about
2.7 miles of pipeline (3.3 acres), 3 waterholes, 1 reservoir, 2 water troughs, and 1 well (840 acres;
Map 4). In total, these represent an estimated 6,609 acres of past or on-going ground disturbance
within the Rabbit Basin Allotment. The 5,513-acre crested wheatgrass seeding represents past
wildfire rehabilitation activities that are now considered to be adequately revegetated and restored.
About 1,096 acres of the allotment remain in a relatively disturbed condition.
GIS analysis of the entire Abert Seeding Allotment (all 4 pastures) reveals the presence of
approximately 29 miles of roads/motorized primitive routes (3.5 acres) that have been constructed
or created within the allotment and about 28.4 miles of fence (17.2 acres). Other past and present
actions within the allotment have included 2 crested wheatgrass seedings (about 1,433 acres), 15
small abandoned mine sites (trenches and prospects totaling less than an acre), 1 open gravel pit
and 1 mineral material storage site (11 acres), 1.75 miles of major power line and 1.7 miles of
distribution line with associated access roads, and 1 wildlife guzzler. There are about 8.5 miles of
pipeline, 2 reservoirs, 11 waterholes, 5 water troughs, 2 wells, and 1 storage tank (3,360 acres;
Map 4). In total, these represent an estimated 4,011 acres of past or on-going ground disturbance
across the entire Abert Seeding Allotment. The 1,433-acre crested wheatgrass seeding represents
past wildfire rehabilitation activities that are now considered to be adequately revegetated and
restored. About 2,578 acres of the allotment remain in a relatively disturbed condition.
The total past or ongoing disturbance in these two allotments is estimated at 3,674 acres or
approximately 8.2% of the total acreage for these two allotments. All of these past activities have
affected or shaped the landscape within the allotments into what it is today. Current resource
conditions are described further in the “Affected Environment” portion of Chapter 3 earlier in this
document, as well as in the Rangeland Health Assessment(s) for the allotments (BLM 2003c,
2003e, 2013a, 2013b).
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
The Lakeview RMP/ROD (Appendix E3, page A-145, BLM 2003b) lists potential future projects
for the Rabbit Basin Allotment and Abert Seeding Allotment. For the Rabbit Basin Allotment this
included one new pasture division fence (5 miles) and a waterhole. For the Abert Seeding
Allotment this included brush treatments. While these activities could potentially occur within the
allotments at some point in future, no such proposals have yet been run through the NEPA analysis
process, have an approved decision authorizing implementation, or have dedicated funding.
Therefore, these activities are considered to be speculative at this point in time and will not be
analyzed further.
Associated with to the range improvements proposed in this EA, it is foreseeable that the
permittees from the two adjacent (East Rabbit Hills and South Rabbit Hills) allotments would
plumb at least one new water trough into each allotment and share in the cost of constructing and
installing pipeline and storage tank. This would allow the permittees to take advantage of the new
water source in the adjacent allotments. A separate EA will be prepared in the near future to cover
the impacts of these potential projects and, therefore, these activities will not be addressed further.
58
The only other activities that might occur within the pasture during the analytical timeframe would
be road maintenance and noxious weed treatment activities, and the exact locations or durations of
these activities cannot be determined at this time. As noted above, there are approximately 161
miles of constructed roads and primitive motorized routes within the allotments. None of these
routes are maintained on an annual basis, but for analytical purposes BLM assumes that 3-5 miles
could receive some spot maintenance or minimal level of re-grading over the 10-year analytical
timeframe. These activities would generally be limited to the existing roadbed prism and would
not create new ground disturbance.
Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1–4
None of the alternatives would have any measureable or substantial incremental cumulative effects
on climate, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage, water quality, or native American traditional
practices, as the analysis earlier in this chapter revealed that there would be little or no direct or
indirect effects on these values/issues.
As noted earlier in this chapter, both allotments have noxious weeds present. These sites would
continue to be monitored and treated as needed, regardless of the alternative selected. If new
infestations were to be documented in the future, they would be treated in accordance with the
most current Integrated Weed Treatment Plan(s) and related policies (such as BLM 2004, 2007b,
2007c). The impacts of such treatments have already been analyzed and are incorporated by
reference in their entirety. Such impacts could include: short-term increases in surface disturbance
and soil erosion, coupled with reduction in weed distribution, native vegetation recovery,
protection or restoration of wildlife habitats, maintenance of recreation experiences, maintenance
of livestock forage production, maintenance of visual quality, and minimal risk to human health
over the long-term (BLM 2004, Pages 10-20).
For purposes of this analysis, total acres of concentrated disturbance or surface recovery served as
the main indicator of cumulative impacts on soils, BSCs, upland vegetation, wetland and riparian
vegetation, cultural resources, and wildlife and special status species habitat.
Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1 and 3
The incremental cumulative effects of continued grazing of up to 1846 AUMs in Rabbit Basin
Allotment and 1831 AUMs in Abert Seeding Allotment each year, coupled with other range
management activities, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions (i.e. road maintenance, weed treatments) would result in no detectable change in total
acres of disturbance under Alternatives 1 and 3 (see Table 3-13).
Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 - Management Changes and Project Development
The proposed pipeline, storage tank, and up to four troughs would be constructed from an existing
well in the Rabbit Basin Allotment. This would result in approximately 485 acres of additional
ground disturbance above those described for Alternative 1. Approximately 5 acres of this
represents temporary disturbance which would be reclaimed through planting of native and other
suitable seed.
59
Table 3-13. Cumulative Acres of Concentrated Disturbance*
Past/Present
Actions
Estimated Area
of New
Disturbance or
Recovery
Cumulative
Total
Alternative 1 –
No Action
Alternative 2 –
Management
Changes and
Project
Development
Alternative 3 –
Use Every
Other Year
Alternative 4 –
No Grazing
RB = 1,096
AS = 2,578
Total = 3,674
0
Same as
Alternative 1
Same as
Alternative 1
Same as
Alternative 1
3,674
480
0
RB = 1,096
AS = 3,058
Total = 4,154
-2,681 of natural
recovery
3,674
1,473
*RB=Rabbit Basin
AS=Abert Seeding
Effects of Alternative 3 - Reduced Active Preference
The incremental cumulative effects would generally be similar to Alternative 1.
Effects of Alternative 4 -No Grazing
The incremental cumulative effects of removal of grazing would result in an incremental decrease
in total ground disturbance of approximately 2,681 acres over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
CHAPTER IV. PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED
A.
Agencies and Individuals Consulted
Grazing Permittee
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
CHAPTER V.
REFERENCES
Allen, G.T. and P. Ramirez. 1990, A review of bird deaths on barbed-wire fences. Wilson
Bulletin. 102:553-558.
Bates, J.D., R.F. Miller, and T.J. Svejcar. 2000. Understory Dynamics in Cut and Uncut
Western Juniper Woodlands. Journal of Range Management 53(1):119-126.
Belnap et al. 2001. Belnap, J., J. Kaltennecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and
D. Eldridge. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. USDI, BLM and USGS
Technical Reference TR-1730-2.
60
Bovey, R.W., D. Le Tourneau, and L.C. Erickson. 1961. The chemical composition of
medusahead and downy brome. Weeds 9:307–311.
Bowers, W., B. Hosford, A. Oakley and C. Bond. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangeland the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon, Native Trout. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-84.
BLM. 1976. Allotment Management Plan Revision for Abert Seeding Allotment. USDI, BLM,
Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 1979a. Wilderness proposed initial inventory. Roadless areas and islands which clearly do
not have wilderness characteristics, Oregon and Washington. April 1979. USDI, BLM, Oregon and
Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM. 1979b. Wilderness review. Initial inventory. Final decision on public lands obviously
lacking wilderness characteristics and announcement of public lands to be intensively inventoried
for wilderness characteristics. August 1979. USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office.
Portland, OR.
BLM. 1979c. Wilderness review. Intensive inventory. Proposed decision on the intensive
wilderness inventory of selected area, Oregon. October 1979. USDI, BLM, Oregon and
Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM. 1980a. Wilderness Review Intensive Inventory—Final Decision on 30 Selected Units in
Southeastern Oregon and Proposed Decisions on Other Intensively Inventoried Units in Oregon
and Washington. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 1980b. Wilderness Inventory— Oregon and Washington Final Intensive Inventory
Decisions. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 1984. TR-4400-4 –Rangeland Monitoring: Trend Studies. USDI BLM Technical
Reference. Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 1989a. BLM fence standards for livestock and wildlife. BLM Manual. pp. 1-1572.
BLM. 1989b. Oregon Wilderness Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon/Washington
State Office, Portland, OR. 4 volumes.
BLM. 1991. Wilderness Study Report. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. 3
volumes.
BLM. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management
for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2000. Instruction Memorandum No. 2000-022, Change 1. Compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – Addressing Alternatives for Livestock Grazing Permit
Renewals. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
61
BLM. 2001. Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.
USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 3 volumes.
BLM. 2003a. Lakeview Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact
Statement. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 4 volumes.
BLM. 2003b. Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision. USDI, BLM, Lakeview
Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 3 volumes.
BLM. 2003c. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for Rabbit Basin Allotment #516. USDI,
BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. (Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php).
BLM. 2003d. Lentic Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Inventories. USDI, BLM Lakeview
Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2003e. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for Pike Ranch Allotment #425, XL
Allotment #427, Coleman Seeding Allotment #432, and Abert Seeding Allotment #522. USDI,
BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. (Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php).
BLM. 2004. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Program. EA#OR-010-2004-03. USDI,
BLM Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2007a. H-6300-1-Wilderness Inventory Maintenance in BLM Oregon/Washington. April
2007. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management
Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. USDI, BLM,
Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2007c. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in
17 Western States Programmatic Record of Decision September 2007. USDI, BLM, Washington
Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2008a. H-6300-1-Wilderness Inventory Maintenance in BLM Oregon/Washington. 4-18-08
Current Edition. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2008b. BLM. H-1790-1 - National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. USDI, BLM,
Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2008c. Wilderness Characteristics Evaluation for the Juniper Mountain Area. USDI, BLM
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2011a. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043. Greater Sage-Grouse Interim
Management Policies and Procedures. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
62
BLM. 2011b. Wilderness Characteristics Evaluation for the East Rabbit Hills Area. USDI, BLM
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2012a. Rosebud Allotment #00421 Livestock Grazing Permit Renewal Environmental
Assessment. DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2012-0028-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area.
Lakeview, OR. 52 p.
BLM. 2012b. Peter Creek Allotment #00100 Livestock Grazing Permit Renewal Environmental
Assessment. DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2012-0014-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area.
Lakeview, OR. 135 p.
BLM. 2012c. Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands
(Public). USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2012d. Wilderness Characteristics Evaluation for the Rabbit Hills Area. USDI, BLM
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2012e. Rabbit Basin and Abert Seeding Allotment Monitoring Studies. USDI, BLM
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2012f. Wilderness Characteristics Evaluation for the Commodore Ridge Area. USDI,
BLM Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2013a. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update, Rabbit Basin Allotment #00516.
USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. (Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php).
BLM. 2013b. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update, Abert Seeding Allotment
#00522. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. (Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php).
CEQ. 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations. Federal Register, Vol (46): 55, 18026-18038.
Commons, M.L., R.K. Baydack, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse response to pinyon- juniper
management. Pages 238-239 in Monsen, S.B. and R. Stevens, comps. 1999. Proceedings:
Ecology and management of pinyon juniper communities within the Interior West; 1997
September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Elliot, William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa. Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel
management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p.
Freese, M.T., R.M. Miller, S.L. Petersen, W.D. Robinson, and A.C. Yost. 2009. Linking greater
sage-grouse habitat use and suitability across spatio temporal scales in central Oregon: a report
63
to the Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife April 2009.
123 p.
Gruell, G.E. 1999. Historical and modern roles of fire in pinyon-juniper in Monsen, S. B. and R.
Stevens, comps. 1999. Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon juniper communities
within the Interior West; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. P 24-28.
Hironaka, M. 1961. The relative rate of root development of cheatgrass and medusahead. Journal
of Range Management 14:263–267.
Manske, L. 2001. Manipulating Grass Plant Growth can enhance forage Production.
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/newsrelease/2001/042601/07manipu.htm.
McNaughton, S.J. 1979. Grazing as an optimization process: Grass-Ungulate relationships in the
Serengeti. The American Naturalist 113:691-703.
Memmot K.T., V.J. Anderson, S.B. Monson. 1998. Seasonal grazing impact on
cryptogamic crusts in a cold desert ecosystem. J. Range Manage. 51:547-550 September
1998.
ODFW. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A
Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Salem, Oregon.
ODFW. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to
Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem,
Oregon.
Oregon-Washington Weekly Hay Report. 2012. Accessed Dec. 2012.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ml_gr310.txt.
Oregon Agricultural Information System 2010. Accessed Dec. 2012. http://oain.oregonstate.edu/.
Pierson, F.B., W.H. Blackburn, S.S. Van Vactor, and J.C. Wood. 1994. Partitioning small scale
spatial variability of runoff and erosion on sagebrush rangeland. Water Resources Bulletin
30:1081-1089.
Ponzetti, J. M., B. McCune. 2001. Biotic soil crusts of Oregon’s Shrub Steppe: community
composition in Relation to Soil Chemistry, Climate and Livestock Activity. The Bryologist 104:
212-2225.
Ponzetti, J.M. 2000. Biotic Soil Crusts of Oregon’s Shrub Steppe. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
RAWS. 2012. Remote Automatic Weather Stations . Accessed Jan. 2013.
http://www.raws.dri.edu/wraws/orF.html
64
Reinkensmeyer, D.P., R.F. Miller, R.G. Anthony, and V.E. Marr. 2007. Avian community
structure along a mountain big sagebrush successional gradient. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71(4):1057-1066.
Roberts, C., and J.A. Jones. 2000. Soil patchiness in juniper-sagebrush – grass
communities of central Oregon. Plant and Soil 223:45-61.
Sanderson. 2008. Age structure and expansion of piñon-juniper woodlands: a regional perspective
in the Intermountain West. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-69. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 p.
Stiver, S., E. Rinkes, and D. Naugle. 2010. Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework.
Unpublished Report. USDI, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho.
Young, J.A., R.A. Evans, and J. Robinson. 1972. Influence of Repeated Annual Burning on a
Medusahead Community. Journal of Range Management 25(5): 372-375.
Young, J.A. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput- medusae
ssp. asperum [SIMK.] Melderis). Great Basin Naturalist 52:245–252.
Young, J.A., C.D. Clements, and G. Nader. 1999. Medusahead and Clay: The Rarity of Perennial
Seedling Establishment. Rangelands 21(6): 19-23.
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1 – General Vicinity
Map 2 – Abert Seeding Allotment Grazing Schematic
Map 3 – Rabbit Basin Allotment Grazing Schematic
Map 4 – Current Range Improvements
Map 5 – Proposed Range Improvements
Map 6 – Existing Dominant Vegetation
Map 7 – Soils
Map 8 – Sage-Grouse Habitat
Map 9 – Wilderness Study Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
65
31S
23E
500
61
6
61
6
500
-C0
61
6
0
500
6115-A0
6115-B0
-00
611
5-B
0
500
0
3-1
0
Miles
11
5.5
Legend
Rabbit_Abert_Allots
townrng_10
Interstate Highway
U.S. Highway
State Highway
Unknown Jurisdiction
GTRN Roads
OwnerDesg
Paisley
County route
Bureau of Land Management
Other
Bureau of Land Management
State
Private/Unknown
Bonanza
Malin
Tulelake
61
5
-C0
615
5
5C0
61
5
5-C
0
5-A
61
5
-00
6155
-C0
61
5
5
615
00
5-
ty
Cn
0
6105-00 61
500
-00
615
5
6155
-00
-00
34S
24E
34S
25E
615
5
6155-A0
61
5
0
5-0
-A0
6155
6155-00
6155-B0
6125-00
6125-00
B0
5-
-B0
6125-00
6155-B0
-B0
6155
5
615
Cnty 3-10
2.75
5
61
0
10
3-
0
3
61
6105-00
33S
25E
81
7
6125-00
6125-00
611
5-B
0
8175-A
ty
Cn
0
61
00
5-
61
-0
05
A0
5-
00
05-
0
61
0
25-0
-0
0
0
10
3-
34S
23E
0
8175-0
0
8175-0
0
8175-00
ty
Cn
-BA
6125
310
61
15
6115-00
-10 Cn
ty
-0
0
8175-00
-B
6115
3
Old
61
15
33S
24E
0
5-B
611
-10
Cnty 3
A
-B0
6125
0
6115-00
B0
5-
33S
23E
0 714
5-0
-0
7145
2
61
-B
6125
0
5-C
6125-00
0
Cnty 3-10
6125
-B
7145-0
61
9
6165-00
61
2
6125-B0
5B0
2
61
61
61
15
0
-D0
61
2
A
6125-A
34S
22E
5-0
61
9
619
5
-00
61
6
0
7155-0
500
61
6
500
-00
612
5
5-0
0
715
5
500
61
6
0
713
0
5-0
71
3
Cnty 3-10
71
2
0
5-0
500
71
2
0
6195-0
5A0
3-1
5
612
0
61
6
ty
Cn
-A0
5-A
5A0
-00
7145-00 7145
5
712
61
2
61
6
0
-A0
5AA
7155-00
5-0
611
5
712
71
2
or
61
2
33S
22E
32S
25E
32S
24E
5-0
5-0
32S
23E
-10
rid
Cor
BPA
395
-B0
0
5-0
611
ty 3
Cn
or
Cnty 3-09
500
500
71
5
0
00
5-
7155-0
0
3
71
rrid
BPA Co
32S
22E
616
5
-00
-00
5
619
713
5
Map 1 - General Vicinity of Rabbit Basin #00516 and Abert
Seeding #00522 Allotments
-C0
7155
31S
22E
Lakeview
0
0
Hines
Burns
Map 2 - Abert Seeding Allotment Grazing Schematic
Use year 1 begin 2013
Use year 2
Use year 3
LEEHMANN WELL
LEEHMANN WELL
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
Gravelly_L_Waterhole
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE Leehman Pipeline
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
Gravelly_L_Waterhole
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE Leehman Pipeline
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LITTLE_SOUP_WH
LEEHMAN PIPELINE EXTENSION Soup_Lake_WH
LITTLE_SOUP_WH
LEEHMAN PIPELINE EXTENSION Soup_Lake_WH
LITTLE_SOUP_WH
LEEHMAN PIPELINE EXTENSION Soup_Lake_WH
Hardpan_WH
Hardpan_WH
Hardpan_WH
Boy_Lake_WH
Boy_Lake_WH
Commodoer_Lake_WH
Commodoer_Lake_WH
Little_Skookum_Lk_WH
Dog_Lake_Waterhole
0.75
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
Gravelly_L_Waterhole
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE Leehman Pipeline
0
LEEHMANN WELL
1.5
Commodore_Ridge_WH
Opel_Reservoir
Miles
3
Dog_Lake_Waterhole
Skookum_WH
Commodore_Ridge_WH
Opel_Reservoir
Legend
Existing Water Developments
Existing Pipelines
Commodoer_Lake_WH
Little_Skookum_Lk_WH
Little_Skookum_Lk_WH
Skookum_WH
Boy_Lake_WH
rabbit_abert_allots
Pasture used
Bureau of Land Management
State
Private/Unknown
Dog_Lake_Waterhole
Skookum_WH
Commodore_Ridge_WH
Opel_Reservoir
Map 3 - Rabbit Basin Grazing Schematic
Spring use even years begin 2014
Spring use odd year begin 2013
Sheep_Draw_WH
Crow_Flat_WH Sheep_Draw_WH
Cave_Waterhole
Ark_Camp_Waterhole
Alberts_Reservoir
Miners_Reservoir
Flint_Ridge_WH
Ark_Camp_Waterhole
Alberts_Reservoir
Miners_Reservoir
Slim_Chance_Waterhole
W_LAST_CHANCE_RES
Last_Chance_Waterhole
SHERLOCK GULCH RESERVOIR
Beeson_WH
Black_Cap_Reservoir
Cave_Waterhole
Flint_Ridge_WH
Last_Chance_Waterhole
SHERLOCK GULCH RESERVOIR
Beeson_WH
West_Sunstone_Reser.
Slim_Chance_Waterhole
W_LAST_CHANCE_RES
West_Sunstone_Reser.
Sunstone_Well_#2
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELINE
South_Blint_WH
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELINE
SUNSTONE
South_Blint_WH
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELIN
Sunstone_Well_#1
Sands_Reservoir
N_Rabbit_Hills_WHRabbit_Bas_Well
F-R_Waterhole
M_C_Reservoir
F-R_Waterhole
M_C_Reservoir
Overton_Dam
EXC
Overton_Dam
Inlet_Waterhole
exc
NORTH RABBIT BASIN PIPELINE
E._Rabbit_Hills_Well Split_WH
HOGBACK
EXC
Flagstaff_Well
So._Rabbit_Hills_Well
BIG ROCK PIPELINE BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
Big_Rock_Reserv.
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
Wolf_Reservoir Mulkey_Spr.
Miles
7
Flagstaff_Well
So._Rabbit_Hills_Well
S_Rabbit_Hills_WH
Big_Rock_Reserv.
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
3.5
N_Flagstaff_Lake_WH
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
1.75
E._Rabbit_Hills_WellSplit_WH
HOGBACK
N_Flagstaff_Lake_WH
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
0
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELIN
Sunstone_Well_#1
N_Rabbit_Hills_WHRabbit_Bas_Well
Inlet_Waterhole
NORTH RABBIT BASIN PIPELINE
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELINE
SUNSTONE
Legend
Existing Water Developments
Existing Pipelines
Pasture used
rabbit_abert_allots
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State
Private/Unknown
S_Rabbit_Hills_WH
T32S-R23E
LEEHMAN PIPELINE Leehman Pipeline
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
HORSESHOE_RIM_RES
Black_Cap_Reservoir
7155-C0
Sheep_Draw_WH
T32S-R24E
Cave_Waterhole
Saddle_Horse_WH
Ark_Camp_Waterhole
Miners_Reservoir
AC
BP
W_LAST_CHANCE_RES
o rr
Flint_Ridge_WH
61
65
-A
0
r
id o
LITTLE_SOUP_WH
LEEHMAN PIPELINE EXTENSION Soup_Lake_WH
5
71 2
5
61 2
West_Sunstone_Reser.
Draw_Fork_WH
Boy_Lake_WH
Commodoer_Lake_WH
Little_Skookum_Lk_WH
Junction_Waterhole
61
15
-0
-D 0
Dog_Lake_Waterhole
Opel_Reservoir
25
61
A
25
61
C0
T33S-R22E
Skookum_WH
-B
25
61
395
Allotment Boundary
A
55
61
B0
E._Rabbit_Hills_Well
6125-00
Twin_Lake_WH
61 5
5
Bureau of Land Management
Other
6155-A 0
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
T34S-R23E
Bureau of Land Management
T34S-R24E
C0
Flagstaff_Well
61
55
-
State
Party_Reservoir
Private/Unknown
Stiff_Reservoir
So._Rabbit_Hills_Well
Pasture Boundaries
Binkie_Lake_WH
N_Windy_Reservoir
3
Miles
A0
-00
35
61
6105-00
81 5
5
Shells_WH
1.5
N_Campbell_Lake_WH
Split_WH
N_Flagstaff_Lake_WH
-00
County route
U.S. Forest Service
0.75
Inlet_Waterhole
NORTH RABBIT BASIN PIPELINE
T34S-R22E
0
81 75 -00
Turpin_Well
0
Pipelines
Irish_Trail_Waterhole
Overton_Dam
-A
81 75
water_developments
Rabbit_Bas_Well
0
Abert_WH
0
3-1
Old
GTRN Roads
OwnerDesg
N_Rabbit_Hills_WH
F-R_Waterhole
-B
611 5
Cattleguards
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELINE
M_C_Reservoir
10
3-
guzzlers
T33S-R25E
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELIN
ty
Cn
Cons_WH
-B
25
61
Sunstone_Well_#2
Sunstone_Well_#1
Circle_Reservoir
Limit_Reservoir
Legend
Ross_Reservoir
0
Sands_Reservoir
Foley_WH
A0
61
25
-
AA
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELINE
SUNSTONE WELL #1 & PIPELINE
T33S-R24E
South_Blint_WH
T33S-R23E
B0
High_Noon_Reservoir
61
25
-
Commodore_Ridge_WH
Featherbed_WH
N._Foley_Reservoir
Plane_Reservoir Bob_Reservoir
Featherbed_Lk_WH
E._Foley_Reservoir
Suburban_Reservoir
Twin_Reservoir
Last_Chance_Waterhole
SHERLOCK GULCH RESERVOIR
6115-A0
-A 0
00
71 45
-00
Beeson_WH
Hardpan_WH
25
71
Alberts_Reservoir
Slim_Chance_Waterhole
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
Cnty 3-0 9
T32S-R25E
61 65 -D0
Gravelly_L_Waterhole
Rock_Spring_WH
Pogo_Reservoir
Blackcap_Reservoir
SHERLOCK_GUL_RES
00
T32S-R22E
Lost_Lamb_WH
Barry_Waterhole
Map 4 - Existing Range Improvements
LYNCH_COW_CAMP_SPR
Crow_Flat_WH
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
Three_Forks_WH
Dent_Draw_WH
61
95
-
0
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
-B0 Sherlock_WH
61
65
-
611 4-0
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
71 55 -0
0
LEEHMAN PIPELINE LEEHMAN PIPELINE
LEEHMAN PIPELINE
61 6
5
00
LEEHMANN WELL
BIG ROCK PIPELINE BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
BIG ROCK PIPELINE
ty
Cn
S_Rabbit_Hills_WH
11
3-
T34S-R25E
Map 5 - Rabbit Basin Allotment Proposed Range Improvements
Rabbit_Bas_Well
8175-00
8175
-00
8175
-0
0
N_Rabbit_Hills_WH
00
5-
81
7
5-0
0
7
81
8175-0
0
8175-0
0
8175-0
6155-B0
5
61
5-B
0
61
B0
55-
6155-B0
6155-B0
0
Legend
GTRN Roads
OwnerDesg
County route
Bureau of Land Management
Other
Proposed storage tank
Existing Water Developments
Proposed Pipeline
Bureau of Land Management
State
Private/Unknown
0
0.225
0.45
0.9
Miles
71 5 5-
61
00
65
-0
0
Map 6 - Existing Dominant Vegetation
61
15
-0
0
61
95
-0
0
9
C n t y 3 -0
61
-0
0
-
5
C
0
61 2 5- 00
61
55
-0
0
395
15
15
6
Legend
TrendCoordinates
Out/Unknown
//AG CR/
//AG CR/ASTRA
1.5
/ARTRV/PSSPS/
/CHNA2/BRTE/
/G RSP/BRTE/
/ARCA13/JUNCU/IVAX
/ARTRW//
/CHNA2/BRTE/DESCU
/SAVE4//
/ARCA13/MURI/
/ARTRW8//
/CHNA2/PSSPS/
/SAVE4//DESCU
/ARTRT//
/ARTRW8/AGCR/
/CHVI8/AG CR/
/SAVE4/BRTE/
/ARTRT/ELEL5/
/ARTRW8/ELEL5/
/CHVI8/BRTE/
/SAVE4/LE TR5/DESCU
/ARTRT/LECI4/
/ARTRW8/PSSPS/
/CHVI8/BRTE/DESCU
3
Miles
61 0 5- 00
C
nt
y 3-1
1
0.75
/G RSP//
/ARAR8/POSE4/
10
0
/CHVI8/PO SE4/
/ATCO/ELEL5/
3-
//BRTE/DESCU
/ARTRW8/STTH2/
/ARTRT/STTH2/
ty
//BRTE/
/ARTRT/LETR5/
//STTH2/
Cn
//AG CR/LUPIN
//ELEL5/
5-C
0
-B0
71
5
0
Map 7 - Soil Complexes
61
9
5-0
61
6
0
5-0
0
5-0
71
3
or
-A
6114
rrid
BPA Co
0
6114-0
7155-0
0
616
5
0
0
7145-0
5A0
0
712
71
2
5-0
or
6114-0-0
0
rid
Cor
BPA
Cnty 3-09
61
6
5-A
6115-A0
0
ty
Cn
0
-D0
3-1
5
612
61
15
-0
0
6125-B
0
61
2
500
61
5
-C0
3
Old
-10
8175-00
6125-00
5-A
0
RAZ-POORJUG CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
OLDCAMP-FELCHER-RO CMPLX, 15-50% SLOPES
RO-XERIC HAPLOCAMBIDS-RBL CMPLX, 50-90% SLOPES
BRABBLE-CALDERWOOD CMPLX, 5-25% SLOPES
FLAGSTAFF,TAXA LS, SALINE, 1-8% SLOPES
OSOLL-PANLEE,TAXA-RO CMPLX, 20-50% SLOPES
SAGEHEN GRV-L, 0-5% SLOPES
CALDERWOOD-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-20% SLOPES
HELPENSTEIN,TAXA-LEGLER-PLAYAS CMPLX, 0-5% SLOPES
PLAYAS
SWALESILVER L, 0-1% SLOPES
CATLOW-DAVEY CMPLX, 2-30% SLOPES
ICENE-PLAYAS CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES
POORJUG-RO CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
TEGURO CB-L, 2-20% SLOPES
CLEET GRV-SL, 2-15% SLOPES
LEGLER CL 0-2% SLOPES
Playas
THORNLAKE,TAXA-KEWAKE CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
CLURDE L, 0-6% SLOPES
LEGLER, TAXA- LEGLER CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GR-LS, 0-5% SLOPES
TOLL-NEVADOR CMPLX, 1-15% SLOPES
COZTUR SL, 2-15% SLOPES
LEGLER, TAXA-CHANCELAKES, TAXA ASSOC, 0-2% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GRV-LS, 2-15% SLOPES
TURPIN-PLAYAS CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
Calderwood-McConnel complex_ 0 to 20 percent slopes
LYEFLAT GRV-VFSL, 20-50% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS-HELPHENSTRIN,TAXA CMPLX, 0-10% SLOPES
TURPIN-PLAYAS CMPLX, SALINE, 0-3% SLOPES
ENKO LS, 2-8% SLOPES
LYEFLAT-RO CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
RAZ-BRACE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
TURPIN-RABBITCREEK CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
ENKO-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-5% SLOPES
MCCONNEL-POORJUG CMPLX, 1-15% SLOPES
RAZ-BRACE CMPLX, LOW PPT, 2-20% SLOPES
Toll-Nevador complex_ 0 to 15 percent slopes
0.5
1
2
Miles
A0
5-
WESTBUTTE-LAMBRING-RO CMPLX, 35-65% N SLOPES
6155-A0
5-C
0
MORFITT L, 0-2% SLOPES
FELCHER-RIDDLERANCH-RO CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES
61
5
FELCHER-FITZWATER-RO ASSOC, 20-60% SLOPES
ANAWALT-RAZ CMPLX, 2-10% SLOPES
8155-00
State Highway MUNAME
3
61
0
-B0
8175-A
Legend
U.S. Highway
5
615
612
A
0
-B
6125
-B
6115
5AA
0
395
-BA
6125
612
5
6105-00
ty
Cn
11
3-
Map 8 - Sage-grouse Habitat
I
•
395
Legend
c
•
-0
Allotment Boundary
Active Greater Sage Grouse Leks (ODF W)
Out/Unknown
•
Breeding-Marginal
Summer-Marginal
Unsuitable
Yearlong-Marginal
Yearlong-Suitable
N
0
0.75
1.5
3
Miles
+
V
Nc w:ura ntyi$mad ~b )llf1~BI.nauofL.andMana~emenc :aloltctheac:curacy,
rel tallilily, or Cl)nl~e rtess of th ese data for irldivi dual or aggre{late use
w~h other dau_ Ort tJ!tlal d:Jta w er e comr~Hed from ~arl oos sources_ i hls
Woonatl on fm!11 not meet National MapAccurac)' Sta OOards_ Thi s product
was de.,e lopecltlvougM ~l gl:t"l means and May ~e update~ wllhout nodfl cMI M
61
14
-0
0
Map 9- ACEC and WSA within Abert
Seeding Allotment
395
616
5
Co
BPA
71
3
5-0
0
71
3
5-0
0
r
7155-0
0
rrido
6
61
A0
5-
orr
AC
BP
r
ido
-A0
6165-00
5
712
71
2
5-0
0
Cnty 3-09
Legend
Allotment Boundary
Lake AbertACEC
Wilderness Study Area
GTRN Roads
Bureau of Land Management
OwnerDesg
EC
Other
Highways
Area of Critical Environmental Concern
5-A
61
2
A
1
5-B
0.5
2
61
Ab
er
t
0
-00
Ri
m
AC
5
612
0
2
Miles
0
Abert Rim WSA
3-1
-D0
Bureau of Land Management
ty
Cn
5
612
County route
6125-B Area of Critical Environmental Concern
0
State
Private/Unknown
-B0
APPENDIX A - Grazing Treatment Descriptions
Early –
(Approximately March 1 to April 30) – This treatment provides the plants an
opportunity to recover after utilization of early plant growth. By removing livestock
before all spring and summer precipitation occurs, the plants would be able to store
carbohydrates, set seed, and maintain their vigor. This "early" treatment can be used
every year with little effect on the plant.
The dates of April 1 to April 30 are a guideline for the "early" treatment. Early use
must take place before grass plants are in the boot stage. There must also be enough
soil moisture in the ground to provide for regrowth after grazing. Therefore,
flexibility in the early treatment would allow for use prior to April 1 but generally not
after April 30, and will depend on climate.
Graze –
(Approximately May 1 to July 1 to 15) – This treatment allows for grazing during the
critical growth period of most plants. Carbohydrate reserves are continually being
utilized because the green parts of the plant are continuously being removed by
livestock. Pastures that are under the "graze" treatment will generally experience
some other treatment the following year so as not to repeat graze treatments.
Defer –
(Approximately July 1 to 15 to October 31) – Grazing during this treatment will not
begin until after most plants have reached seed ripe and have stored adequate
carbohydrate reserves. This treatment will assist in meeting the objectives by
providing all plants an opportunity to complete their life cycles and produce the
maximum amount of cover and forage.
Winter – Grazing during this treatment will occur when most plant species are dormant. Most
plants will have completed their life cycles and stored maximum carbohydrates for
the next growing season.
Rest –
This treatment provides the plants a full year of growth in the absence of grazing.
They are allowed to store maximum carbohydrate reserves, set seed, and provide
carryover herbage for the following year's turnout.
These dates are approximations based on general plant phenology. Year-to-year
variation in phenology will occur based on climatological phenomena.
66
APPENDIX B - Soil, Vegetation, and Biological Soil Crust
Summary Tables
Table B-1. Rabbit Basin - Hogback Pasture Soil Types
Soil Map
Unit
438B
425B
420D
454B
B2952
423C
B2880
Soil Type Name
ENKO-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-5% SLOPES
CLEET GRV-SL, 2-15% SLOPES
OLDCAMP-FELCHER-RO CMPLX, 15-50% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GR-LS, 0-5% SLOPES
MCCONNEL-POORJUG CMPLX, 1-15% SLOPES
CATLOW-DAVEY CMPLX, 2-30% SLOPES
FELCHER-FITZWATER-RO ASSOC, 20-60%
SLOPES
% in
area
41
21
20
11
5
1
1
Table B-2. Rabbit Basin - Sunstone Pasture Soil Types
Soil Map
Unit
B2950
454B
438B
419A
407B
454B
403A
452A
466B
438B
455A
420D
405A
405A
456A
115A
423C
404A
916B
407B
407B
Soil Type Name
CALDERWOOD-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-20%
SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GR-LS, 0-5% SLOPES
ENKO-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-5% SLOPES
LEGLER, TAXA- LEGLER CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GRV-LS, 2-15% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GR-LS, 0-5% SLOPES
TURPIN-PLAYAS CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
TURPIN-PLAYAS CMPLX, SALINE, 0-3% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS-HELPHENSTRIN,TAXA CMPLX, 010% SLOPES
ENKO-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-5% SLOPES
LEGLER CL 0-2% SLOPES
OLDCAMP-FELCHER-RO CMPLX, 15-50% SLOPES
CLURDEL, 0-6% SLOPES
CLURDEL, 0-6% SLOPES
HELPENSTEIN,TAXA-LEGLER-PLAYAS CMPLX, 05% SLOPES
ICENE-PLAYAS CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES
CATLOW-DAVEY CMPLX, 2-30% SLOPES
TURPIN-RABBITCREEK CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
POORJUG-RO CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GRV-LS, 2-15% SLOPES
RABBITHILLS GRV-LS, 2-15% SLOPES
67
% in area
37
8
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table B-3. Abert Seeding - Center East Pasture Soil Types
Soil Map
Unit
554B
B2880
B520
B3230
Soil Type Name
RAZ-POORJUG CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
FELCHER-FITZWATER-RO ASSOC, 20-60% SLOPES
RAZ-BRACE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
COZTUR SL, 2-15% SLOPES
% in area
53
30
15
2
Table B-4. Abert Seeding - Center West Pasture Soil Types
Soil Map
Unit
554B
489D
Soil Type Name
RAZ-POORJUG CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
FELCHER-RIDDLERANCH-RO CMPLX, 20-60%
SLOPES
% in area
67
33
Table B-5. Abert Seeding - South Pasture Soil Types
Soil Map
Unit
554B
489D
B521
B2880
432D
462D
B2880
433B
B520
B300
436C
446B
436C
547E
B520
B2880
527B
B520
Soil Type Name
RAZ-POORJUG CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
FELCHER-RIDDLERANCH-RO CMPLX, 20-60%
SLOPES
RAZ-BRACE CMPLX, LOW PPT, 2-20% SLOPES
FELCHER-FITZWATER-RO ASSOC, 20-60% SLOPES
LYEFLAT GRV-VFSL, 20-50% SLOPES
OSOLL-PANLEE,TAXA-RO CMPLX, 20-50% SLOPES
FELCHER-FITZWATER-RO ASSOC, 20-60% SLOPES
THORNLAKE,TAXA-KEWAKE CMPLX, 2-15%
SLOPES
RAZ-BRACE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
ENKO LS, 2-8% SLOPES
LYEFLAT-RO CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
FLAGSTAFF,TAXA LS, SALINE, 1-8% SLOPES
LYEFLAT-RO CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
RO-XERIC HAPLOCAMBIDS-RBL CMPLX, 50-90%
SLOPES
RAZ-BRACE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
FELCHER-FITZWATER-RO ASSOC, 20-60% SLOPES
TEGURO CB-L, 2-20% SLOPES
RAZ-BRACE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
*Values less than 1% of area are not displayed in table.
68
% in area *
14
14
14
11
7
6
6
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Table B-6. Rabbit Basin Allotment-Sunstone Pasture Current and Potential Vegetation Types
Range Site
Number
023XY636OR
023XY636OR
023XY619OR
023XY636OR
023XY200OR
023XY636OR
023XY622OR
023XY636OR
023XY631OR
023XY636OR
023XY632OR
023XY618OR
023XY631OR
Range
Site Name
Shallow
Loam 8-10
Shallow
Loam 8-10
Dry Sandy
Loam 8-10
Shallow
Loam 8-10
Ponded
Clay
Shallow
Loam 8-10
Sodic
Terrace 810
Shallow
Loam 8-10
Silty Sodic
Terrace 610
Shallow
Loam 8-10
Flooded
Terrace 610
Dry
Floodplain
8-10
Silty Sodic
Terrace 610
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Potential Vegetation Plant Code
Condition
Rating/
Observed
Seral
Apparent Trend
Stage
Wyoming Big Sagebrush
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Poor/E
Downward
6
31
Wyoming Big
Sagebrush/Squirreltail
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/M
Static
6
8
Basin Big Sagebrush
ARTRT/STCO4/ORHY
Poor/E
Downward
6
6
Wyoming Big
Sagebrush/Squirreltail
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/M
Static
6
5
ARCA13/PONE3
Fair/E
Static
6
5
Wyoming Big Sagebrush
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/M
Static
6
4
Basin Big Sagebrush
ARTRT/SAVE4/GRSP/ORHY/LECI4
Good/L
Downward
2
4
Wyoming Big Sagebrush
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Poor/E
Downward
6
4
Basin Big Sagebrush/Slender
Wheatgrass
ARTRT/SAVE4/GRSP/LETR5
Exce/P
Upward
6
3
Cheatgrass
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Poor/E
Downward
Greasewood
ARTRT/SAVE4/LETR5
Good/P
Downward
2
3
Basin Big Sagebrush/Great
Basin Wildrye
ARTRT/LECI4
Fair/M
Static
2
2
Basin Big Sagebrush/Slender
Wheatgrass
ARTRT/SAVE4/GRSP/LETR5
Fair/M
Static
4
2
% of
Area*
BSC
ND
3
Range Site
Number
Range
Site Name
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Potential Vegetation Plant Code
Condition
Rating/
Observed
Seral
Apparent Trend
Stage
023XY619OR
Dry Sandy
Loam 8-10
Basin Big
Sagebrush/needlegrass/Indian
ricegrass
ARTRT/STCO4/ORHY
Fair/E
Static
4
2
ARTRT/STCO4/ORHY
Fair/E
Static
1
2
ARTRT/LECI4
Good/L
Static
4
2
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Poor/E
Downward
ND
2
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/E
Downward
ND
2
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/M
PNC
8
1
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/M
Static
6
1
ARTRT/STTH2/ORHY/PSSPS
Fair/L
Upward
2
1
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/E
Downward
2
1
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Poor/M
Downward
4
1
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/M
Downward
6
1
SAVE4/ATCO/ELEL5/LECI4
Fair/M
Downward
4
1
ARTRT/SAVE4/GRSP/ORHY/LECI4
Good/L
Static
8
1
Dry Sandy
Crested Wheatgrass
Loam 8-10
Dry
Basin Big Sagebrush/Great
023XY618OR
Floodplain
Basin Wildrye
8-10
Shallow
023XY636OR
Cheatgrass/Tansy Mustard
Loam 8-10
Shallow
023XY636OR
Crested Wheatgrass
Loam 8-10
Shallow
Wyoming Big
023XY636OR
Loam 8-10 Sagebrush/Squirreltail
Shallow
023XY636OR
Wyoming Big Sagebrush
Loam 8-10
Loamy 8023XY635OR
Needlegrass
10
Shallow
023XY636OR
Crested Wheatgrass
Loam 8-10
Shallow
023XY636OR
Wyoming Big Sagebrush
Loam 8-10
Shallow
023XY636OR
Wyoming Big Sagebrush
Loam 8-10
Sodic
023XY628OR
Spiny Hopsage
Basin 8-10
Sodic
Basin Big Sagebrush/Slender
023XY622OR
Terrace 8Wheatgrass
10
*values less than 1% of area are not displayed in table.
023XY619OR
% of
Area*
BSC
Table B-7. Rabbit Basin Allotment-Hogback Pasture Current and Potential Vegetation Types
Range Site
Number
Range
Site
Name
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Potential Vegetation Plant Code
Condition
Rating/Seral Stage
Observed
Apparent Trend
023XY619OR
Dry
Sandy
Loam 810
Crested Wheatgrass
ARTRT/STCO4/ORHY
Fair/E
Static
023XY636OR
Shallow
Loam 810
Cheatgrass/Tansy mustard
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Poor/E
Static
023XY636OR
Shallow
Loam 810
Wyoming Big
Sagebrush/Squirreltail
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/M
Static
023XY636OR
Shallow
Loam 810
Crested Wheatgrass
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Good/E
Static
023XY636OR
Shallow
Loam 810
Squirreltail
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/ORHY
Fair/L
Static
6
10
023XY643OR
Shallow
Loamy
Slopes
8-10
Cheatgrass/Tansy mustard
SAVE4/ARTRT/ARTRW8/ORHY/ST
TH2/POSE4
Poor/E
Downward
4
9
023XY619OR
Dry
Sandy
Loam 810
Basin Big
Sagebrush/Squirreltail
ARTRT/STCO4/ORHY
Fair/E
Static
4
8
023XY619OR
Dry
Sandy
Loam 810
Basin Big
Sagebrush/Squirreltail
ARTRT/STCO4/ORHY
Fair/E
Static
4
6
BSC
1
ND
% of
Area*
26
11
6
ND
10
10
Range Site
Number
Range
Site
Name
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Potential Vegetation Plant Code
Condition
Rating/Seral Stage
Observed
Apparent Trend
023XY622OR
Sodic
Terrace
8-10
Basin Big
Sagebrush/Squirreltail
ARTRT/SAVE4/GRSP/ORHY/LECI4
Good/L
Static
4
2
023XY635OR
Loamy
8-10
Needlegrass
ARTRT/STTH2/ORHY/PSSPS
Fair/L
Upward
2
1
BSC
% of
Area*
*values less than 1% of area are not displayed in table.
SSF¹ = Soil Surface Facture (erosion rating): 0-20 stable; 21-40 slight; 41-60 moderate; 61-80 critical; 81-100 severe.
Table B-8. Abert Seeding Allotment - Center West Pasture Current and Potential Vegetation Types
Range Site
Number
Range
Site
Name
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Potential
Vegetation Plant
Code
Condition
Rating/
Seral Stage
023XY636OR
Shallow
loam 8-10
Arid
South 810
Shallow
loam 8-10
Crested
Wheatgrass/Milkvetch
Yellow Rabbitbrush/Cheat
grass/Tansy mustard
ARTRW8/STTH2/
PSSPS/ORHY
ARTRT/GRSP/
PSSPS/ORHY/
POSE4
ARTRW8/STTH2/
PSSPS/ORHY
Good/E
4
47
Poor/E
3
Fair/M
3
023XY603OR
023XY636OR
Wyoming Big
Sagebrush/Crested
Wheatgrass
*values less than 1% of area are not displayed in table.
SSF¹ = Soil Surface Facture (erosion rating): 0-20 stable; 21-40 slight; 41-60 moderate; 61-80 critical; 81-100 severe.
STAND1
SSF¹
Observed
Apparent
Trend
BSC
Bare
% of
Area*
Downward
4
60
65
45
Downward
0
43
33
41
Downward
4
61
2
Table B-9. Abert Seeding Allotment-Center East Pasture Current and Potential Vegetation Types
Range Site
Number
Range
Site
Name
Dominant
Vegetation
Common Name
Potential Vegetation Plant
Code
Condition
Rating/Seral
Stage
023XY636OR
Shallow
Loam 810
Wyoming Big
Sagebrush/Crested
Wheatgrass
ARTRW8/STTH2/PSSPS/
ORHY
Fair/M
3
41
Downward
4
53
023XY300OR
South
Slopes
8-12
Wyoming Big
Sagebrush/Bluebunch
Wheatgrass
ARTRW8/PSSPS/STTH2
Good/L
2
45
Static
6
30
023XY212OR
Loamy
10-12
Basin Big
Sagebrush/Needle
grass
ARTRW8/ARTRT/STTH2
Good/L
2
48
Upward
6
9
023XY212OR
Loamy
10-12
Basin Big
Sagebrush/Needle
grass
ARTRW8/ARTRT/STTH2
Fair/M
3
37
Upward
4
6
023XY212OR
Loamy
10-12
Basin Big
Sagebrush/Needle
grass
ARTRW8/ARTRT/STTH2
Good/L
2
56
Upward
6
2
*values less than 1% of area are not displayed in table.
SSF¹ = Soil Surface Facture (erosion rating): 0-20 stable; 21-40 slight; 41-60 moderate; 61-80 critical; 81-100 severe.
STAND1
Observed
Apparent
Trend
SSF1
BSC
% of
Area*
Table B-10. Abert Seeding Allotment-South Pasture Current and Potential Vegetation Types
Range Site
Range Site Name Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Potential Vegetation Plant Code Condition
Rating/Seral
Stage
ARTRW8/PSSPS
Poor/M
R023XY300OR SOUTH SLOPES Yellow
10-12 PZ
Rabbitbrush/Cheatgrass/Tansy
mustard
R024XY017OR SHALLOW
Crested
ARTRW8/STTH2
LOAM 8-10 PZ Wheatgrass/Milkvetch
SSF Observed BSC %
Apparent
Area
Trend
46 Downward
2 15
Good/E
47 Downward
4
14
R023XY300OR SOUTH SLOPES Yellow
ARTRW8/PSSPS
10-12 PZ
Rabbitbrush/Bluebunch
Wheatgrass
R024XY017OR SHALLOW
Yellow Rabbitbrush/Crested ARTRW8/STTH2
LOAM 8-10 PZ wheatgrass
Fair/L
43 Static
4
11
Fair/L
44 Downward
4
10
R024XY031OR DROUGHTY
SHALLOW
SLOPES 6-10 PZ
R024XY031OR DROUGHTY
SHALLOW
SLOPES 6-10 PZ
R023XY300OR SOUTH SLOPES
10-12 PZ
Shadscale/Squirreltail
ATCO/ARSP5
Good/L
46 Static
6
8
Shadscale/Squirreltail
ATCO/ARSP5
Good/L
46 Static
6
6
Yellow Rabbitbrush/
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
ARTRW8/PSSPS
Fair/L
43 Static
4
6
R024XY013OR LOW SODIC
TERRACE 6-10
PZ
Greasewood
SAVE4/ATCO/GRSP/ARSP5
Poor/L
58 Downward
4
5
R024XY017OR SHALLOW
LOAM 8-10 PZ
Greasewood/Cheatgrass
ARTRW8/STTH2
Fair/M
66 Downward
6
4
R023XY212OR LOAMY 10-12
PZ
Wyoming Big
Sagebrush/Needlegrass
ARTRW8/STTH2/POSE4
Fair/M
37 Upward
4
4
R024XY018OR SANDY LOAM
8-10 PZ
Yellow
Rabbitbrush/Cheatgrass
ARTRW8/HECO26
Fair/E
47 Static
4
4
Range Site
Range Site Name Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
R024XY013OR LOW SODIC
TERRACE 6-10
PZ
Spiny Hopsage/Cheatgrass
Potential Vegetation Plant Code Condition
Rating/Seral
Stage
SAVE4/ATCO/GRSP/ARSP5 Fair/L
R024XY013OR LOW SODIC
TERRACE 6-10
PZ
Spiny Hopsage/Cheatgrass
SAVE4/ATCO/GRSP/ARSP5
Fair/L
47 Downward
6
2
R023XY212OR LOAMY 10-12
PZ
Greasewood/Cheatgrass
ARTRW8/STTH2/POSE4
Fair/M
66 Downward
6
2
ARTRW8/STTH2/POSE4
Fair/M
54 Static
4
1
SAVE4/ATCO/GRSP/ARSP5
Good/L
55 Static
8
1
R023XY316OR DROUGHTY
Wyoming Bis
LOAM 11-13 PZ Sagebrush/Bluebunch
Wheatgrass
ARTRW8/FEID/STTH2
Good/M
21 Upward
4
1
R024XY013OR LOW SODIC
TERRACE 6-10
PZ
SAVE4/ATCO/GRSP/ARSP5
Poor/L
58 Downward
4
1
R023XY212OR LOAMY 10-12
PZ
R024XY013OR LOW SODIC
TERRACE 6-10
PZ
SSF Observed BSC %
Apparent
Area
Trend
47 Downward
6
3
Wyoming Bis
Sagebrush/Needlegrass
Greasewood/Cheatgrass
Greasewood
*values less than 1% of area are not displayed in table.
SSF¹ = Soil Surface Facture (erosion rating): 0-20 stable; 21-40 slight; 41-60 moderate; 61-80 critical; 81-100 severe.
Table B-11. Hogback Pasture Biological Soil Crust Cover
BSC Rating
0
1
2
4
6
ND*
% of
area
ACRES
23
1970
57
1938
1525
2060
0
26
1
26
20
27
*ND=Not Determined
Table B-12. Sunstone Pasture Biological Soil Crust Cover
BSC Rating
1
2
4
6
8
ND*
% of
area
ACRES
436
2759
2172
16731
463
2114
2
11
9
68
2
8
*ND=Not Determined
Table B-13. Center East Pasture Biological Soil Crust Cover
BSC Rating
4
6
8
% of
area
ACRES
908
637
1
59
41
0
Table B-14. Center West Pasture Biological Soil Crust Cover
BSC Rating
0
4
ACRES
% of
area
494
33
985
67
Table B-15. South Pasture Biological Soil Crust Cover
BSC Rating
2
4
6
8
ND*
*ND=Not Determined
ACRES
874
3264
1502
67
273
% of
area
15
55
25
1
4
Table B-16. Rabbit Basin Allotment - Actual Use and Utilization
Year
Sunstone
AUMs
%
Utilization
Hogback
AUMs
%
Utilization
2012
320
45
413
27
843
2011
665
36
923
33
1588
2010
453
31
331
29
784
2009
446
26
144
20
590
2008
464
486
50
950
2007
713
186
51
899
2006
572
687
1259
2005
310
0
310
30
Total
AUMs
2004
293
13
286
14
579
2003
1099
40
508
38
1607
Average
557
31.6
394.5
32.75
952
Table B-17. Rabbit Basin Allotment Use Prior to Pasture Division
Year
Rabbit Basin
AUMs
%
Utilization
2002
968
2001
2009
38
2000
1402
54
1998
1097
37
1997
1012
1996
719
52
1995
1486
55
1994
1111
57
1993
331
1992
1552
Total
11687
Average
1121
1999
61.3
Table B-18a. Rabbit Basin Allotment - Sunstone Pasture Observed Apparent Trend
Vigor
Seedlings
Surface
Litter
Pedestals
Gullies
Total
Rating
2005
2010
2012
6
6
3
5
6
3
6
6
4
5
5
25
Stable
4
5
23
Stable
5
5
26
Upward
Table B-18b. Rabbit Basin Allotment - Sunstone Pasture Cover
Bare Ground
Litter
Rock
Vegetation
Crust/Moss
1985
2005
2010
2012
64
25
0
11
0
38
20
4
38
0
41
22
0
36
1
30
30
0
40
0
Table B-18c. Rabbit Basin Allotment - Sunstone Pasture % Composition
Bluejoint
ELTR
SIHY
BRTE
ARTR
SAVE
Hop sage
Misc. forb
1985
2005
2010
2012
17
0
19
13
35
0
0
19
0
50
36
6
14
0
0
12
0
34
4
0
57
3
2
0
0
35
3
0
60
0
2
0
Table B-19a. Rabbit Basin Allotment - Hogback Pasture Observed Apparent Trend
Vigor
Seedlings
Surface
Litter
Pedestals
Gullies
Total
Rating
2010
2012
6
4
4
7
5
5
4
5
23
Stable
5
5
27
Upward
Table B-19b. Rabbit Basin Allotment - Hogback Pasture Cover
Bare Ground
Litter
Rock
Gravel
Vegetation
Crust/Moss
1985
2010
2012
76
5
7
0
12
0
27
29
0
0
43
1
23
52
3
0
22
0
Table B-19c. Rabbit Basin Allotment - Hogback Pasture % Composition
Cereal Rye
AGCR
BRTE
Mustard
Misc. forb
Astragalus
Lupine
1985
2010
2012
11
17
43
0
28
1
0
0
74
16
9
0
0
1
0
100
27
0
0
0
0
Table B-20a. Abert Seeding Allotment Actual Use and Utilization 2012
Year
Center
East
AUMs
2012
%
Utilization
(CE)
Center
West
AUMS
%
Utilization
(CW)
South
AUMs
%
Utilization
(S)
Total
AUMs
11
170
12
418
40
588
300
19
439
403
44
998
338
62
426
2011
139
19
2010
212
49
2009
2008
88
2007
201
2006
257
2005
289
37
2003
336
70
2002
348
47
31
595
42
36
311
318
63
412
73
65
539
2001
278
1998
380
1995
613
75
52
99
1994
75
615
451
37
740
577
61
895
499
44
847
43
1133
748
901
607
60
987
407
42
752
325
938
1034
47
1133
604
55
604
0
296
255
1991
1990
601
59
1993
1992
48
997
60
1996
344
855
997
345
512
362
60
1999
1997
508
70
50
2004
2000
296
60
1989
366
55
485
346
911
65
366
72
1988
831
0
57
1987
20
1986
1985
255
0
50
69
1984
1040
1983
751
0
0
1040
387
1138
1982
0
1981
0
845
1980
1979
1554
1978
887
845
1554
976
1863
1977
1032
1032
1975
1203
1203
1971
0
1969
0
1968
0
1967**
Avg
AUM’s
20yrs
Average
AUM’s
249.3
445.4
1027
1027
488.8
663.8
249.3
579.3
578.8
2002-2012 Average Actual Use: 664/1831 Authorized Active AUM’s = 36%
654.2
Table B-20b. Abert Seeding Allotment Observed Apparent Trend
OAT
Center
East
Center
West
Center
West
South
South
South
South
South
AS-12
AS-02
AS-02
AS-03
AS-03
AS-08
AS-10
AS-11
2012
2012
2010
2012
2010
2012
2012
2012
Vigor
5
8
6
8
6
6
7
6
Seedlings
4
8
6
4
6
6
5
5
Surface
Litter
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
Pedestals
5
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
Gullies
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total/35
23
29
25
26
24
26
26
23
Stable
Upward
Stable
Upward
Stable
Upward
Upward
Stable
Rating
Table B-20c. Abert Seeding Allotment Plant Composition based on Pace 180 Vegetation
Monitoring
Center
East
Center
West
Center
West
South
South
South
AS-12
AS-02
AS-02
AS-03
AS-03
AS-11
2012
2012
2010
2012
2010
2012
34
24
49
72
87
POSE
25
34
1
2
STTH
3
AGCR
12
11
PSSP
2
ELEL
1
BRTE
3
ARTR
7
1
1
11
4
1
5
4
CHNA
4
10
CHVI
6
2
1
Forbs
0
4
5
1
Med Sage*
Bare
Ground
24
21
28
13
17
29
Litter
27
14
12
41
22
16
Rock
1
1
2
4
4
20
Gravel
3
1
0
0
0
0
Vegetation
45
63
55
42
57
35
Moss/Crust
0
0
3
0
0
0
* mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis) is classified as an Oregon noxious weed Categroy B. This site was treated in 2012, and will continue
to be monitored with treatments as necessary to control spread. One biological control agent, a root weevil, has been approved for release and
is successfully established in Oregon.
Table B-20d. Abert Seeding Allotment Line Intercept for Shrub Cover
Line and Intercept
South
for % shrub cover
AS-11
2012
CHVI
7
ARTR
14
Average Shrub Height
1-3ft
Average % Cover
23
Table B-21. Precipitation Data from the Summit RAWS Station*
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
2000
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
4.50
2001
0.57
0.42
0.92
1.09
0.73
0.38
0.46
0.03
0.90
1.04
2002
1.09
0.58
0.38a
1.25
0.56
0.61
0.01
0.04
0.15
2003
2.69
0.84
2.49
1.79
1.76
0.00
0.75
0.19
1.45
2004
0.46
1.57
10.35
0.69
1.55a
2005
0.24
0.33
1.09
2.54
8.22
0.96
2006
0.62e
1.24
1.13
2.11
0.57
0.36a
2007
0.19
0.53
0.46
0.97
0.82
1.22
0.09
0.24
1.27
3.19
2008
0.34
0.21
0.35
0.22
1.36
0.56
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.88
2009
0.35
0.67
0.48
0.46
2.72
1.97
0.00
1.02
0.00
1.04
2010
0.70
0.53
0.51
1.08
1.70
1.98
0.09
0.48
0.50
2011
0.36
0.19
0.98
2.03
1.67
0.87
0.21
0.00
1.39
0.09
1.29
1.78
0.88
0.89
0.00
0.03
2012
0.67
0.00a
0.22
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.68
0.09
0.51
0.23
Nov
2.29
1.11
Dec
Annual
0.38
8.28h
2.24
1.16
9.94
0.14
0.98
1.60
7.39
0.00
1.29
1.27
14.52
2.18
0.56
1.27
3.63
0.54
1.22
1.20 19.97
5.89
24.90
1.29
9.99
1.10
0.30a
0.38
0.88
0.51
5.57
0.74
0.44
9.89
2.96
0.82
2.33
13.68
0.04
1.16
0.37
0.47
8.35
0.00
0.89
3.16
2.23
12.63
*Approximately 38 air miles south of Abert Seeding Allotment; 36 air miles SW of Rabbit Basin Allotment.
Table B-22. Precipitation Data from the Rock Creek RAWS Station*
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
0.00t
1.15
1.43
0.49
0.00
3.07h
2001
0.08
0.05
0.55
0.57
0.02
0.38
2.28
0.62
1.00
0.37
0.69
0.61
7.22
2002
0.42
0.25
0.02
0.96
0.08
0.50
0.00
0.09
0.44
0.48
0.42
0.08
3.74
2003
0.59
0.16
0.57
1.02
1.30
0.24
0.04
0.50
1.09
0.47
0.45
0.18
6.61
2004
0.10
0.57
0.11
0.45
1.75
0.77
0.12a
1.13
0.72
1.28
0.60
0.45
8.05
2005
0.06
0.15
0.57
1.83
7.42
0.71
0.14
0.00
0.40
0.86
0.46 k
2006
0.26
0.73
0.23
1.37
0.59
1.63
0.58
0.05
0.43
0.60
0.73
0.38
7.58
2007
0.02
0.63
0.42
1.21
0.22
1.08
0.13
0.23
1.18
1.07
0 .47
0.03
6.69
2008
0.43
0.07
0.23
0.22a
2.52
0.69
0.33
0.00
0.34
0.22
0.96
0.08
6.09
2009
0.21
0.22
0.37
0.90
1.80
3.94
0.15
0.97
0.00
1.27
0.23
0.05
10.11
2010
0.62
0.41
0.34
1.16
1.33
0.96
0.07
0.47
0.99
1.21
0.68
1.47
9.71
2011
0.53
0.53
0.95
1.56
1.02
0.96
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.03
0.14
6.24
2012
0.70
0.18
0.52
0.89
0.83
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.34
1.44
1.20
6.94
1.82
13.96a
*Approximately 26 air miles SE of Abert Seeding Allotment; 15 air miles SE of Rabbit Basin Allotment.
The above tables represent the closest Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) that have
complete recent data for the Abert Seeding and Rabbit Basin Allotments (RAWS 2012).