FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PAISLEY FLAT AND WHITE ROCK ALLOTMENT GRAZING PERMIT RENEWALS
DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2013-0037 EA
The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Resource Area (BLM), has analyzed several alternative proposals
related to renewing term grazing permit number 3601408 and 3600245 for the Paisley Flat and White Rock
Allotments for a 10-year period. The allotments are located approximately 1 and 10 miles north of
Paisley, Oregon, respectively (see Map 1 of attached EA).
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared to analyze the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts of several alternatives. The alternatives included No Action (continue current grazing) and
No Grazing, (see Chapter 2 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 action is the Paisley Flat and
White Rock 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)
Would any of the alternatives have significant beneficial or adverse impacts (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)?
( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: Based on the analysis contained in the attached EA, none of the alternatives would have either
significant beneficial or adverse impacts on the human environment. There are no prime or unique farmlands, wild
horse management areas, wild and scenic rivers, significant caves, designated wilderness areas, wilderness study
areas, lands with wilderness characteristics, threatened or endangered plants or animals, hazardous waste sites,
ACEC/RNAs, or low income or minority populations located in the area. No measureable impacts would occur to
climate, air quality, floodplains, hydrology, forest or woodland habitat, land status, or mineral and energy resources
(see Table 3 and Chapter 3).
The potential impacts to existing soils, biological soil crusts, air quality, water quality, fisheries habitat, riparian
vegetation, special status aquatic species, upland vegetation, noxious weeds, wildlife, special status species,
livestock grazing management, native American traditional practices, cultural resources, recreation, visual resources,
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.
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 alternatives analyzed in detail in the attached EA would have significant impacts on public
health or safety or low income or minority populations. There are no known hazardous waste sites in the area (Table
3). There are no surface drinking water sources located in the area. Impacts to water quality associated with the one
perennial stream located in the area are described as minor (page17). There would be no measureable impacts to air
quality within and surrounding the area (Table 3).
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, wild and scenic rivers, significant caves, designated
wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, ACEC/RNAs, or lands with wilderness character located in the area (Table
3). Potential impacts to riparian vegetation along Kelly and White Hill Creeks have been analyzed in Chapter 3 of
the attached EA and found not to be significant.
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 alternatives addressed in the attached EA. The potential impacts of these
range management actions on soils, biological soil crusts, water quality, riparian vegetation, upland vegetation,
noxious weeds, wildlife, special status species, livestock grazing management, native American traditional practices,
cultural or historic resources, recreation, visual resources, and social and economic values can be reasonably
predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. The attached EA analyzed these impacts (see
Chapter 3). 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 given an 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 alternatives addressed in the attached EA. The potential impacts of these
range management actions on soils, biological soil crusts, water quality, riparian vegetation, upland vegetation,
noxious weeds, special status plants, wildlife, special status wildlife, livestock grazing management, native
American traditional uses, cultural or historic resources, recreation, visual resources, and social and economic values
can be reasonably predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. The attached EA analyzed these
impacts (see Chapter 3). 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 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 the attached EA, none of the
alternatives would have significant cumulative effects within the project area, even when added to the effects of
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (see Chapter 3).
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: The allotments are located within a broader landscape that was used historically by native Americans.
However, there are no designated Traditional Cultural Properties or important plant collecting sites known within
the allotments. Potential impacts to native American religious or sacred sites, and cultural resources have been
analyzed in the attached EA and found not to be significant (see Chapter 3).
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 area (see Table
3).
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 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, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species 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
(BLM 2003b). The alternatives analyzed in the EA conform to the management direction of this plan, 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 (BLM 1997), and the grazing regulations (43
CFR Part 4100) in varying degrees (see Chapters 1 and 3). Conformance with this direction will be addressed in
more detail within the proposed decision as it represents important decision factors that I will consider in making my
final decision.
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
Paisley Flat (#00422) and White Rock (#00416) Allotment
Grazing Permit Renewals
Environmental Assessment
DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2013-0037 EA
January 2014
Bureau of Land Management
Lakeview Resource Area
Lakeview District Office
1301 South G Street
Lakeview, Oregon 97630
1
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 #3601408 for
a ten-year period. This EA addresses grazing management within the Paisley Flat Allotment
(#00422). Secondly this EA analyzes the effects of grazing under a second permit (#3600245)
on the Paisley Flat and White Rock (#00416) Allotment. This EA analyzes the potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts that may result with the implementation of the proposed
alternatives. This EA also serves as the analytical basis for making the determination as to
whether any significant impacts to the human environment would result from the proposal, in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
The Paisley Flat Allotment is located approximately 1 mile north of Paisley, Oregon (Map1).
The allotment has a total of 4,549 acres BLM-administered lands and contains five pastures (Map
5) grazed in the winter and the spring in a rotational grazing system. This allotment is grazed
under two permits operated by one livestock operator. Permit #3601408 authorizes 467 AUMs
of winter and spring use. A second permit (#3600245) authorizes 118 AUMs specifically in the
Trail Pasture from 12/03 to 1/24.
The White Rock Allotment is located approximately 10 miles west of Paisley, Oregon (Map 1).
The allotment has a total of 577 acres BLM-administered lands and 518 other acres. Permit
#3600245 authorizes 10 AUMs to be used sometime between 5/1-9/30. This is a small custodial
allotment grazed in conjunction with private lands. The allotment is primarily comprised of steep
slopes 30 to 50 percent. The winter fire burned the area in 2002 and was rested for two years
following the fire.
B. Purpose and Need for Action
Permit #3601408 for the Paisley Flat Allotment expired in 2013. Permit #3600245 for the
Paisley Flat and White Rock Allotments is due to expire in 2015. The permittee has submitted
permit renewal applications to BLM for consideration. The primary purpose of this analysis is to
respond to the permittee’s permit renewal applications and consider whether or not to reissue or
modify the two grazing permits for a 10-year period in accordance with 43 CFR Part 4130.
When issued, grazing permits must 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.
Decision to be Made
The authorized officer will decide whether or not to renew the two grazing permits, and if so,
under what terms and conditions.
D.
Decision Factors
Decision factors are additional criteria used by the decision maker to choose the alternative that
2
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 plan?
c) How well does the decision promote maintenance of rangeland health standards?
d) How well does the decision conform with ODFW (2005) guidelines?
e) How well does the decision conform with IM 2012-043 regarding interim Sagegrouse management?
E.
Conformance with Laws and Regulations
This EA has been prepared in accordance 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 permit renewal applicant (current permittee)
controls the base property associated with the grazing preference on the pasture 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 in compliance. This conclusion was
based on: grazing utilization at acceptable levels, bills were paid on time, actual use information
was turned in yearly, use was within permitted dates, permit terms and conditions were adhered
to, base property requirements were met, and history of trespass or unauthorized use has been
minimal. Forage consumption has been within authorized AUM’s for the last ten years. The
permittee’s performance review is located in the BLM case file and incorporated by reference.
F.
Conformance with the Land Use Plan
Approved management actions must conform to the appropriate land use plan. 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).
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
3
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…. (Page 52).
The Paisley Flat and White Rock Allotments are currently open or available for grazing
use and are allocated livestock forage as listed in Table 5 (page 49, as maintained).
Appendix E1 – Allotment Specific Management Direction for White Rock Allotment (page
A-45, as maintained)
Range/Livestock 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.
Plant Communities/Vegetation– Restore plant community productivity and biodiversity.
Manage juniper areas where encroachment or increased density is threatening other
resource values. Maintain old growth characteristics in historic juniper sites not prone to
frequent fire. Restore aspen stands through treatment of encroaching juniper in the upper
reaches of Kelly Creek.
Develop/implement a medusahead management strategy.
Watershed/Riparian/Fisheries- A rangeland health assessment was completed in 2005.
Standard 2 was not met because Kelly Creek is a steep, deeply entrenched channel with rock
bottom and very little riparian vegetation. The condition of the creek was the result of the
1997 flood. Remnant open stands along the upper reaches are being encroached by juniper.
Livestock grazing is not a factor in the condition of this creek.
Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat: Monitor utilization of browse in mule deer winter range areas.
Avoid livestock utilization levels that reduce the long-term viability of browse plants.
Monitor bighorn sheep populations to ensure that sufficient forage and habitat are
available.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Specific Management Direction for Paisley Flat Allotment
(page A-50, as maintained)
Range/Livestock 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.
Use management practices and/or better animal distribution; develop range improvements
when appropriate; adjust permitted use as needed. Adjust permitted livestock use as needed.
4
Continue to manage for forage production in seeded areas through season of use
adjustments, possible vegetation treatments, fencing, water developments, and/or other
actions.
Plant Communities/Vegetation– Implement the current Integrated Noxious Weed
Management Plan.
A rangeland health assessment was completed in June 2004. Standard 3 was not being
met because an old crested wheatgrass seeding was being invaded by cheatgrass and
annual weeds, reducing its overall ecological function. In fall of 2004, the area was
treated by a combination of methods including disking and reseeding or brush beating.
These projects, combined with implementation of a rest-rotation system, are making
significant progress toward meeting Standard 3.
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).
G.
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
The final decision must also conform to the following plans or policies, which also 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 1997a) A rangeland health assessment was conducted in 2004 for the Paisley Flat Allotment, and
was updated in 2013 (BLM 2004b, 2013a). The White Rock Allotment rangeland health
assessment was completed in 2005 and also updated in 2013 (BLM 2005, 2013b). both
allotments met all applicable standards for rangeland health.
Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program, EA#OR-010-2004-03 (BLM 2004a) This document tiered to the noxious weed management direction in the Lakeview RMP/ROD and
provided more specific details on the locations of known noxious weed sites in the Lakeview
Resource Area and how periodic treatments would be conducted on these sites, as well as new sites
discovered during future inventory. The treatment methods addressed in this plan included cultural,
mechanical, biological, and chemical. The type of treatment used and the frequency of treatment
would be based on site/plant characteristics, treatment priorities identified in the plan, and budget.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2005) Much of the management direction from this strategy was found to be in conformance with the
5
Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b) and was formally adopted through plan maintenance to the
extent possible. The ODFW strategy 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” (page 75). As noted above, both allotments continue to meet all applicable standards
for rangeland health (BLM 2004b, 2005, 2013a, 2013b), and therefore, conform with this strategy.
Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011) This document represents the 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.
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 Sage-Grouse habitat and land health
from the proposed action.
If land treatments and/or range improvements are the primary action for achieving land
6
health standards for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat maintenance or enhancement, clearly
display the effects of such actions in the alternatives analyzed.
Fences
•
•
Evaluate the need for proposed fences, especially those within 1.25 miles of leks that have
been active within the past 5 years and in movement corridors between leks and roost
locations. Consider deferring fence construction unless the objective is to benefit Greater
Sage-Grouse habitat, improve land health, promote successful reclamation, protect human
health and safety, or provide resource protection. If the BLM authorizes a new fence, then,
where appropriate, apply mitigation (e.g., proper siting, marking, post and pole
construction) to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse as
determined in cooperation with the respective state wildlife agency.
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
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 SageGrouse 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 2 - ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative would renew the existing livestock grazing permits (#36001301 and
#3600245) in the Paisley Flat and White Rock Allotments for the current grazing permittee with
the same terms and conditions. A 10-year term livestock grazing permit would be issued that
continues current grazing management during the permitted seasons and existing forage
allocations (Table 1). This definition for the No Action Alternative is consistent with BLM
Table 1. Specified Grazing Use for Alternative 1
Permit #
Allotment (Pasture)
Livestock #
3601408
3600245
3600245
Paisley Flat
Paisley Flat (Trail Pasture)
White Rock
77
68
2
Grazing Period
Begin Date
End Date
12/1
6/1
12/3
1/24
5/1
9/30
Type Use
Active
Active
Active
AUMs
463
118
10
7
(2000) guidance.
Grazing Management Systems
The Paisley Flat Allotment is grazed in a rest rotation winter/spring grazing system. There are 5
pastures within the allotment. The Trail Pasture is grazed during the winter season.
The White Rock Allotment consists of a single pasture grazed in conjunction with private lands
sometime between 5/1-9/30. This is a small custodial allotment with 10 AUMs.
Grazing Permit Terms and Conditions
Terms and conditions will be included within the grazing permits that comply with Federal and
State policies. This includes requirements such as: timely payment of fees, submission of actual
use reports, providing administrative access across private land, continued compliance with
Rangeland Health Standards, and maintenance of range improvements.
Grazing Management Flexibility
Knowing that uncertainties exist in managing for sustainable ecosystems, changes to the annual
grazing use may be authorized within the limits of the grazing permit 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. 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.
Dry years that limit water availability; An example would be resting a pasture that had low water
and shifting livestock use to the pasture that had water. Conversely on wet years, livestock could
be moved to areas near more dependable water sources. Other options would be to reduce livestock
number, shorten the grazing season, or other temporary measures to adjust grazing levels to within
the available forage base on that year.
Change in use periods to balance utilization levels in each 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 active permitted AUMs and
outside permit dates, some of the more common adjustments would be:
Increasing livestock numbers while shortening the season of grazing use
Adjustments to the length of time and AUMs of grazing use to meet resource objectives including
but not limited to utilization targets
Temporary (1 year) adjustments to pasture use usually dependent on water availability or climate
related issues. Sometimes adjustments would be made to reduce conflicts with other resources;
8
such as one time recreational or other activities where livestock or the other resource would benefit
from adjusting the livestock use.
Monitoring
Monitoring in both allotments would continue, generally as specified in the Lakeview RMP/ROD
(BLM 2003b, pages 53-55, as maintained). In summary, trend monitoring studies would be
conducted and include photo station and observed apparent trend methodologies are used to
measure cover, species composition and frequency. Utilization studies would be conducted using
the key forage plant method. Utilization is a measure of the amount of the current year’s forage
that is consumed by livestock. Monitoring methodology would follow the latest protocol, such
as Technical References 1734-3 and 1734-4 (BLM 1996a, 1996b) incorporated herein by
reference. Table 2 describes the key species and utilization targets identified for the Paisley Flat
and White Rock Allotments.
Table 2. Key Species and Target Utilization Levels for Pastures within the Paisley Flat and
White Rock Allotments
BLM
Utilization Target
Pasture
Key Species
Acres
%
Northeast
Northwest
1120
840
Cheatgrass
Cheatgrass
50
50
Southeast
Southwest
Trail
Total
White Rock
Allotment
1072
966
551
4549
577
Crested Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass
50
50
65
Squirrel tail, Idaho fescue
50
Alternative 2 No Grazing
Under this alternative, the current permits would not be renewed and livestock grazing would not
be authorized on public lands within either allotment. Owners of livestock who desire to
continue grazing on private lands fenced inside the allotments would be required to keep
livestock off of public lands and encouraged to construct boundary fences to prevent trespass.
All current range improvements on public lands within the interior of the allotments would not
be maintained for the same 10-year period. However, some allotment boundary fences would
still need to be maintained to prevent trespass from livestock authorized to graze on surrounding
allotments.
Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis.
Seeding Maintenance on the Paisley Flat Allotment.
This alternative considered seeding the two northern pastures to establish native perennial plants
and provide forage for livestock. Previous attempts to seed crested wheatgrass were met with
less than optimal success, due to less than adequate soil conditions at the time of seeding. This
9
alternative considered reseeding with greasewood, saltgrass, and native grasses species suited to
the soil conditions. This alternative also considered chemical treatments of cheatgrass. This
alternative was eliminated from further analysis at this time as previous attempts to establish
crested wheatgrass have failed in the northern pastures and the costs associated with reseeding
natives and chemical treatment would be excessive.
Reduced Grazing Alternative
An additional alternative was considered which would reduce grazing use on both allotments by
50%. This alternative was not evaluated in detail because there are no existing rangeland health
problems on either allotment that would justify forage reductions. In addition, the impacts of this
alternative would fall within the range of the two alternatives that were analyzed in detail.
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
This section presents a description of the current environment within the allotments and a
discussion of the potential impacts resulting from implementation of the alternative
management actions. An inter-disciplinary (ID) team has reviewed and identified the
resources values and uses that could potentially be affected by the alternative actions. Those
resources or uses identified as “not affected” or “not present” are listed in Table 3 and will
not be discussed or further analyzed in this EA. The remainder of this chapter describes the
potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on resources and resource uses that may
result from each alternative.
Climate
Affected Environment
The climate in the vicinity of these allotments is variable, but typical of the Northern Great
Basin. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 10-16 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 45 to 48 degrees F. The frost-free
time period ranges from 70 to 110 days. The period of optimum plant growth is from April
through July (NRCS 2010).
While changes in greenhouse gas levels may affect climate (Forster et al. 2007, NOAA 2010),
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has summarized the latest science and concluded it is
beyond the scope of existing science to identify a specific source of greenhouse gas emissions
and designate it as the cause of specific climate impacts at any specific location (USGS 2008).
For this reason, the remainder of this discussion focuses on describing the potential changes in
greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration associated with the alternatives.
10
Table 3. Resources or Uses that are Not Present or Would Not be Affected
Elements of the Human
Environment
Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern
(ACECs)
Air Quality (Clean Air
Act)
Not
Present
There are no ACECs or research natural areas (RNAs) within the
allotments.
Not
Affected
Environmental Justice
(Executive Order 12898)
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 allotments.
Fire and Fuels
Management
Not
Affected
Not
Present
Fish Habitat
Forest/Woodlands
Flood Plains (Executive
Order 13112)
Hazardous or Solid Waste
Lands
Minerals and Energy
Prime or Unique
Farmlands
Special Status Plant
Species
Threatened and
Endangered Plants and
Animals
Wilderness
Rationale
Not
Affected
Not
Affected
Not
Present
Not
Affected
Not
Affected
Not
Present
Not
Present
Not
Present
Not
Present
Lands with Wilderness
Characteristics
Not
Present
No fire or fuel treatments are being proposed in this EA.
There is no fish-bearing habitat within these allotments.
Though portions of the White Rock allotment contain forest overstory
species, none of the alternatives would directly affect forest/woodland
habitat.
No proposed construction within or other modification of flood plains
would occur. Therefore, there would be no floodplain or related
hydrologic impacts under any of the alternatives.
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.
No known special status plant species are present within the allotment.
No known federally listed plant or animal species or their habitat are
found within the allotments.
No wilderness study areas or designated wilderness areas are located in
the allotments. The Diablo Mountain WSA is located immediately to the
northwest of the Paisley Flat Allotment, but would not be affected by any
of the alternatives analyzed.
BLM's original wilderness inventory did not find wilderness
characteristics to be present within this allotment (BLM 1979a, 1979b,
1979c, 1980a, and 1980b). Since 2007, the BLM has been conducting
wilderness inventory updates following current inventory guidance (BLM
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, and citizenprovided wilderness information (ONDA 2005). BLM subsequently
conducted field inventory, completed route analysis forms, made unit
boundary determinations, and evaluated wilderness character within each
inventory unit. BLM did not find lands with wilderness characteristics to
be present in either allotment (BLM 2011, 2012c). BLM hereby
incorporates these findings by reference in their entirety (available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php). Based
upon the results of this inventory update, there would be no impacts to
lands with wilderness characteristics.
11
Elements of the Human
Environment
Wild Horses (Wild Horse
and Burro Act)
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Rationale
Not
Present
Not
Present
The allotments are located outside of designated wild horse herd
management area.
There are no Wild or Scenic Rivers within the allotments.
Environmental Consequences
Livestock grazing results in methane emissions as a result of ruminant digestion. Methane is
recognized as one source of carbon emissions. Emission rates from cattle vary widely and
depend on many variables (Johnson and Johnson 1995; DeRamus et al. 2003). Livestock
grazing can also affect rangeland carbon storage levels, through changes in plant community
and changes in ecosystem processes, but the effects have been variable and inconsistent among
the ecosystems studied (Schuman et al. 2009). Some studies have found that grazing can result
in increased carbon storage compared to no grazing, because of increased plant turnover and
changes in plant species composition (Follett et al. 2001). Many changes in rangeland carbon
from different grazing practices do not result in substantial changes in total ecosystem carbon,
but rather simply redistribute carbon, for example, from aboveground vegetation to root
biomass (Derner and Schuman 2007).
Based on the available science and analyses contained in several recent permit renewal EAs
(BLM 2012c, 2012d), the utilization of between 0 and 595 AUMs of forage would result in an
extremely small incremental contribution to total regional, national, and global greenhouse gas
emissions. Neither alternative would it have any significant effects on carbon sequestration
processes or have any scientifically verifiable effects on regional or global climate change.
Soils and Biological Crusts
Affected Environment- Soils
Soil information was summarized from soil surveys for both the South and North Lake Counties
(NRCS 2010 and unpublished), as well as digital soil data on file at the Lakeview District BLM
Office. This data is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
White Rock Allotment - The White Rock Allotment is comprised of six soil complexes broken up
by topographic features and slope (Table 4 and Map 2). The majority of the allotment is
composed of 3 soil complexes (82% of the area). The largest soil map unit is the Eglirim
association, 30-50% slope and comprises 40% of the entire allotment and the majority of BLMadministered lands. This soil is formed from colluvium from tuff and basalt parent material.
These soils are very deep, well-drained with slow permeability and an available water capacity at
3 inches. There is a severe potential for soil erosion along with a high shrink swell potential.
These soils are characterized by a very stony surface and steep slopes.
Argixerolls-Badland complex, 15 to 30% slopes comprises about 20% of the allotment. This soil
is formed from residuum and colluvium. It is well drained, with moderate to slow permeability.
The hazard by erosion is severe and the available water capacity is 4 inches. The badland of this
12
Table 4.
1
SMU
77E
163B
78F
167E
7E
168F
White Rock Allotment Soil Complexes
Soil Series Name
EGLIRIM VERY STONY LOAM, 2 TO30 PERCENT
SLOPES
MESMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, MILDLY ALKALINE,
0 TO 5% SLOPES
EGLIRIM ASSOCIATION, 30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES
MOUND STONY LOAM, SLUMP, 2 TO 30 PERCENT
SLOPES
ARGIXEROLLS-BADLAND COMPLEX, 15 TO 30
PERCENT SLOPES
MOUND VERY BOULDERY LOAM, SLUMP, 30 TO 50
PERCENT SLOPES
Acres
51.8
% of
Allotment
4.8
0.006
0.0
433
40.0
147.3
13.6
215
19.8
236.4
21.8
1
SMU - Soil Mapping Unit: refer to Map 2 for location within the allotment.
soil support little if any vegetation and can have severe gully and sheet erosion, slumping can
also occur. Some severely deep gullies and slumping has occurred within the allotment due to
some flood events and the high erosive nature of the soils. These features are very prominent on
the landscape.
Mound very boulder loam, slump, 30 to 50% north slopes comprises about 22% of the allotment
primarily on private lands and therefore will not be discussed in detail.
The Rangeland Health Assessment found that soils in the allotment exhibit infiltration and
permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability appropriate for soil, climate, and land form,
and therefore Standard 1 is being met (BLM 2005, 2013b).
Observed apparent trend (OAT) data was used to define trend indicators correlated to soil
stability. These indicators are: surface litter, pedestals, and gullies. OAT data collected indicates
stable soils on the White Rock Allotment; i.e. surface litter is accumulating in place, there is little
evidence of pedestaling, and gullies are absent from the slopes at the trend site. There are gullies
present on the allotment along both the White Hill Creek and Kelly creeks. These are prominent
features on the landscape and were caused by historical flooding and timber logging and a road
that is occurring in the upland watershed. Although these features are present this soil type is
very susceptible to erosion and both creeks look to be handling sediment load effectively.
Paisley Flat Allotment - The Paisley Flat Allotment is comprised of 10 soil map complexes (Map
2 and Table 5). Approximately 72% of the allotment is comprised of the McConnel very
gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes. This soil is typical of lake terraces with a parent material of
alluvium formed form tuff and basalt. These have variable depths from very deep to shallow, to
sand and gravel. These soils are somewhat excessively drained with a moderately rapid
permeability. The available water holding capacity is 2 inches and the erosion hazard by water is
slight to moderate. These soils are strongly effervescent between depths of 10 and 22 inches.
All other soil unit comprises 7% or less of the acreage on the allotment and therefore will not be
discussed in detail.
13
Table 5.
1
SMU
153A
162B
162B
282B
153A
162B
162B
Paisley Flat Allotment Soil Complexes
Soil Series Name
MESMAN FSL, 0-5% SLOPES
ENKO-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-5% SLOPES
MCCONNEL VGR-SL, 0-2% SLOPES
MCCONNEL VERY GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 2
PERCENT SLOPES
MESMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 5 PERCENT
SLOPES
MESMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 5 PERCENT
SLOPES
ZORRAVISTA FINE SAND, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES
MCCONNEL VERY GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 2
PERCENT SLOPES
MESMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 5 PERCENT
SLOPES
MESMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 5 PERCENT
SLOPES
Acres
% of
Allotment
1.2
320.9
56.0
0.0275428
7.24
1.26
3206.4
72.34
0.1
0.00
178.8
321.0
4.03
7.24
39.0
0.88
198.2
4.47
110.7
2.50
1
SMU - Soil Mapping Unit: refer to Map 2 for location within the allotment.
The Rangeland Health Assessment found soils in the allotment exhibit infiltration and
permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability appropriate for soil, climate, and land form,
and therefore Standard 1 is being met (BLM 2004b, 2013a). Soil surface factors (SSF) are used
to assign an erosion class rating and potential susceptibility of soil to accelerated erosion. The
SSF rating for the allotment rated 74% of the allotment in the slight erosion condition class with
and an OAT call of upward based on the ESI data effort in the early 1990s. Long-term trend
transects on the allotment recorded OAT mostly as upward and stable in 2012 indicating plant
cover and the amount of bare ground is within the range of variability expected for the ecological
sites found in the majority of the allotment.
Affected Environment – Biological Soil Crusts
Biological soil crusts (BSCs) such as mosses, lichens, micro fungi, cyanobacteria and algae play
a role in a functioning ecosystem and are one of at least 12 potential indicators used in evaluating
upland watershed function. 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).
Studies by Ponzetti and McCune (2001) examined biotic soil crust cover and composition at
several locations in central and eastern Oregon in 1995. The study compared species richness of
microbiotic crusts inside and outside of several exclosures to provide a grazed versus ungrazed
comparison. Results of the study found that all of the sites had between one and six more taxa
inside the exclosures than in the grazed pastures, with one exception, which had three more
species in the grazed transect. Generally, total crust cover was inversely related to vascular plant
cover, as there was a positive relationship of crust cover to available soil surfaces. The
differences in total crust cover and species composition between study sites were most strongly
14
related to soil pH, electrical conductivity, and the relative calcium carbonate content of the soil.
Soil chemistry and climate differences were a stronger factor affecting cover and species
composition than livestock exclusion. However, the study found a lower cover of biotic crusts,
lichens, and species richness in grazed areas. 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 quantified by quantifying the
associated impacts to soils.
Environmental Consequences
Effects Common to Both Allotments for Alternative 1-No Action
The impacts of livestock grazing on soils within the Lakeview Resource Area were also 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 negatively impact soils
due to compaction around existing waterholes and along cattle trailing areas (pages 4-35 to 436).
Soils and BSCs would continue to be negatively impacted in livestock concentration areas near
water sources and cattle trails. Livestock would 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). Cattle trails tend to be located along fence lines and near water
sources. These trails are typically less than 5 feet wide. The formula used to estimate the area of
concentrated livestock disturbance associated with trailing along fence lines is: miles of fence X
5ft. X 5,280 ft. per mile/43,560 ft2 per acre. 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 (described below), believes that it represents a very
small percentage of the allotments.
Effects Specific to the Paisley Flat Allotment for Alternative 1-No Action
There are a total of 4 water sources in the Paisley Flat Allotment, each watering more than one
pasture (Table 6 and Map 4). Approximately 480 acres would continue to be impacted by
concentrated livestock use associated with these water holes.
Table 6. Summary of concentrated livestock use associated with water sources, and
livestock trailing.
Allotment
Alternative
Paisley
Flat
1-No
Action
2-NoGrazing
# of
Water
Sources
Miles of
fence/
Total acreage of
concentrated
livestock Use
Allotment
acres
% of
concentrated
livestock use
4
29.4
498
4,549
11
4
29.4
0
4,549
0
15
There are about 29.4 miles of fence located within the Paisley Flat Allotment representing another
17.8 acres of disturbance associated with past fence construction and livestock trailing.
In total, approximately 498 acres (11 %) of the soils and BSCs within the allotment would be
impacted by concentrated livestock use under this alternative. Impacts would include trampling
of vegetation and crusts, along with compaction of soils.
Effects Specific to the White Rock Allotment for Alternative 1-No Action
There are no developed water sources on BLM lands within the White Rock Allotment or
associated areas of concentrated livestock disturbance. The permittee primarily uses water
sources found on private property fenced inside the allotment to provide livestock water.
About 1.2 miles of Kelly Creek runs through the allotment (Table 7). This creek currently
provides minimal natural water source for livestock due to its intermittent nature. Therefore,
little if any concentrated livestock use occurs along this creek.
White Hill Creek is the only perennial stream within the allotment. This creek does have some
riparian vegetation along its edges and could provide a natural water source for livestock use.
However, the majority of White Hill Creek occurs on steeper slopes and is inaccessible to
livestock in places due to the steeply incised banks. Therefore, little concentrated livestock use
occurs along this creek. The amount of concentrated livestock use was calculated assuming a 50
foot buffer along 0.3 miles of stream reach for a total estimated area of 2 acres of concentrated
livestock use possible associated with White Hill Creek.
Table 7. Summary of concentrated livestock use associated with water sources, and
livestock trailing along existing fences.
Allotment
White
Rock
Alternative
1-No
Action
2- No
Grazing
Miles of
stream
reach
Miles of
fence
Total acreage of
concentrated
livestock Use
Allotment
acres
% of
concentrated
livestock use
0.3
3
3.5
577
0.006
0.3
3
0
577
0
There are approximately 6 miles of fence along the allotment boundary, of which only
approximately 3 miles occur on public land. Therefore, approximately 1.5 acres of concentrated
livestock use associated with livestock trailing currently occurs along fence lines.
In total, an estimated at 3.5 acres (0.003%) of the soils and BSCs within the allotment would be
impacted by concentrated livestock use under this alternative. Impacts would include trampling
of vegetation and crusts, along with compaction of soils.
The impacts of soil compaction on both allotments would be mitigated to a large degree by
natural processes (frost heave, shrinkage and swelling during wet and dry cycles) during rest
periods. Impacts to soils and BSCs across the majority of the allotments would be dispersed and
light. Alternative 1 would maintain slight to moderate forage utilization across the allotment and
would continue to provide for BSC retention and litter accumulation, resulting in the
16
maintenance of existing organic matter, soil structure, and productivity across the majority of the
allotment. As a result, the allotments would be expected to continue to meet rangeland health
standard 1 into the foreseeable future.
Effects Common to both Allotments for Alternative 2 - No Grazing
Under this alternative, the existing impacts to soils and BSCs associated with concentrated
livestock use and dispersed grazing would be eliminated. Approximately 498 acres of soils in
the Paisley Flat Allotment and 3.5 acres in the White Rock Allotment would be expected to
recover over time from the effects of concentrated livestock use. Soils throughout the allotment
would continue to be influenced by natural ecological processes such as litter accumulation,
wind and water erosion, fire, and climate. Absent fire, increased BSC cover and litter
accumulation could contribute to higher organic matter and improved soil structure over the
long-term. Both allotments would be expected to continue to meet rangeland health standard 1
into the foreseeable future.
Water Quality, Aquatic, and Riparian Habitats
Affected Environment
There are no municipal drinking water sources in either allotment. There are no streams,
perennial waters, or associated riparian areas in Paisley Flat Allotment.
Kelly Creek is a moderate sized (<10’ wide by 1.2 miles long) intermittent stream in the White
Rock Allotment that supports riparian vegetation only in very isolated areas. BLM-portions of
Kelly Creek were determined to be Functional at Risk with an upward trend in 2013. It has a
deeply incised channel with rock banks and very little vegetation. Kelly Creek sits in a natural,
highly-erodible landscape setting, which coupled with periodic natural flood events, is thought to
be the primary reason that it is deeply incised. Much of Kelly Creek is inaccessible to livestock
due to the channel incision and resulting steep banks.
The only perennial stream in the White Rock Allotment is White Hill Creek. White Rock Creek
is small (<5’ wetted width by 0.3 miles) and non-fish bearing. It was determined to be
Functional at Risk with an upward trend in 2013. Recent field reconnaissance found that road
encroachment and a natural highly-erodible landscape setting were potential issues with stream
function, but did not appear to be measurably affecting water quality. Riparian condition on
White Hill Creek is generally good to excellent, with a diverse composition of appropriate native
riparian plants.
No water quality data exists for either creek. However, during the 2013 field visit, water in White
Hill Creek was clear and cold, and thought to be near its potential for quality.
The primary factor determining the current condition of both creeks is the highly erodible soils
and geology in which they sit. Livestock grazing utilization on the allotment as a whole is
generally light and is not a factor limiting either water quality or riparian function.
17
Environmental Consequences
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action
Under Alternative 1, no changes would be made to the current grazing strategy. The current
strategy is resulting in an upward trend in stream, riparian, and water quality. Therefore,
continued improvement would be expected with implementation of this alternative. Rangeland
health standard 2 would continue to be met.
Effects of Alternative 2 – No Grazing
Alternative 2 would provide the most rapid rate of recovery of stream, riparian, and water quality
conditions as any grazing and related impacts would be removed. Rangeland health standard 2
would continue to be met.
Upland Vegetation
Affected Environment
Vegetation data for the allotments comes from an Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) performed in
the 1980s and 1990s where several indicators of plant community health were collected
(available in Lakeview range files). This information is summarized for each allotment in Tables
8 and 9 and Map 3 and is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. Data includes
ecological site potential, current dominant vegetation, observed apparent trend (OAT), condition
rating, and ecological status. These parameters are discussed for each allotment, along with
short-term utilization monitoring and long-term trend monitoring data. The vegetation analysis
contained herein relies heavily on this data
Paisley Flat Allotment
Vegetation mapping was partially completed and the most dominate vegetation is Wyoming big
sagebrush and crested wheatgrass. This vegetation type occurs on 73% of the land area (Table 8).
These acres are rated to be in good range condition with a late ecological status (photo 1).
There are eight long term trend transects established on the Paisley Flat Allotment. Photo trend
and observed apparent trend is stable and upward on all sites but one. The one site with a
downward trend is in the Northeast Pasture caused by a lack of seedling establishment and as
these sites are a monoculture of crested wheatgrass and cheatgrass (Table 10). The current
winter and early spring grazing allow plants to complete their vegetative reproductive cycles
after the grazing season. Annual cheatgrass has invaded all the pastures and in the two northern
pastures the majority of the forage and understory vegetative cover. Utilization recorded on the
northern two pastures has sometimes been 50% or greater due to use observed on the few
perennial species in the pasture were heavy in order to get light utilization on the cheatgrass. In
the last 3 years, utilization standards have been met with light utilization levels. The noxious
weed halogeton has invaded areas of the allotment near trough locations and was treated in 2013.
18
Photo 1. Southeast Pasture of the Paisley Flat Allotment (August 2012).
See the noxious weed section for full details. Thus far these are small sites not affecting overall
vegetation conditions on the allotment and will be put on the monitoring plan.
White Rock Allotment
A fire burned this area in 2002. This was followed by 3 years of rest and grazing resumed in
2006. Due to the high percentage of private lands located in this allotment which have not been
inventoried, data on existing vegetation is largely lacking (Table 9) therefore analysis is based on
range monitoring. Long term trend collected in 2012 rated OAT as upward with litter
accumulating in place and with appropriate stream channel conditions. A field trip to the
allotment in 2013 showed excellent native grass species diversity, abundance, cover, and vigor of
upland plants (photo 2). Utilization in 1992 was observed to be 35% on key forage species and in
2013 was recorded as 3 to 6%. One long term monitoring transect was established in 2012
recorded upward trend excellent plant vigor, little bare ground, and appropriate surface litter
accumulation. Based on this information the upland vegetation has good condition rating and is
in an early ecological status due to the recent fire and some shrub vegetation is moving in.
19
Table 8. Dominant Vegetation and Ecological Status of Paisley Flat Allotment Based on ESI
Range Site Name
COOL SODIC TERRACE 810
DRY SANDY LOAM 8-10
DRY SANDY LOAM 8-10
LOAMY 8-10
SODIC TERRACE 6-10
Total
Dominant
Vegetation Name
Dominant
Veg Code
Big Sagebrush
ARTRT
15
Fair
Big sagebrush
Needle and
threadgrass
Wyoming
sagebrush/ crested
wheatgrass
Wyoming sagebrush
ARTRT
14
Poor
STCO4
30
Excellent
ARTRWAGCR
29
ARTRW
24
OAT
Condition
Acres
Rating
Good
Fair
% of
Area
Ecological
Status
1.2
0%
Late
260.7
6%
Early
60.2
1%
PNC
3244.4
74%
Late
0.1
3566.6
0%
Mid
4380.3
Table 9. Dominant Vegetation and Ecological Status of White Rock Allotment Based on ESI
Dominant Vegetation Name
Range Site Name
LOAMY 10-14
VARIABLE
NORTH SLOPES 10-14
WHITE FIR PIPO
WHITE FIR PIPO
WHITE FIR PIPO
WHITE FIR/PIPO
WHITE FIR/PIPO
Total
Acres
Unknown
Unstable
Unknown
White Fir/Ponderosa Pine
White Fir/Ponderosa Pine
White Fir/Ponderosa Pine
White Fir/Ponderosa Pine
White Fir/Ponderosa Pine
21
74
356
14
41
7
3
70
586
% of
area
Ecological
Status
4%
13%
61%
2%
7%
1%
0%
12%
Early
Early
Early
Early
Early
Early
Early
Early
20
Table 10. Ecological Trend for the Paisley Flat Allotment Based on Long-term Monitoring
Photos and Plot Data
Pasture
Monitoring
plot#
Photo Trend
Years Taken
Transect Method
Years
OAT Trend
West
NEW-01 burned
in fire
Upward
1987-2011
Upward
SW
PS-2B
SE
PS-1B
none
none
SE
PF-2
PF-4
Trail
PF-5
Stable
1981-2012
NE
PF-6
SW
PF-7
Stable
1981-2012
Stable 19
1982-2012
P180 increase in vegetation and
decrease in bare ground cover
P180 established in 2012 vegetative
cover is 30% and bare ground is 26%.
Stable crested wheatgrass population.
P180 Increase in sagebrush vegetative
cover from photo analysis. Vegetative
cover at 21% and bare ground at 27%
P180 Increase of bare ground on site.
Upward
NW
Stable
2006-2012
Upward
2005-2012
Upward
1966-2012
Stable
1979-2012
Nested frequency
1985-2010 Increased perennial grasses
and overall vegetative cover
none
NW
PF-8
Stable
1966-2012
P180 decrease in bare ground and
increase in vegetative cover from 2001
to 2012.
P180 vegetative cover 15% and bare
ground 22%. A very rocky site
Stable
Stable
Stable
Downward
Upward
Stable
Photo 2. White Rock Allotment lower reaches of Kelly Creek (August 2013)
21
Photo 3. White Rock Allotment (September 2012)
Environmental Consequences
Effects of Alternative 1-No Action
The impacts of livestock grazing on vegetation 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, the vegetation composition of key
species is expected to be maintained or improved over time under these grazing systems (BLM
2003a; pages 4-5 and 4-9).
Vegetation and forage in the allotments would continue to be provided with growing season rest.
Plants grazed in the winter in the Paisley Flat Allotment are dormant and primarily survive off
energy stored in their roots (Porath et al. 2003). Utilization would continue at appropriate levels
to promote healthy vegetative communities and provide for a diversity of residual grass cover
heights across the pasture. The Paisley Flat Allotment would be grazed under a rest-rotation
system providing plants with optimal rest on years they are not grazed. Grazing on the White
Rock Allotment would continue to be light and permitted in spring summer and fall. Some years
the pasture is not used and plants are provided with very adequate rest. This alternative would
maintain moderate to heavy forage utilization on the allotments and would expect to continue to
meet rangeland health standard 1 into the foreseeable future providing healthy, productive, and
diverse plant populations and communities. In both allotments livestock grazing impacts to
vegetation would be higher around water holes and along fence lines (see soil section).
Effects of Alternative 2-No Grazing
Under this alternative, grazing would be limited to wildlife species and would not likely utilize
all available forage in the pasture. All water on the Paisley Flat Allotment is provided by wells
and these wells are maintained and operated by livestock operators. The lack of maintenance and
operation of wells may redistribute wildlife within the allotment due to the absence of water. It
is not likely a major shift in vegetation communities would occur in the short term. Plant
communities shifts occur very slowly in the high desert climate without the influence of a major
22
disturbance such as fire, weed invasion or catastrophic event (Holechek et al. 2006). It is
possible some expansion and increased density of cheatgrass could occur as it continues to obtain
a competitive advantage over native vegetation without grazing pressure. Older vegetation and
higher shrub populations would favor an increase in above ground biomass. However, with a
lack of livestock on the pasture there would be a decreased need for forage production for
animals and communities would change accordingly. The vegetation community is likely to
become less resilient to wildfire as previous years ungrazed material accumulates and increases
fuel loading. The vegetation in both allotments is likely to continue to meet rangeland health
standards into the foreseeable future, and would therefore; continue to provide healthy,
productive, and diverse plant populations and communities.
Noxious Weeds
Affected Environment
Noxious weeds have become a growing concern in areas around both the White Rock and
Paisley Flat Allotments. After the Winter Rim Wildfire in 2002, many new noxious weeds
infestations greatly expanded too many areas with in the Summer Lake Watershed. The adjacent
private landowners diligently work to control the flowing noxious weed species: Russian
knapweed (Acroptilon repens (L.) DC.), Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.), hoary
cress (Cardaria draba (L.) Desv), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium L.), musk thistle
(Carduus nutans L.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (l.) Scop.), Scotch thistle (Onopordum
acanthium L.), Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski), and Mediterranean
sage (Salvia aethiopis L.). All of these noxious weed species are present within the same
watershed as the White Rock and Paisley Flat Allotments making these areas susceptible to
noxious weed infestations.
Paisley Flat Allotment:
During the 2013 field season, halogeton (Halogetion glomeratus (Stephen ex Bieb.) C.A. May.)
was found in the Paisley Flat Allotment near water developments. Halogeton is an annual,
native of Asia that rapidly invades disturbed areas. It is very adapted to the alkaline soils and
semi-arid environment of high-desert livestock ranges. Halogeton is not an extremely
competitive plant, but it readily invades disturbed or grazed lands. It is usually most
concentrated along roadsides, livestock trails, and areas where livestock congregate. The plant
produces toxic oxalates that are poisonous to livestock. Within the Paisley Flat Allotment,
halogeton is not readily grazed due to the availability of other forage and the timing when the
allotment is grazed. There have not been any deaths reported due to consumption of halogeton
in the Paisley Flat Allotment. The halogeton infestations were estimated to be less than 3 acres;
however they were located in very salty alkaline soil where they will likely spread in the future.
Other noxious weeds were previously documented within the Paisley Flat Allotment including
other areas infested with halogeton, and diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.). Diffuse
knapweed is an annual or short-lived perennial. Diffuse knapweed infests roadsides, waste areas
and dry rangelands, and as a highly competitive plant, threatens to exclude many desirable
species.
23
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) is an aggressive winter annual grass species that has taken over
the Northeast and Northwest Pastures of the Paisley Flat Allotment. Although cheatgrass is
considered an invader, it has become the primary green forage utilized by livestock. The plant
competes with more desirable perennial grasses in most situations, however due to the poor soils
within these allotments, this is the main grass species that will grow. After spring the plant
matures and becomes a nuisance and a fire hazard. In most areas in the Lakeview RA, BLM
would consider this species a weed issue. However in this situation cheatgrass is considered a
key species forage.
White Rock Allotment:
According to the Rangeland Health Assessment, medushead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae
(L.) and Whitetop (Cardaria draba (L.) Desv) infestations exist within the White Rock
Allotment (BLM 2005). Portions of the White Rock Allotment were surveyed during the fall of
2013 and only two small patches of Ventenata (Ventenata dubia [Leers] Gross & Dur) were
found. Ventenata is an aggressive non-native winter annual grass species that is not palatable to
livestock.
Environmental Consequences
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-2
Both allotments would continue to be very susceptible due to many noxious weed infestations
with in the watershed. In addition, Highway 31 (a main corridor through Lake County) is
located between the two allotments. This high traffic area has a high potential for transport and
spread of new noxious weeds into the area. The potential risk of this impact would be similar
under both alternatives.
Effects of Alternative 1-No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, livestock would continue to congregate around water sources
and cattle trails which would cause ground disturbances where weeds could become established.
Livestock could spread weed seed to new locations as they move across the allotments.
Since most of the Paisley Flat Allotment would be grazed in the spring, cattle would assist in
lowering cheatgrass viability and seed production within the Northeast and Northwest Pastures.
However, since cheatgrass is capable of germinating several times a year, grazing would not
reduce current infestations; however it would reduce seed production.
Effects of Alternative 2-No Grazing
Under this alternative, grazing would be eliminated. The areas formerly disturbed by
concentrated livestock use would slowly recover over the long-term and be less susceptible to
future weed invasion. However, areas where noxious weeds currently exist would still continue
to have a weed issue until other management actions are taken that are able to successfully
eradicate the infestations.
24
Typically, the removal of livestock would allow for recovery of native perennial grasses.
However, cheatgrass in the Northeast and Northwest Pastures has the potential to expand and
have a negative effect on surrounding native plant communities with the removal of grazing, as it
would be able to produce more seed and the poor soils in the allotments allows few other native
grasses to germinate.
Wildlife
Affected Environment
The rangeland health assessments found both the White Rock and Paisley Flat Allotments were
meeting the Rangeland Health Standards three and five relating to wildlife habitat (BLM 2004b,
2005 2013a, 2013b).
Water for wildlife is readily available from one perennial stream on the White Rock Allotment.
Water availability from the one intermittent drainage within this allotment depends on the
magnitude of annual precipitation and spring runoff (see Water Quality and Aquatic and
Riparian Habitat section). There are no perennial streams on the Paisley Flat Allotment, but
water is available from three livestock water developments (wells).
The White Rock Allotment falls within the larger Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) 2,202 square mile Interstate big game habitat management unit. The Paisley Flat
allotment falls within the ODFW Wagontire big game habitat management unit. The allotments
comprise a small percentage of the two habitat management units, but provide habitat capable of
supporting mule deer, and pronghorn antelope (both allotments) and bighorn sheep (White Rock
Allotment only). Big game populations are relatively stable within these units. Habitat quantity
and quality do not appear to be limiting big game population size or health within either unit.
Deer and pronghorn populations continue to fluctuate at or slightly above ODFW’s population
management objectives for the units (ODFW 2003). There are currently 12 AUMs of forage
allocated for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, and other wildlife species within the
White Rock Allotment (BLM 2003b, page A-45) and 20 AUMs allocated for mule deer,
pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife species within the Paisley Flat Allotment (BLM 2003b,
page A-10). Based on previous consultation with ODFW biologists, this forage allocation is
adequate to support big game populations within the allotment.
Other mammals observed in the project area include jackrabbits, cottontails, coyotes, ground
squirrels, chipmunks, marmots, bobcats, mountain lions, badgers, and other common shrub
steppe mammal species. The allotments also provide habitat for numerous small and nongame
birds and mammals common to the Great Basin.
There are 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.
25
Refer to Table 9 for a list of wildlife species with special management designation(s) (excludes
common migratory species except where otherwise designated) potentially occurring on the
allotments. Common names for avian species have been standardized and are used for avian
species throughout this document; taken from the ABA Checklist of birds available at:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbowman/birds/updates/abalist1.html (accessed 8/29/13)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 identifies migratory birds regardless of their status as
common or rare. Common migratory species observed or expected to occur based on species
range and vegetation in the allotments include American robin, dark-eyed junco, mourning dove,
Townsend’s solitaire, and the mountain bluebird. Other bird species suspected to occur within
the allotments are the great horned owl, barn owl, short-eared owl, American Kestrel, chukar,
California quail, common raven, various waterfowl and shorebirds, and many other common
shrub-steppe bird species (Table 11).
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
(USFWS 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. While all of the bird species
included are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether
they warrant consideration for ESA listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for
additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions. In
accordance with Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect
Migratory Birds.” The appropriate Bird Conservation Plan and BCC species list for the project
area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the project area are incorporated
and effects disclosed in this analysis. Game birds below desired condition (GBBDC) are game
bird species identified by the ODFW and USFWS that represent species whose population is
below long-term averages or management goals, or for which there is evidence of declining
population trends. Table 11 displays a list of the Migratory BCC and GBBDC in the White Rock
and Paisley Flat Allotments that are known or likely to be present in the area.
Partners in Flight use the focal species approach to set biological objective 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 landbirds and
many 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.
Golden and bald eagles are given special protection under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940
(as amended).
26
Golden Eagle
Greater Sage
Grouse
Green-tailed
Towhee
Lewis’s
Wood
pecker
Loggerhead
Shrike
Mourning
Dove
Pinyon Jay
Prairie
Falcon
422
none
x
x
422
none
x
x
422, 416
none
416
none
422, 416
none
422, 416
none
422, 416
none
416
none
416
none
422, 416
416
none
none
422, 416
none
x
x
Associated with large bodies of
water, forested areas near the
ocean, along rivers, and at estuaries,
lakes and reservoirs.
Sagebrush obligate found in
shrublands of contiguous big
sagebrush, greasewood,
rabbitbrush, and shadescale
habitats.
Sagebrush steppe, grasslands,
pastures, roadsides where
vegetation is sparse and terrain is
level
Occupy habitats with low tree
densities and topographic relief in
sagebrush plains of the high desert
and bunchgrass prairies in the Blue
Mtns.
Associated with ponderosa pine
forests and mixed conifer stands
with a mean 67% canopy closure,
open understory with dense patches
of saplings or shrubs.
Inhabits shrub-steppe, grassland,
juniper and open ponderosa pine
and mixed conifer/deciduous
habitats preferring areas with open
shrub component for foraging.
Sagebrush obligate, found E. of the
Cascades. They require large
expanses of sagebrush with healthy
native understories of forbes.
In OR prefers vigorous shrub stands
with high shrub species diversity
interspersed with trees.
Ponderosa Pine, Cottonwood
riparian or Oak habitats with an
open canopy, brushy understory,
dead and down material, available
perches and abundant insects.
Inhabits grasslands, pastures with
fence rows, ag. fields, sagebrush
with scattered juniper and open
woodlands. Requires elevated
perches throughout for hunting and
nesting.
x
(delisted)
x
x
x
x
Habitat generalist
In OR, Pinyon-juniper woodland,
sagebrush, and scrub oak habitats.
Rim rocks and open country
x
Eagle Act
x
x
(delisted)
Game Birds Below
Desired Condition
none
Wide range of habitats, nests on cliff
ledges, bridges, quarries.
Focal Species
Affected by Proposed
Actions
Flammulated
Owl
Allotments with
Known or Potential
Habitat
Ferruginous
Hawk
422, 416
Migratory Birds
Burrowing
Owl
none
Birds of Conservation
Concern
Brewer’s
Sparrow
422, 416
Special Status
Species
American
Peregrine
Falcon
Bald Eagle
Preferred Habitat
Species and
Designation
Table 11. Wildlife Species with Special Management Designations
x
x
x
(FC)
OR-SEN
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
27
Sage
Sparrow
Sage
Thrasher
Western
Snowy
Plover
Willow
Flycatcher
Kit Fox
Found in se. and c. OR Associated
with semi-open evenly spaced
shrubs 1-2 m high in big sage up to
6,800 ft.
A sagebrush obligate dependent on
large patches and expanses of
sagebrush steppe and bitterbrush
with shrub heights in the 30 -60 cm
height. Prefers bare ground over
grassy understories.
Inland population east of Oregon
Cascades a summer resident
breeding on alkali flats and salt
ponds.
Associated with riparian shrub
dominated habitats, especially
brushy/willow thickets. In SE WA
also found in xeric brushy uplands.
Desert scrub and grassland
communities
422, 416
none
422, 416
none
422
none
416
none
x
OR-SEN
422
none
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pygmy
Rabbit
Sagebrush with deep soils
x
OR-SEN
422
none
Fringed
myotis
Trees, snags, buildings, caves, cliffs,
and bridges.
x
OR-SEN
422, 416
none
Pallid Bat
Spotted Bat
Arid regions/rocky outcroppings
Cliff Habitat
x
x
OR-SEN
422, 416
422, 416
none
none
Townsend’s
Big-eared
Bat
Columbia
Spotted Frog
Lava fields/Rocky Cliffs /Abandoned
Structures
x
422, 416
none
Springs/Ponds/ Riparian Areas with
Deep Pools
416
none
Oregon
Spotted Frog
Marshy pond or lake edges, or
algae-covered overflow pools of
streams
Areas with appropriate flowering
plants
x
(FC)
OR-SEN
x
(FC)
416
none
x
OR-SEN
422, 416
none
Western
Bumblebee
FC – Candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act
FE – Federal Endangered Species
FT – Federal Threatened Species
OR-SEN – State of Oregon Sensitive Species
Delisted – formerly federally listed species
Special Status Species
Affected Environment
The Bureau policy and guidance on special status species is to conserve those species and
ecosystems upon which they depend (BLM 2008c). The allotments provide habitat for a number
of special status species. However, there are no known Federally listed Threatened or
Endangered, proposed or candidate species, or proposed or designated critical habitat found
within the allotments.
28
Greater Sage-Grouse
The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a Bird of Conservation Concern for the
Great Basin Region and a USFWS candidate species. In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS 2010) issued its 12-Month Findings which noted that that listing the greater
sage-grouse range-wide is warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. The major
risk factors in the western portion of their range that are relevant to the area include habitat
conversion due to fire, invasive plants such as cheatgrass, medusahead and juniper, and West
Nile virus occurrence. Grazing was evaluated as a risk factor in the 12-Month Findings with
both positive and negative effects to sage-grouse being reported (USFWS 2010, p. 1393913942). In the report the USFWS noted that “the impacts of livestock operations on sage-grouse
depend upon stocking levels, season of use, and utilization levels” (USFWS 2010, p. 13941).
The 12-Month Findings also determined that destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat
pose a major risk to sage-grouse across its range.
Additional risks to sage-grouse exist to a lesser extent including the risk of fence collisions under
certain conditions, as identified by research conducted in Idaho by Stevens (2011). The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2012) recently applied the Stevens’ model to all sagegrouse habitat in Oregon creating a fence collision risk model for sage-grouse for the entire state.
High risk as defined in the Stevens’ model is equal to >1 sage-grouse collision per lek per year
and is not dependent on the actual number of miles of fence occurring in the vicinity of the lek.
Naturally some amount of fence must occur for a collision event to take place. The results of
that modeling effort did not identify any fences within or along the boundaries of the 2
allotments as a collision risk to sage-grouse.
The BLM sage-grouse interim management policy (IM 2012-043; BLM 2011a) requires
evaluating potential impacts to preliminary priority habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat
(PGH). PPH comprises areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value
to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations. PPH includes over 90% of Oregon’s
breeding sage-grouse populations and 84% of occupied leks. Low Density Areas reflect lek
density strata, connectivity corridors, and winter use areas. Low Density Areas combined with
the remaining Occupied Habitat outside of PPH are classified as PGH in Oregon. Based on
habitat data the White Rock Allotment does not fall within the identified PPH and PGH areas.
Paisley Flat allotment does not fall within the identified PPH. However, the allotment does
contain approximately 83% (3,380 acres) of PGH (Map 5).
While IM 2012-043 (BLM 2011a) requires the use of, when available, site information collected
using the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; see Stiver et al. 2010) to
characterize sage-grouse habitat quality during the grazing permit renewal NEPA process, in this
instance no HAF data was available for the two allotments. Connelly et al. (2004) found most
sage-grouse nest within 4 miles of a lek. Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data,
there are no known leks found within the 2 allotments. The nearest occupied lek (Tuckerhill
Medusahead, LA1121-02) is located approximately 20 miles from the southeastern boundary of
White Rock and 15 miles from the southeastern boundary of Paisley Flat. The nearest
unoccupied pending lek (WildCat #1 LA0915-01) is located approximately 15 miles from the
northeast boundary of White Rock and 9 mile northeast from the northeast boundary of Paisley
29
Flat. No historic leks are located within 20 miles of either allotment. Based on the distance from
the nearest occupied lek and a cursory field habitat assessment (vegetation comprised of
greasewood, creasted wheat grass plantings, and scattered Wyoming big sagebrush with a
cheatgrass understory), the Paisley Flat Allotment does not provide adequate nest cover for sagegrouse. The White Rock Allotment (vegetation comprised of Wyoming Big sagebrush, Mountain
Big sagebrush and White fir/Ponderosa Pine and a grass understory) does not provide adequate
sage-grouse nest cover. The 2 allotments do not appear to provide suitable sage-grouse habitat;
therefore, this species would not be affected by any of the alternative proposals and will not be
addressed further in this analysis.
Bats
Four Bureau Sensitive Species of bat are known to occur within the Lakeview Resource Area.
These include the fringed myotis, pallid bat, spotted bat, and the Townsend‘s big-eared bat.
However, spotted bats and fringed myotis rarely occur in the area and are not known to occur on
the 2 allotments. Intensive range use can lead to altered invertebrate densities and species
abundance which could reduce availability of habitat for certain bat species but causality is
speculative and research would be required to draw conclusions (BCME 2008). Research on
activities that may change landscapes to benefit or adversely affect different bat species are
poorly represented in the literature (Chung-MacCoubrey 1996). The effects of grazing, fire
suppression, urbanization, etc. can only be speculated based on the effects of these activities on
known resource requirements of bats.
Roosting and wintering (hibernacula) habitat for these species is limited throughout the 2
allotments. There are no known caves, adits, shafts, or outbuildings on the BLM portions of the
2 allotments capable of providing hibernacula for bats. Use of the area by these species of bats is
likely limited primarily to foraging activities. Fringed myotis are rare across their distribution,
but can be locally abundant. Fringed myotis are reported to use a variety of structures as day
roosts including caves, mines, trees, and buildings. A telemetry study conducted in portions of
Washington and Klamath and Lake counties of Oregon (Lacki and Baker 2007) showed 93% of
day roosts were in rock substrates suggesting that tree roosts were of lesser importance to fringed
myotis than are crevices in rocks. No fringed myotis were located in snags in Klamath or Lake
county during the study. As noted with songbird abundance (Earnst et al., 2005) cavity nesters
tend to be less affected by grazing, similarly it could be expected that grazing has little effect on
snag roosting bats species. Due to the low potential for occurrence and lack of roosting/resting
habitat in both allotments, none of the alternatives would likely have any measurable impacts to
these bat species, and therefore, they are not carried forward for further analysis.
Kit Fox and Pygmy Rabbits
Kit fox and pygmy rabbits, both BLM sensitive species, are also known to occur within the
Lakeview Resource Area. The only documented kit fox observation was on the far eastern edge
of the Resource Area near Beaty Butte. Kit foxes are typically associated with sparse
greasewood vegetation communities (Verts and Carraway 1998) that are not found in the
allotment. According to the information available from ODFW at
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/species/mammals/coyotes_wolves_foxes.asp kit foxes occur in
30
Deschutes, Klamath, and the southern half of Harney and Malheur counties. The potential for
the presence of kit foxes is very low as the allotments lie outside of the northern range of the kit
fox. There have been no inventories or incidental sightings indicating pygmy rabbits are present
within these allotment. Therefore, kit fox and pygmy rabbits are not carried forward for further
analysis.
Raptors
There are no known bald eagle nests or nesting habitat within the 2 allotments although they are
occasional visitors to the area. Bald eagles may occasionally feed on scattered carrion within the
allotments. The closest known bald eagle nest is located approximately 6 miles from the
northwest boundary of the White Rock Allotment and 11 miles from the northwest boundary of
the Paisley Flat Allotment with the last record with activity is in 2005.
Golden eagles have been seen within the area foraging on small mammals. There are no known
golden eagle nests or nesting habitat within the allotments. However, nest sites have been
identified within the areas surrounding both allotments where suitable cliff type habitat exists,
especially adjacent to the south easterly edge of the Paisley Flat Allotment.
Peregrine falcons have been observed in the general area, possibly due to releases from the
Summer Lake hack site; however, no nesting has been documented within the allotments. For
this reason, the peregrine falcon is not carried forward in this analysis.
While potential habitat for ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl was identified in the Rangeland
Health Assessments (BLM 2004b, 2005), these species have not actually been confirmed within
the allotments to date (BLM 2013a, 2013b). There have been no inventories or incidental
sightings indicating ferruginous hawks or burrowing owls are present within these allotment.
For this reason, ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl are not carried forward in this analysis.
Insects
The western bumblebee may occur in the allotments. This species is suspected to occur on the
Lakeview Resource Area, but no records documenting their occurrence on the Lakeview
Resource Area exist. Therefore, this species will not be carried forward for further analysis.
Environmental Consequences: Wildlife and Special Status Species
Effects of Alternative 1-No Action
The White Rock and Paisley Flat Allotments are currently achieving Rangeland Health Standard
3 and 5 related to ecological conditions and wildlife habitat. These assessments found current
livestock grazing does not appear to be affecting wildlife habitat, including big game, nongame
bird and mammals, raptors, migratory birds, special status species habitat, or other species of
concern (BLM 2004b, 2005, 2013a, 2013b). This trend is expected to continue into the
foreseeable future under Alternative 1.
31
Stable trends for vegetation on the allotments should continue to provide adequate forage for
golden and bald eagle prey species resulting in an adequate food supply for nestling and adult
eagles and is continued livestock grazing should have no impact.
For these reasons, Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 would continue to be met over the 10year life of the permits.
Effects of Alternative 2-No Grazing
Under Alternative 2, no grazing would be authorized on public lands within the 2 allotments.
However, the potential exists, for the permittee to choose to fence off approximately 518 acres,
of private lands adjacent to the White Rock Allotment and continue to graze that portion of the
allotment. This would create additional fencing, but is not within sage-grouse habitat and would,
therefore, not pose a collision risk to sage-grouse. Additional fencing has the potential to
prevent free movement of other wildlife species across the area.
Little change to vegetation or associated wildlife habitat would occur on the public land within
the 2 allotments due to removal or exclusion of grazing over the life of the 10-year permit.
Removal of grazing would provide for some additional forage for other wildlife species such as
mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and bighorn sheep. However, forage availability does not appear
to be limiting these species at this time. Elimination of grazing would likely increase the
potential for conversion of perennial grasslands to annual grasslands as the grasing would assist
in lowering cheatgrass viability and seed production. Also, the removal of grazing alone would
not restore areas with current cheatgrass invasion.
Livestock Grazing Management
Affected Environment
Paisley Flat Allotment
The Paisley Flat Allotment historically was part of a large allotment grazed in common and
previously called the Paisley common allotment. Forage allotted on the Paisley Flat Allotment
has remained the same since this agreement was signed in 1986.
•
•
•
•
•
Present range condition is satisfactory
Allotment has moderate to high production potential and is currently producing near potential
No serious conflicts or controversy exits
Opportunity may exist for positive economic returns
Present management is satisfactory
The Paisley Flat Allotment is currently grazed in a rest-rotation double cropping, system. A
double cropping grazing system is one in which livestock graze the same vegetative crop twice
in one growing season. There are 5 pastures within the allotment. The Trail Pasture is set up to
be grazed in the winter only due to the high occurrence of death camas present in the pasture in
the spring. The Northeast and Northwest Pastures are grazed in the spring only due to abundance
32
of annual grasses that are only available as a forage source in the spring. The Southwest and
Southeast Pastures are on a double cropping rest-rotation.
Table 12. Paisley Flat pasture rotation example of rest-rotation double-cropping system
(grazing dates are approximate)
Pasture
Year 1
Year 2
Northeast
Northwest
Trail
Southeast
Southwest
4/26-4/30
5/1-5/6
12/12-12/31
1/1-1/15, 5/7-5/27
Rest
5/1-5/6
4/26-4/30
Winter
Rest
1/1-1/15, 5/7-5/27
Spring, Winter
For example, in 2013 the Southwest Pasture was completely rested while the Southeast Pasture
was used lightly in the winter and again some in the spring, grazed twice in one year (double
cropping). In 2014, the Southeast Pasture will be completely rested and the southwest Pasture
used lightly in the winter and again in the spring. A total of 585 AUM’s are permitted on the
allotment. These AUM’s are split between two permits run by the same permittee. This is an
average use of 7 acre/AUM. A forage analysis was performed on this allotment to ensure
production of these range lands was able to meet the 585 AUMs of livestock forage demand.
Crested wheatgrass seedings were estimated to have 4 acre/AUM of production and all other
acres were estimated at 20 acre/AUM forage production. Using these estimates and acres of each
vegetation type the allotment is estimated to produce approximately 605 AUM. Currently 585
AUM’s are allocated for livestock grazing and 20 AUM’s are allocated for wildlife which is
within the estimated forage production for the allotment.
A rangeland health assessment (RHA) was performed in 2004 (BLM 2004b) to determine if
current management was meeting Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock
Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997). The RHA was
reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis (BLM 2013a). The assessments found
existing grazing management practices and levels of grazing use in the Paisley Flat allotment
met all applicable standards. The findings of the RHAs for this allotment are summarized in
Table 13 and are incorporated in their entirety herein by reference (BLM 2004b, 2013a).
White Rock Allotment
The White Rock Allotment is categorized as a “C” or “custodial” category allotment. This
category is determined by the following set of criteria in 1982:
•
•
•
•
•
Present range condition is not a factor
Allotment has low potential and present production is near potential
Limited conflicts or controversy may exist
No opportunity for positive economic returns or no developments proposed
Present management appears satisfactory or is in logical practice
33
Table 13. Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment for Paisley Flat Allotment (00422)
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
2004
Met
Met
2013
Comments
Met
The 2004 RHA states that the Soil Surface Factor is slight in the majority (74%)
of the allotment and 8% of the allotment was rated in the severe condition class.
Some reseeding has been completed. Upland soils exhibit infiltration and
permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil,
climate, and landform. Available trend data show 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 majority of the allotment.
The most abundant plant composition is Wyoming sagebrush and crested
wheatgrass making up 74% of the allotment. This vegetation was rated to be in
good condition at a late ecological status. Annual cheatgrass has invaded all the
pastures and in the two northern Pastures make the majority of the forage and
understory vegetative cover.
Met
The 2004 RHA states that there is one acre of palustrine wetland found in the
allotment and they are rated in Proper Functioning Condition. Livestock
grazing does not appear to be a factor limiting riparian/wetland function. These
conditions continue to be true in 2013.
Not met
Met
NA
NA
Met
Met
In the 2004 RHA, this standard did not meet due to a lack of plant diversity.
Seeding maintenance was performed in 2005 and 2006 to increase plant
diversity along with an improved rotation grazing system to maintain
appropriate species composition. Plant reproduction is appropriate and organic
matter is accumulating in the form of litter and is being incorporated into the
soil. The crested wheat seeding looks to be maintaining plant populations at an
appropriate level. Trend photos indicate good vigor of perennial vegetation and
trend is stable to upward within the allotment. Cheatgrass is a large component
within the two northern pastures. Noxious weeds that occur in the allotment are
3 acres of Halogeton. These are being monitored and treated under the current
integrated noxious weed management program.
This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial
streams in this allotment.
Special status wildlife species within the allotment may include bald eagle,
ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, kit fox, sage-grouse, and
pygmy rabbit. No nesting habitat occurs in the allotment for bald eagle,
ferruginous hawk, or peregrine falcon. Foraging areas exist for Ferruginous
hawk and bald eagles. No nesting habitat occurs for burrowing owls. Potential
habitat is present within the allotment for kit fox and pygmy rabbit. No known
sage-grouse leks occur within the allotment. Pronghorn antelope and mule deer
are common within the allotment and are at appropriate population levels. No
resource conflicts exist for any of the above mentioned species.
Previous restoration efforts of native vegetation in functioning sagebrush
systems has been limited by the supply of native seeds, and met with limited
success. Cheatgrass monocultures in the northern pastures do not provide
usable sage grouse habitat and if left undisturbed, these areas will most likely
not be used by sage-grouse. Previous restoration projects included planting
crested wheatgrass in a mosaic pattern to leave some sagebrush on site. No
major conflicts exist between current cattle grazing and sage-grouse within this
allotment. The abundance of cheatgrass primarily in the northern pastures and
amount of salt desert shrub communities appear to be the limiting factors for
sage-grouse and most sagebrush dependent wildlife species. With the risk of
cheatgrass conversion, prescribed fire is not recommended as a management
tool for restoration.
Overall this standard is being met for wildlife species within the allotment.
34
The allotment is currently grazed in conjunction with some private lands mostly controlled by
the landowner in the fall/summer/spring with a total of 10 AUMs authorized on BLMadministered lands. This is a ten-year permit authorized to one livestock operator. Typical yearly
use is variable each for a small number of cows that may need to stay separate from the herd for
a variety of reasons. The pasture is often used in one season for spring/summer or summer/fall.
Some years the area is not needed and is not used at all. Most of the BLM lands within the
allotment have steep slopes of 30 to 50% and are seldom grazed. Historically, this allotment was
trailed through with livestock on their way to the adjacent forest, but in recent years this was not
needed.
A rangeland health assessment (RHA) was performed in 2005 (BLM 2005) to determine if
current management was meeting Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock
Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997). The RHA was
reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis (BLM 2013b). The assessments found
existing grazing management practices and levels of grazing use in the White Rock Allotment
met all applicable standards. The findings of the RHAs for this allotment are summarized in
Table 14 and are incorporated in their entirety herein by reference (BLM 2005, 2013b).
Environmental Consequences
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action for the Paisley Flat Allotment
Actual use, utilization, and long-term trend have been summarized in the allotment monitoring
files and indicate that livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for
the allotments. Trend photos indicate a general stable trend of the allotment, and the current
grazing system is meeting all Standards and Guidelines and would continue to do so under this
alternative. Current livestock grazing management would continue to maintain a vegetative
community that supports other resources objectives and uses. Existing range improvements
would be maintained as needed to support continued livestock management objectives. While the
average use for the last 10 years has been 453 AUMs, the full permitted use of 585 AUMs would
continue to be authorized within the allotment.
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action for the White Rock Allotment
Actual use, utilization, and long-term trend have been summarized in the allotment monitoring
file and indicate that livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation. The
current grazing system is meeting all Standards and Guidelines and would continue to do so
under this alternative. Current livestock grazing management would continue to maintain a
vegetative community that supports most other resources objectives and uses. Existing range
improvements would be maintained as needed to support continued livestock management
objectives.
35
Table 14. Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment for White Rock Allotment (00416)
Standard
2005
2013
1.
Watershed
Function –
Uplands
Met
Met
2.
Watershed
Function
Riparian/
Wetland
Areas
Not met
Met
3. Ecological
Processes
Met
Met
4. Water
Quality
Met
Met
5. Native,
T/E, and
Locally
Important
Species
Met
Met
Comments
Long term trend data collected in 2012 in the area rated Observed Apparent trend
as upward with litter accumulating in place and stream channel looks good. There
was little bare ground indicating that upland soils were exhibiting infiltration and
permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil,
climate, and landform. Available trend data show that plant cover and the amount
and distribution of bare ground is within the range of variability expected for the
vegetation community found. The most abundant plant composition is Wyoming
sagebrush on the steeper slopes and crested wheatgrass, bluegrass, some great
basin wildrye with appropriate forb cover present at the trend site location.
The 2005 RHA states that this standard was not met due to Kelly Creek being a
deeply incised channel with rock and very little vegetation. The condition of the
creek was a result floods in 1964 and possible subsequent high water years like
1997 flood. PFC was reassessed in 2013 and the condition of the stream is still
deeply incised however Kelly creek is very slow to repair as it intermittent and
wetland soil takes longer to build. The stream is functioning as it is and isn’t likely
to change quickly. The team also looked at White Hill Creek which is perennial and
in a similar condition as Kelly Creek that is deeply incised due to flooding and
highly erosive soil types. Both streams were rated as Functioning at risk with an
upward trend and having conditions outside the BLM control as contributing
factors to why the stream is not meeting properly functioning. In both stream
conditions livestock grazing is not a factor limiting riparian/wetland function. For
the majority of the stream livestock are unable to access the riparian vegetation
due to vegetation and landform of steep terrain and the deeply incised channel.
Livestock grazing utilization on the allotment as a whole is very light.
The 2005 RHA noted good establishment of vegetation after the fire and moderate
ecological conditions with improvement from the fire on juniper reduction and
invasion that had been occurring. Plant reproduction is appropriate and organic
matter is accumulating in the form of litter and is being incorporated into the soil.
Trend photos indicate good vigor of perennial vegetation and upward trend within
the allotment. A field trip to the allotment in 2013 showed excellent native grass
species diversity, abundance, cover, and vigor of upland plants. Noxious weeds
mentioned in the 2005 RHA were medusa head and white top. These occur in the
allotment and occupy less than 1 acre. These are being monitored and treated
under the current integrated noxious weed management program.
This standard is being met. The perennial stream in the allotment is White Hill
Creek. No water quality data exists for this small, non-fish bearing stream. White
Hill Creek in the Allotment was determined Functional at Risk with an upward
trend in 2013. Survey data and field reconnaissance indicate that road
encroachment and naturally highly erodible landscape setting were potential
issues with stream function, although they were not thought to be measurably
affecting water quality. Water in stream was clear and cold, and thought to be
near its potential for quality.
Standard 5 is being met for native T&E and locally important species. Special Status
species foraging habitat for bald eagles occurs on the allotment. Marginally
suitable habitat for the special status species Lewis woodpeckers occurs within the
allotment. Habitats for special status species sage-grouse does occur within the
allotment, but is fragmented and it is unlikely sage-grouse use the area due to
extreme isolation. Mule deer and bighorn sheep inhabit the area and surrounding
area. No conflicts exist between these wildlife species and cattle grazing within the
allotment.
36
Effects Common to Both Allotments for Alternative 2- No Grazing
Under this alternative, grazing on the allotment would not be authorized. Grazing would be
limited to wildlife species. The permittee would need to replace the 585 AUMs of lost forage on
the Paisley Flat Allotment and 10 AUMs on the White Rock Allotment. The additional cost to
replace this forage would be at the permittee’s expense. These costs are discussed further in the
social and economic section.
Existing range improvement projects on public land within the allotments would not be
maintained. In the case of the White Rock Allotment, the permittee could continue to graze
approximately 518 acres of private land. With a lack of fencing any livestock crossing onto BLM
lands would cause the owner of the livestock to be charged unauthorized use. BLMadministered lands on both allotments would be expected to continue to meet Rangeland Health
Standards for the next 10 years.
Native American Traditional Practices and Cultural Resources
Affected Environment
Traditional Use Areas
The two allotments are within an area which would have been used by either/both the Klamath
Tribes and the Yahooskin Band of the Northern Paiute. Both of these groups may have used the
area at the same time or at separate times. There are no known Traditional Use areas within the
allotments. However, the archaeological site at Five-mile Point (which is just outside of the
northeastern corner of the Paisley Flat Allotment is of extreme significance to The Klamath
Tribes. At this location, archaeological research has shown that human occupation by Native
Americans goes back an estimated 14,200 years before the present.
The White Rock Allotment contains some high points, one of which is known as Monument
Rock. On this peak, there are large, tall rock cairns of unknown origin, which may be of
importance to Native Americans. Other high points within the allotment may also contain rock
cairn features, but the area has not been surveyed.
Native American tribes with a known interest in this area will be given an opportunity to review
this EA and provide comments on the area’s potential to support traditional uses.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Cultural/historic surveys have not been completed on 100% of the two allotments. This
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
37
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 based upon current costs for contract survey work. Surveying the remaining
1,003 unsurveyed acres within the allotments would cost approximately $802,000 to $1,083,000
and is considered to be exorbitant. Nevertheless, the following section describes what is known
about existing cultural/historic resources in each allotment based on past surveys, followed by a
discussion of potential impacts to those resources.
About 90% of the Paisley Flat Allotment has been surveyed for cultural resources. No cultural
resources sites have been recorded in the allotment to this date. However, the area was not likely
without past use by Native Americans. There is a low density of obsidian flakes, ground stone
artifacts, and projectile points found throughout the allotment. These materials do not reach a
level of abundance or density to be recorded as a site. The low occurrence of materials and lack
of sites is probably due to the location and nature of the landscape in this allotment. At times in
the past, the area would have been underwater. The soils are very sandy and rocky and are not
an area which would have produced large amounts of plant resources. The area has no outcrops
of rocks and has little change in topography. It is not the type of environment which would have
been exploited for hunting, plant gathering, or occupation.
Only a small portion of the White Rock Allotment around Monument Rock has been examined
for cultural resources. At this location there are two very large rock cairns built upon a tall rock
outcrop feature. The sites of this knob are very rocky and steep. Rocks have been piled into a
“monument” on the southern end of the knob forming a rock cairn which is several feet tall and
at least 5 feet wide at the base. It is unknown who built this cairn or its function. It could be
Native American or Euro American in origin or both. The rest of the allotment has not been
examined for cultural resources. The flat areas of the allotment at the base of the slopes may
contain occupation sites or lithic scatters. Other rock outcrops/knobs in the allotment may have
additional rock cairns upon them. Given the steep nature of the terrain, it is unlikely that
occupation sites or plant gathering sites will be found within most of the allotment.
Environmental Consequences
Effects of Alternative 1-No Action
Since no traditional use areas are known in either allotment, no impacts would be expected.
Continued grazing in the Paisley Flat Allotment would not have an impact upon the Five Mile
Point location, which is of National Register quality, as it is located outside of the allotment
boundary. Since no cultural sites have been recorded in this allotment, nor are any sites likely to
exist there, continued livestock grazing within this allotment would not have any impact upon
cultural resources of National Register quality.
38
Continued livestock grazing within the White Rock Allotment would not have an effect upon the
rock features at Monument Rock. The extreme steepness of the slope and the rocky nature of the
feature prevents any livestock from getting to the top. If there are sites at the base of the slope or
on the more level portions of the allotment, livestock use may result in some trampling effects.
However, due to the low number of livestock, low number of AUMs, and lack of developed
water sources, this effect would be dispersed and light.
Effects of Alternative 2-No Grazing
Since no traditional use areas are known in either allotment, the removal of grazing would not
substantially improve the condition of traditional uses.
Since no cultural sites have been recorded in the Paisley Flat Allotment, nor are any sites likely
to exist there, removal of livestock grazing would not have any impact upon cultural resources of
National Register quality within this allotment. Removal of grazing from the White Rock
Allotment would eliminate any trampling effects upon sites which might be present within flatter
portions of the allotment. Since livestock cannot reach the sites near Monument Rock, there
would be no change in conditions to these features.
Recreation
Affected Environment
There are currently no developed recreation sites within the Paisley Flat and White Rock
Allotments, nor are there any planned for the future. Recreation along the Highway 31 (within a
half mile) is currently managed for Rural recreational activities, opportunities, and experiences
within portions of the allotments (1,022 ac./25% of Paisley Flat and 96 ac./17% of White Rock).
Outside of these corridors, recreation is managed primarily for Semi-Primitive Motorized
activities, opportunities, and experiences (3,025 ac./ 75% of Paisley Flat and 480 ac./83% of
White Rock Allotments) (see Map R-3, BLM 2003b). Use of motorized vehicles on roads, trails,
and cross-country travel is allowed in both allotments (see Map R-7, BLM 2003b).
Pockets of vegetation and topographic screening provide opportunities for some degree of
solitude within the White Rock Allotment where a visitor could avoid the presence of others. The
primary recreation activities in these allotments are upland game bird (e.g., chukar and quail) and
big game (e.g., elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope) hunting. Other recreation activities may
occasionally occur in these allotments including: wildlife viewing, photography, hiking,
horseback riding, ATV riding, and target shooting.
39
Environmental Consequences
Effects of Alternative 1- No Action
Continuing grazing management under the No-Action Alternative would continue to have
minimal effects to recreation opportunities across the allotments. Current levels of recreation
activities, opportunities, and experiences would remain relatively constant.
Effects of Alternative 2- No Grazing
The No-Grazing Alternative would enhance some recreation activities, opportunities, and
experiences in the allotments, while possibly diminishing others. Those seeking more natural or
primitive recreation experiences in these areas would benefit by the removal of livestock grazing
due to the permanent absence of the sights and sounds of cattle, the eventual improved ecological
condition of the allotment (particularly associated with cattle trails and impacts around
watering/gathering areas), and the potential for some livestock facilities to be deemphasized and
begin to blend more into the landscape due to lack of use. Conversely, this alternative would reduce
opportunities and experiences for wildlife viewers and hunters, if existing water developments become
less effective at holding water for wildlife due to lack of maintenance.
Visual Resources
Affected Environment
The two allotments are managed according to Visual Resource Management classes VRM II and
VRM III (Table 15).
Table 15. Visual Resource Management Classes in the Allotments
Allotment
Paisley Flat
White Rock
VRM II*
(acres/%)
0/0
345 / 60
VRM III**
(acres/%)
4,045 / 100
225 / 40
Scenic Corridor
(acres/%)
4,032 / 99
570 / 100
*VRM II is managed to “retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to landscape characteristics should be
low. Management activities can be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer.”
**VRM III is to “partially retain the existing character of the landscape, moderate levels of change are acceptable.”
Paisley Flat Allotment
The visual setting of the Paisley Flat Allotment is dominated by the flat, gently sloping east to
west (4,425-4,282 ft.) ancient shoreline of Summer Lake. Although the area experiences a short,
wet green-up period in the early spring, most of the year the area is dry, comprised of the dark
yellows, tans, greys, and greens of cheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, and Wyoming big sagebrush
(see Upland Vegetation section). Observable developments in the area include about 3.5 miles of
State Highway 31, 12 miles of BLM motorized routes, 0.75 miles of reclaiming motorized
routes, 21.6 miles of fence, 4 miles of utility lines, 3 wells, 1 water tank, and 1 mineral pit (Map
4).
40
White Rock Allotment
The visual setting of the White Rock Allotment is topographically dominated by two mountain
tops (White Rock and Monument Rock; 5,977 ft.) on either side of deep ravine (4,281 ft.),
formed by Kelly and White Hill Creeks, running through the middle of the allotment southwest
to northeast. The area is comprised of dark yellows, tans, greys, and greens, with a moderated
texture in the southern two-thirds of the allotment due to western juniper trees. Observable
developments in the area include about 0.6 miles of BLM motorized routes, 2.7 miles of fence,
and 186 acres of seeding planted in 2003.
Scenic Corridor
Paisley Flat and White Rock Allotments are within the Oregon Outback National Scenic Byway
corridor along State Highway 31. Management direction requires “all developments, land
alterations, and vegetation manipulations within a 3 mile buffer… of all major routes and
recreation use areas to be designed to minimize visual impacts (unseen areas within these zones
will not be held to this standard)… All projects will be designed to maximize scenic quality and
minimize scenic intrusions” (BLM 2003a, page 88.)
Environmental Consequences
Effects for Alternative 1-No Action
The No-Action Alternative would continue to have minimal effects to existing visual quality.
Current visual objectives for VRM Classes II and III, as well as the area’s scenic corridor
standards would continue to be achieved.
Effects for Alternative 2-No Grazing
The No-Grazing Alternative would moderately enhance visual resources in the allotments by the
improvement in esthetically pleasing upland plant ecosystem (e.g. naturally recovering cattle
trails and trampled areas around water sources). Furthermore, the visual impacts of observable
developments (motorized routes, fences, and water developments) scattered across these
allotments would likely remain indefinitely until such time that they either deteriorate or funds
and resources are made available to facilitate their removal. Visual objectives for VRM Classes
II and III, as well as the area’s scenic corridor standards, would to be achieved.
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 2012, an estimated 54,000 cow/calves were in Lake County Oregon (Pete
Schreder, Personal Communication, Lake County Agricultural Extension Agent, November 14,
41
2012). In 2012, Lake County ranchers sold an estimated $38,000,000 worth of cattle and calves
or related beef products from public lands.
The two allotments combined accounts for a total of 595 AUMs. This would produce enough
forage for approximately 50 animals. Assuming 3 are bulls and an 85% calf crop this number of
AUMs could produce 40 calves for market each year.
Environmental Consequences
Public lands in and around the allotments 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 the nearby community of Paisley though the specific
contribution of this small allotment cannot be accurately estimated.
Effects for Alternative 1-No Action
Under Alternative 1 the Federal Government would continue to collect grazing fees (595 AUMs
X $1.35) which amounts to $803 yearly revenue. The permittee would continue to produce 40
calves each year providing continued economic stability for the livestock operator. This
contributes to less than 1% of the total county wide production.
Effects for Alternative 2-No Grazing
A minimum loss of $803 would occur to the Federal Government due to the loss of grazing fees
collected from the permittee. This would result in the loss of suitable grazing land for the local
rancher who would then need to find suitable pasture or hay elsewhere. The current cost of hay
is approximately $153/ton (Oregon-Washington weekly hay report). It would take
approximately 0.225 tons of forage to feed one 600 pound stocker calf for one month (based on a
cow eats approximately 2.5% of their body weight each day). This equals to approximately $34
of feed per cow per month. The average pasture rate for private land forage in Oregon is $15
AUM (DOI price for nonwillful grazing charge based on current private land pasture rate). The
additional annual cost to the rancher for renting private pasture land would be approximately
$8,775.
If the rancher was required to sell and run 47 cows less and lose 47 calves he would lose annual
revenue of $9600. Based on the 2013 April report of $160/cwt (Stockmans Journal, 2013)
This is an estimate that would vary every year depending on the price of beef and the
weight/condition of the calves at the time of sale.
Cumulative Effects
Analysis Scale and Timeframe
For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative impacts are generally addressed at the allotment
scale. The reason for choosing this analysis scale is issuing a permit affects the entire allotment
and BLM has perspective on other potential reasonably foreseeable actions that may occur
42
within the allotment due to management direction identified in the Lakeview RMP/ROD (see
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 it 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. However, it is important to realize that the RMP/ROD has already been in effect for
10 years of its planned 15-20 year plan life-expectancy. The grazing permit renewal period
covers a 10-year period, making the end of the permit period correspond closely with the end of
the analysis period addressed in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003a).
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
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 (i.e. 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 from past or on-going
43
management activities that have occurred on BLM-administered lands which may contribute to
cumulative effects within the allotment. These include: livestock grazing, range improvement
construction and maintenance, road construction and maintenance, and dispersed recreational
use. These same kinds of activities have also occurred on private lands within or immediately
adjacent to the allotment.
The area within the allotment has 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 this area was included in a large allotment with some portions of the
fenced separate and others not. By the early 1980s this larger allotment had been fenced into
many separate smaller individual allotments grazed primarily by one to two permittees so a
decision was made to divide the larger allotment into smaller ones. By 1992, a Paisley
Adjudication agreement was signed and AUMs were allocated to the individual allotments
separately. The current stocking level on the Paisley Flat Allotment has remained relatively the
same as documented historical use.
Based on a GIS analysis of current data for the allotments, approximately 16.1 miles (23 acres)
of open roads and primitive motorized routes have been constructed or created within the
allotments. As described previously, there are approximately 35.4 miles of existing fence, 4
water sources, and 2 stream channels that exist within the allotments and have resulted in
approximately 501 acres of high concentration livestock use. This represents an estimated total
of about 524 acres of past or on-going concentrated ground disturbance within the Paisley Flat
and White Rock Allotments.
All of these past or on-going activities have affected or shaped the landscape within the
allotments into what it is today. Current resource conditions have been described previously in
this chapter, as well as in the Rangeland Health Assessments for the allotment (BLM 2004b,
2005, 2013a, 2013b). In addition, the Visual Resources section above provides an overview of
existing disturbances within the allotment.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Foreseeable future actions in these allotments would likely include road and range improvement
maintenance on an as-needed basis, weed treatments, and hunting and other dispersed recreation
activities.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives
For purposes of this analysis, total acres of concentrated ground surface disturbance or potential
for surface recovery served as the main indicator of cumulative impacts over the ten-year life of
the grazing permit. Neither alternative would have any measureable or substantial incremental
cumulative effects on Native American traditional uses, recreation, or visual quality, as the
analysis contained earlier in this chapter revealed that there would be little or no direct or indirect
effects on these resources/issues.
44
For both alternatives, federally designated noxious weeds would continue to be managed in
compliance with the Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b) and the most current Integrated Weed
Treatment Plan(s) and related policies (such as BLM 2004b, 2007b, 2007c). The estimated acres
of noxious weeds to be controlled within the two allotments would be less than 10 acres
annually. Beyond the direct effects described earlier in this chapter, it is difficult to predict the
aerial extent of these potential future impacts. However, the impacts of these treatments have
already been analyzed and these analyses 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
2004b, Pages 10-20).
Road and range improvement maintenance activities would occur on an as needed basis and
generally would not cause additional surface disturbance beyond what already exists on the
ground. Further, such activities are considered to be so minor as to be categorically excluded
from NEPA analysis (BLM 2008b). Total road-related ground disturbances under both
alternatives would be similar and is estimated to remain at about 23.4 acres (16.1 miles of roads
* 12ft. buffer * 5280ft./mile / 43560 ft2/acre).
The amount and location of future dispersed recreational activities are difficult to estimate, but
are not expected to result in any additional, measurable long-term surface disturbance in the
allotments. While there is also a risk of a future wildfire within the allotment, it is impossible to
predict how much area would likely burn, how intensely the area would burn, how much fire
suppression would be employed, and how much area may need to be actively rehabilitated after
the fire. For this reason, fire disturbances are not considered further in this analysis.
Effects of Alternative 1-No Action
The total incremental acres of concentrated livestock use or heavy ground disturbance associated
with livestock grazing management activities on soils and BSCs, upland vegetation, water
quality, riparian areas, cultural resources, and wildlife and special status species habitat is
estimated at about 501 acres. The estimated cumulative total acres of ground disturbance are
shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Cumulative Acres of Ground Disturbance by Alternative for both allotments
combined
Alternative 1 – No
Action
Alternative 2 – No
Grazing
Livestock
Use/Management
501
0
Road Maintenance
23.4
23.4
Cumulative
Total
524
23.4
45
Effects of Alternative 2-No Grazing
The removal of grazing under this alternative would result in an incremental decrease in about
501 acres of total ground disturbance in the two allotments (Table 16).
CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
List of Preparers
Range Management Specialist
Assistant Field Manager (Range)
Fisheries Biologist
Natural Resource Specialist (Weeds)
Wildlife Biologist
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Cultural Resource Specialist
Planning and Environmental Coordinator
Lori Crumley
Theresa Romasko
James Leal
Grace Haskins
John Owens
Chris Bishop
Bill Cannon
Paul Whitman
Agencies, Groups, and Individuals Contacted
Harvey Ranch Inc. c/o Jared Kerr
Barton and Dale Elder
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Natural Desert Association
The Klamath Tribes
Review Opportunity
The EA and FONSI were made available for review on BLM’s website. A legal notice was also
published in the Lake County Examiner announcing the availability of the documents for review
and the comment period end date. Agencies, native American Tribes, permittees, and members
of the public with a known interest in grazing management activities within the allotments were
notified directly by mail of the availability of the documents for review. This mailing list is
contained in the project file.
46
REFERENCES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]
Belnap, J., J. Kaltennecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001.
Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. USDI, BLM and USGS Technical Reference
TR-1730-2.
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, 1996a. Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. Technical Reference 1734-3
USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM, 1996b. Sampling Vegetation Attributes. Technical References 1734-4 USDI, BLM,
Washington Office, Washington, DC.
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.
BLM. 2001. Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.
USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 3 volumes.
47
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. 2004a. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Program. EA#OR-010-2004-03. USDI,
BLM Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2004b. Standards for Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for Paisley Flat Allotment
#0422. Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available online at
<http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php>.
BLM. 2005. Standards for Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for White Rock Allotment
#0416. Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available online at
<http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php>.
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. 4-1808 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. Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. USDI, BLM, Washington
Office, Washington, DC. 48 p.
BLM. 2011a. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043. Greater Sage-Grouse Interim
Management Policies and Procedures. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2011b. Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Update for the Monument Rock Area.
USDI, BLM Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available online at
<http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php>.
BLM. 2012a. Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands
48
(Public). USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2012b. Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Update for the Diablo Mountain South
Addition. USDI, BLM Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available online at
<http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php>.
BLM. 2012c. Rosebud Allotment #00421 Livestock Grazing Permit Renewal. Environmental
Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2012-0028-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area,
Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2012d. 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. 2013a. Rangeland Health Assessment Update for the Paisley Flat Allotment #422
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available online at
<http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php>.
BLM. 2013b. Rangeland Health Assessment Update for the White Rock Allotment #416
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available online at
<http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php>.
Clark, L., J. Hall, R. McLean, M. Dunbar, K. Klenk, R. Bowen, and C.A. Smeraski. 2006.
Susceptibility of greater sage-grouse to experimental infection with West Nile virus. Journal
of Wildlife Diseases. 42(1):14-22.
Chung-MaCoubrey, A. L. 1996. Grassland bats and land management in the Southwest. Pp.
54-63 in D.M. Finch (ed.) Ecosystem disturbance and wildlife conservation in western
grasslands. USFS, GTR-RM-285.
Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of
Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Daddy, F. M. J. Trlica and C.D. Bonham. 1988. Vegetation and soil water differences among
big sagebrush communities with different grazing histories. Southwestern Naturalist 33:413-424
Davies, K.W., T.J. Svejcar, and J.D. Bates. 2009. Interaction of historical and nonhistorical
disturbances maintains native plant communities. Ecological Applications 19(6), pp. 15361545.
DeBess, E. 2009. State of Oregon West Nile virus summary report 2008. Oregon Department of
Human Services. Portland, OR.
Derner, J.D. and G.E. Schuman. 2007. Carbon sequestration and rangelands: a synthesis of
land management and precipitation effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62(2):
77.
49
DeRamus, H.A., T.C. Clement, D.D. Giampola, and P.C. Dickison. 2003. Methane
emissions of beef cattle of forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. Journal of
Environmental Quality 32:269-277.
Drut, M.S. W.H. Pyle, and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Technical note: diets and food selection of
sage grouse chicks in Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 47:90-93.
Earnst, S.L., Ballard, J.A., and Dobkin, D.S., 2005. Riparian songbird abundance a decade after
cattle removal on Hart Mountain and Sheldon National Wildlife Refuges In Ralph, C.J., Rich, T.,
eds., Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference: General Technical
Report PSW-GTR-191, Albany, CA, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,
p. 550-558.
Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal. 2001. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil
carbon. Chapter 16 in R.F. Follett, J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal, eds. The Potential of U.S. Grazing
Lands to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press LLC. Boca Raton,
Florida.
Forster, P. et al. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Gregg, M.A. and J.A. Crawford. 2009. Survival of greater sage-grouse chicks and broods in the
Northern Great Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(6):904-913.
Holechek, Baker, Boren, and Dee Galt. 2006. Grazing Impacts on Rangeland Vegetation: What
we Learned.
Johnson, K.A. and D.E. Johnson. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal
Science 73(8):2483-2492.
Knick and Connelly. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape
Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology Series (vol. 38), University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Lacki, M. J., and Baker, M. D. 2007. Day roosts of female fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes)
in xeric forest of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy. 88(4):967-973.
Laycock, W.A. 1994. Implications of Grazing vs. No Grazing on Today’s Rangelands.
p. 250-280. In: Vavra, M., W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds.). Ecological Implications of
Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.
Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, T.E. Cornish, B.J. Moynahan, M.J. Holloran, K.
Brown, G.D. Johnson, E.T. Schmidtmann, R.T. Mayer, C.Y. Kato, M.R. Matchett, T.J.
50
Christiansen, W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R.D. Falise, E.T. Rinkes, and M.S. Boyce. 2004. West
Nile virus: pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704-713.
NOAA. 2010. A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming. A Final Word. Accessed 2/26/2010.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html.
NRCS. 2010. Soil Survey of Lake County, Oregon Southern Part. USDA, NRCS.
NRCS. 2012. Sage-Grouse Initiative Oregon Implementation Strategy 2013-2017. USDA,
NRCS, October 2012 – Draft.
ODFW. 2003. Oregon’s Mule Deer Management Plan. February 2003. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.
ODFW. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation strategy assessment and strategy for Oregon: a
plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Salem, OR.
ODFW. 2011. Greater sage-grouse conservation strategy assessment and strategy for Oregon: a
plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Salem, OR.
ONDA. 2005. Wilderness Inventory Recommendations: Lakeview BLM District. Bend, OR.
Oregon-Washington Weekly Hay Report. 2013. Accessed April, 2013. Available online at
<http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ml_gr310.txt>.
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.
Porath, M.L., T.E. Bedell, Grass Growth and Development Considerations for Grazing
Management. Cattle Producers Library. Published by the Western Beef Resource Committee,
Moscow, ID. 2003. CL505:1-5.
Root, H.T., Miller J.E.D., McCune B. 2011. Biotic soil crust lichen diversity and conservation in
shrub-steppe habitats of Oregon and Washington. The Bryologist 114(4): 796-812.
Schmidt 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Townsend’s Big Eared Bat in the Black Hills
National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, Laramie, WY.
Schuman, G.E., L.J. Ingram, P.D. Stahl, J.D. Derner, G.F. Vance, and J.A. Morgan. 2009.
Influence of management on soil organic carbon dynamics in northern mixed-grass rangeland.
Chapter 11 in Soil Carbon Sequestration and the Greenhouse Effect. 2nd Edition. SSSA Special
Publication 57. Madison, Wisconsin.
51
Stevens, B.S. 2011. Impacts of fences on Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho: Collision, Mitigation,
and Spacial Ecology (Master;s Thesis). University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Stiver, S., E. Rinkes, and D. Naugle. 2010. Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework. Multiscale habitat assessment tool. Unpublished Report. USDI, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, ID.
135 p.
Stockmans Journal. 2013. Central Oregon Livestock Auction, Madras, OR. Vol. 15 Issue 6 April
12, 2013.
USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.
USFWS. 2010. 50 CFR Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month
Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as
Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 75:13909-14014.
USGS. 2008. The Challenges of Linking Carbon Emissions, Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas
Concentrations, Global Warming, and Consequential Impacts. Memorandum to Director,
USFWS.
Verts, B. J., and L.N. Caraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press.
668 pp.
52
Deschutes County
Map 1 - General Location of Allotments
Lake County
Fort Rock
Christmas Valley
Silver Lake
Summer Lake
Legend
County Boundary
Lakeview Resource Area
Cities
Klamath County
Lake County
Paisley
Major Roads
Grazing Allotments
Lakeview
Adel
Lake County
Plush
Harney County
Valley Falls
0 4.75 9.5
19 Miles
Legend
Grazing Allotment Boundaries
Highways
White Rock
ARGIXEROLLS-BADLAND COMPLEX, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
EGLIRIM ASSOCIATION, 30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES
EGLIRIM VERY STONY LOAM, 2 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
MESMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, MILDLY ALKALINE, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES
MOUND STONY LOAM, SLUMP, 2 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
MOUND VERY BOULDERY LOAM, SLUMP, 30 TO 50 PERCENT NORTH SLOPES
Paisley Flat
ENKO-MCCONNEL CMPLX, 0-5% SLOPES
MCCONNEL VERY GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES
MCCONNEL VGR-SL, 0-2% SLOPES
MESMAN FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES
MESMAN FSL, 0-5% SLOPES
ZORRAVISTA FINE SAND, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES
PAISLEY FLAT
31
WHITE ROCK
Map 2 - Soil Complexes in Paisley Flat and White Rock Allotments
0 0.20.4
0.8
1.2
Miles
1.6
PAISLEY FLAT
31
WHITE ROCK
Legend
Highways
White Rock Dominant Vegetation
ABCO-PIPO
INCOMPLETE
UNSTABLE
Paisley Flat Dominant Vegetation
ARTRW-AGCR
STCO4
ARTRT
ARTRW
ARTRW-AGCR
INCOMPLETE (Sodic Terrace)
Map 3 - Dominant Vegetation in the Paisley Flat
and White Rock Allotments
0 0.20.4
0.8
1.2
Miles
1.6
#
Legend
white_rock_streams
<all other values>
FENCE
Ï
RIDGE
RIM
pasiley_flat_fences
Ï
Allotment
Pastures
Highways
<all other values>
STRCT_PT_TYPE
Trough
Ï
Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
ÏÏ Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
J
ÏÏ
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ Ï Ï
Ï Ï ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Q
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
TRAIL
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
#
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Q
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
ÏÏ
Q
ÏÏ Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
SOUTHEAST
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
QQ
Ï
SOUTHWEST
Ï
WHITEROCK
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
QQ
NORTHEAST
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
NORTHWEST
Ï
Private/Unknown
Ï
QQ
Ï
State
Ï
Ï
Ï
USFS
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
BLM
Ï
ÏÏ
Well - Water
Ï
Waterhole - Includes dugouts
ÏÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Water Tank
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Spring Development
Ï
#
Q
Reservoir - Includes ponds
Ï
±
T
U
Guzzler
Ï Ï
b
!
P
Dam - Barrier across a watercourse
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
N
â
Ï
D
Map 4 - Existing Range Improvements in Paisley Flat
and White Rock Allotments
0
0.375 0.75
Miles
1.5
Ï Ï
%
%
( ,&',
( - '*
1
STATUS
-)#
-)#
'#
'!
'( - ) #
'#
'!
*
%
#
&#
'*
1
'*
%
#
,,
*
%
#
&#
'*
1
*
#
(*
#
,1
#
,,
$
+,,- +
/+
,*
&#
'
1
0&#
'#
'!
,"
&( +,
-)
,( ,
%
$
+
-*
. 1+
( &) %
,
,"*
( - !"
#
'%
- ( . *
(
*
!( '2+
*
#
'!
+!
!*
( - +
)()-%
,#
( '+
'
( (
- ) #
%
$+
*
+
*
%
,
%
$
'+#
,1
+,*
,
( ''
,#
.#
,1
( *
*
#
( *
+
'
/#
',*
-+
*
+
*
+
( &#
'
/#
,"
,"
*
&#
'#
'!
-)#
#
,,
( - ,+
#
( ( *
*
+
*
( '+#
*
*
%
#
&#
'*
1
'*
%
#
,,
#
'
*
!( '
#
%
+
Map 5 - Sage-grouse Habitat in the Allotments
Ü
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use
with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources and may
be updated without notification.
_
^
_
^^
_
_
^
Allotment Boundary
Sage-Grouse Leks
_
^
_
^
_
^
Sage-Grouse Leks
6.2km or 4mi buffer around leks (nests)
_
^
^
_ _
^
_
^
^
_
^
_
Map shows the following allotments: White Rock (416) and Paisley Flat (422).
All leks within the Lakeview Resource Area (LVRA) irrespective of
conservation status (occupied, occupied-pending, unoccupied,
unoccupied-pending, historic, or unknown) received a buffer analysis using
the suggested 6.2km (4mi) criteria to capture 80% of sage-grouse nests
surrounding a lek (ODFW 2011, p.8)
_
^
_
^
0
1.5
3
6 Miles
Map 6 - Sage-grouse lek buffer analysis
Ü
_
^ ^
_
_^
^
_
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use
with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources and may
be updated without notification.