Grazing Permit Renewal for the Egli Rim
(00420), Oatman Flat (00705), Tuff Butte
(00707), and Murdock (00710) Allotments
Environmental Assessment
DOI-BLM-L050-2014-0013-EA
Lakeview Resource Area
Lakeview District
Bureau of Land Management
1301 South G Street
Lakeview, Oregon 97630
June 2014
Page 1
CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
Introduction
The Lakeview Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this
Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential effects of renewing term grazing permit
#3601441 for a ten-year period. This permit addresses livestock grazing management for the Egli
Rim (00420), Tuff Butte (00707), Murdock (00710), and Oatman Flat (00705) Allotments. 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
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as well as making the
determination as to whether any significant impacts to the human environment would result from
the proposal.
These allotments are located in the Silver Lake Area between 2 and 10 miles north and south of
the town of Silver Lake, Oregon (Map 1). The Egli Rim allotment encompasses about 21,508
public land acres and 374 private land acres. The Oatman Flat Allotment encompasses about
28,256 acres public land and 6,966 acres of private land. The Tuff Butte Allotment encompasses
about 8,936 acres of public land and 2,192 acres of private land. The Murdock Allotment
encompasses about 4,274 acres of public land and 1,020 acres of private land.
Purpose and Need for Action
The grazing permit for these allotments expired in 2014, at which time the permit renewal
application was submitted for consideration by the permittee. The primary purpose of this
analysis is to respond to the permittee’s permit renewal application and consider whether or not to
reissue or modify the grazing permit 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).
A second purpose of the analysis is to consider whether or not to implement several range
improvement projects designed to improve livestock management. The first project proposal
would be to construct a well, pipeline, and 3 associated trough locations in the Egli Rim
Allotment to improve livestock water availability within 3 pastures of the allotment. The second
project would be to construct approximately 3/4 mile of fence in the Tuff Butte Allotment to
improve livestock distribution within one pasture.
A third purpose of this analysis is to consider treating noxious weeds and invasive plant species
within the four allotments using both approved integrated weed management methods described
in the existing weed management plant (BLM 2004b), as well as allowing the use of one new
herbicide (imazapic) for treatment of several invasive species, consistent with the management
direction contained in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Vegetation Treatment using
Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon (BLM 2010b).
Page 2
A fourth purpose of this analysis is to consider treating invasive post-settlement 1 western juniper
(Juniperus occidentalis) within several of the allotments to improve habitat for wildlife species
and reduce fuel loading. Habitats for sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and pronghorn antelope (Antilopcapra
americana) have been degraded by the encroachment of juniper.
Decisions to Be Made
The authorized officer will decide whether or not to renew or modify the 10-year Term Grazing
Permit, and if so, under what terms and conditions. The authorized officer will decide whether or
not to implement the proposed range improvement projects, noxious weeds and invasive species
treatments, and western juniper treatments, as well as determine which methods to use or
appropriate mitigation measures to apply.
Decision Factors
Decision factors represent criteria used by the decision maker to choose the alternative that best
meet the purpose and need for the proposal. These include, but are not limited to:
a) How well does the decision conform to laws, regulations, and policies related to grazing use
and protecting other resource values?
b) How well does the decision conform to the resource management and allotment management
plans?
c) How well does the decision promote maintenance of rangeland health standards?
d) How well does the decision conform with ODFW 2005 sage-grouse guidelines?
e) How well does the decision conform with IM 2012-043 regarding interim sage-grouse
management?
f) How well does the proposal conform to the existing integrated weed management plan (BLM
2004b) and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatment Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in
Oregon (BLM 2010b)?
Conformance with Laws and Regulations
This EA has been prepared in conformance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Grazing permits are issued or renewed in accordance with the provisions of the Taylor Grazing
Act (1934), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 1976), Public Rangelands
Improvement Act (1978), and applicable grazing regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 4100.
In order for an applicant to lawfully graze livestock on public land, the party must obtain a valid
grazing permit or lease. The grazing regulations, 43 CFR 4130.2(a), state “grazing permits or
leases shall be issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands
under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated as available for
livestock grazing through land use plans.” The Lakeview RMP/ROD has designated all four
allotments as available for livestock grazing (BLM 2003b). The permit renewal applicant (current
1
“Post-settlement” juniper refers to juniper that was established after or near the time of European settlement or less
than 130 year old.
Page 3
permittee) controls the base property associated with the grazing preference on the allotment and
has been determined to be a qualified applicant.
A performance review of the permittee’s past use has been completed and BLM found the
permittee to have a satisfactory record of performance pursuant to 43 CFR 4110.1(b). This
conclusion was based on: grazing utilization at acceptable levels; bills paid on time; actual use
turned in annually; permit terms and conditions were adhered to, base property requirements met,
and no history of livestock trespass or unauthorized use. The record of performance review is
available in the grazing administration file and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Conformance with Land Use Plan
Approved management actions must conform with 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 goals and management direction related to livestock
grazing, weed, western juniper, and wildlife habitat management. Conformance with this plan
will be discussed further within the proposed decision.
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
The proposed decision must also comply with a number of other existing plans and policies
including:
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)
Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program, EA#OR-010-2004-03 (BLM 2004b)
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2005)
Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011)
Conformance with these plan/policies will be discussed further within the proposed decision.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
A total of three alternatives were analyzed in detail within this EA. Table 2.1 includes a summary
of these alternatives by allotment. In addition, several other alternatives were considered, but
were not analyzed in detail for various reasons. The alternatives are described in more detail in
the following section.
Page 4
Table 2.1. Grazing Management Alternative Summary for each Allotment
Allotment
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Egli Rim
(00420)
234 cows
4/1-8/15
1056 AUMs
Tuff Butte
(00707)
216 cows
4/1-7/15
536 AUMs
Murdock
(00710)
179 cows
4/16-6/30
403 AUMs
617 cows
4/15-7/31
2,082 AUMs
Oatman Flat
(00705)
Permitted 1056 AUMs between 4/18/15. Apply carrying capacity limits
by pasture Table 2.8. Propose well
construction and associated three
troughs in three pastures.
Permitted 536 AUMs between 4/17/15. Apply carrying capacity limits
by pasture Table 2.8. Propose two
fence projects to assist distribution of
livestock.
Permitted 403 AUMs between 4/166/30. Apply carrying capacity limits
by pasture Table 2.8.
Permitted 2082 AUMs between 4/157/31. Apply carrying capacity limits
by pasture Table 2.8.
No Grazing Permit
Issued
No Grazing Permit No
weed Issued
No Grazing Permit
Issued
No Grazing Permit
Issued
Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2
Grazing Permit Terms and Conditions
Terms and conditions will be included within the grazing permits that comply with all applicable
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 with low water and shifting
livestock use to the pasture that had water. This may change the pasture rotation schedule. 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:
Page 5
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; such as one time
recreational or other activities where livestock or the other resource would benefit from adjusting the livestock
use.
Monitoring
Monitoring in all 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 2.2 describes the key species and utilization targets identified for each allotment.
Pipeline and Trough, Well, Reservoir, and Waterhole Maintenance
Existing water developments would be maintained in the future on an as-needed basis.
Pipeline maintenance would include, but would not be limited to fixing/replacing leaking sections
of pipeline, valves/fittings, and troughs. Air valves may need to be fixed/replaced. Trough
maintenance would include repair and replacement. The existing storage tank would be
maintained, as necessary.
Well maintenance would include, but would not be limited to, re-plumbing or re-wiring the
well, replacing the pump, casing, valves/fittings, and plumbing associated with the well.
Maintenance could also include deepening the well, if needed.
Waterhole and reservoir maintenance is not currently needed; however, it would likely be needed
during the 10-year permit lifetime. Reservoir maintenance would include the cleaning and
maintenance of a given reservoir to ensure continued function. This may include, but is not
limited to, the application of a native or natural clay liner or dam reconstruction. Waterhole
maintenance would include cleaning the existing waterhole while maintaining its existing size,
and placing the removed material on top of existing berms or disturbed areas.
Fence Maintenance
Cooperative agreements have been signed by the permittee and BLM assigning fence and corral
maintenance responsibilities within the allotments. Fence maintenance is not currently needed;
however, it would likely be needed during the 10-year permit lifetime. Fence maintenance would
Page 6
Table 2.2. Key Species and Target Utilization Levels by Allotment and Pasture
Allotment
No.
00420
00705
00707
00710
Pasture
West Seeding/
Collins
Wee
Pettus
East Native
West Native
(Bench)
West Native (Lake)
Middle Native
(Sheep dip)
East Ceres Flat
(Hockeman)
Oatman East
(Coyote Butte)
West Ceres Flat
BLM
Acres
Key Species
Utilization
Target %
3260
Crested wheatgrass
50
1448
2077
3684
2501
50
50
50
50
Connely Hills
(Horning Gap)
Oatman West
6466
Crested wheatgrass
Crested wheatgrass
Idaho Fescue/ Blue bunch wheatgrass
Thurbers Needlegrass/Bluebunch
wheatgrass/ Sandberg bluegrass
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirrel tail
Idaho Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass/
Sandberg bluegrass
Idaho Fescue/ Squirrel tail/ Thurbers
Needlegrass
Crested wheatgrass/ Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Idaho Fescue/ Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail
2493
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail
50
Black Hills
Hayes Butte
4515
2077
50
50
West
3160
Powerline
East
3064
618
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail/ Idaho
Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass/ Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Crested Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass/ Squirrel tail
West
East
1531
1370
50
50
Bunchgrass Butte
666
South
604
Crested Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass / Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Idaho Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass/
Crested wheatgrass
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Idaho Fescue
1481
7027
3669
8471
2658
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
be authorized within the existing authorized “footprint” of original project. This could include
replacement of posts and wire or reconstruction of corners and H-braces, as well as maintenance
or clean-out of cattle guards and replacement of gates.
Alternative 1: No Action
The No Action Alternative would renew the existing 10-year livestock grazing permit (#3601441)
for the four allotments with the same terms and conditions, grazing management, and season of
use (Tables 2.3 to 2.7). This definition for the No Action Alternative is consistent with BLM
(2000) guidance. (This alternative is also consistent with the permittee’s application to renew the
grazing permit under the current terms and conditions). All allotments would continue to be
grazed under rest-rotation grazing systems (Tables 2.4 to 2.8).
Page 7
Table 2.3. Specified Grazing Use for Alternative 1
Permit #
Allotment
Livestock #
3601441
Egli Rim
Tuff Butte
Murdock
Oatman Flat
234
216
179
617
Grazing Period
Begin Date
End Date
4/1
8/15
4/1
7/15
4/16
6/30
4/15
7/31
Type Use
AUMs
Active
Active
Active
Active
1054
534
403
2081
Table 2.4. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Oatman Flat Allotment (00705)
Pasture
Year 1 in Rotation
Year 2 in Rotation
Year 3 in Rotation
Hockman/East
Ceres Flat
Ceres Flat West
4/15-7/31
rest
Rest
Oatman Flat West
Rest
Black Hills
Graze
4/15-7/31
Graze
4/15-7/31
Graze
4/15-7/31
Rest
Graze
4/15-7/31
Graze
4/15-7/31
Graze
4/15-7/31
Graze
4/15-7/31
Coyote Butte/
Oatman East
Connelly Hills
Graze
4/15-7/31
Rest
Graze
4/15-7/31
Rest
Rest
Graze
4/15-7/31
Table 2.5. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Egli Rim Allotment (00420)*
Pasture
Year 1
Year 4
Year 2
Year 5
Year 3
West Seeding/
Collins
Wee
Graze
4/1-8/15
Rest
Rest
Rest
Graze
4/1 – 6/15
Graze
5\15- 8/15
Graze
4/1-7/15
Rest
Graze
4/1 – 6/15
Graze
4/1 – 6/15
Rest
Rest
Pettus
Graze
4/1-8/15
Graze
4/1-6/15
Rest
Rest
Graze
4/1-7/15
Graze
4/1-7/15
Graze
4/1-8/15
East Native
West native
(Bench)
West Native
(Lake)
Middle Native
Rest
Graze
5/15-8/15
Rest
Graze
4/1-7/15
Rest
Year 6
Rest
Graze
4/1-8/15
Rest
Rest
*This allotment is grazed under a three year rest-rotation grazing system. The Pettus, Wee, and Collins Pastures of the Egli Rim allotment were
seeded with crested wheatgrass in the 1980s. These generally are grazed in the spring and all have adequate and reliable water sources. The
Bench and Lake Pastures need to be grazed with the Collins Pasture on most years due to a lack of adequate water. In year 6 both pastures could be
used while resting the Collins Pasture. This could only occur if there was a good water year. However this is included in the rotation as if any
year we get good water this should be the rotation used. The Middle Native Pasture is difficult to use in dry years due to a lack of reliable water.
Due to terrain and road conditions these pastures are also difficult to haul water.
Page 8
Table 2.6. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Tuff Butte Allotment (00707)*
Pasture
Year 1 in Rotation
Year 2 in Rotation
Hayes Butte
Rest
East
Graze
4/15-7/31
Graze
4/15-7/31
Rest
Powerline
Rest
West
Rest
Graze
4/15-7/31
Graze
4/15-7/31
* The Tuff Butte Allotment is grazed on a rest rotation grazing system with pasture rested every other year.
Table 2.7. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Murdock Allotment (00710)*
Pasture
Year 1 in Rotation
Year 2 in Rotation
West
Rest
South
Graze
4/16-6/30
Graze
4/16-6/30
Rest
Bunchgrass
Rest
East
Rest
Graze
4/16-6/30
Graze
4/16-6/30
* The Murdock Allotment is grazed on a rest-rotation grazing system with pastures receiving rest every other year.
Under this alternative, the existing integrated noxious weed management program would continue
within the four allotments (BLM 2004b). Treatment methods could include mechanical, manual,
biological, and chemical. Treatments would be limited to noxious weeds only. Only four
chemicals would be used.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would renew the grazing permit similar to Alternative 1. In addition, it would
include:
1) Constructing new range improvements including a well with associated water tank, approximately ½ mile of
underground pipeline, and three associated water troughs in the Egli Rim Allotment (Map 2). The water
tank location would be located with the West (Collins) pasture at trough location 3 on Map 2.
2) Constructing 2 short additional fences totaling approximately ¾ of a mile would be constructed in the Tuff
Butte Allotment to improve livestock distribution. These fences would be built to wildlife standards and
guidelines (BLM Handbook H-1741-1)
3) Implementing juniper treatments in the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments (Map 3).
4) Treating approximately 300 acres of medusahead with the herbicide imazapic.
Proposed Juniper Treatment
Under this alternative, approximately 13,000 acres of rangeland in the Oatman Flat Allotment
and 5,000 acres of rangeland in the Tuff Butte Allotment would be treated to reduce the
densities of invasive, post-settlement western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) (Map 3).
Page 9
Treatments would consist of cutting, followed by hand-piling or machine piling and single
tree or pile burning, or cutting and leaving. Machine piles would be approximately 8 to 12
feet by 16 to 22 feet in size and would be created using grapple equipment during dry or
frozen conditions. Piles would be burned when soils are saturated or frozen and there is
little danger for the fire to spread. Burning would occur within 2 years of piling. Cut and
leave treatments would occur in areas where juniper density is low enough that the down
juniper would not pose a risk of fire danger.
Prescribed burning and mechanical treatment operations would concentrate on the Miller et al.
(2005) Phase I and Phase II juniper stand types. Phase III stands would not be treated because
they would require extensive reseeding and other rehabilitation actions that would be cost
prohibitive with little likelihood of success.
Burning would follow the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan in order to limit impacts
to air quality and reduce health and visibility impacts on designated areas. Old-growth
juniper stands would be left throughout the 2 allotments for diversity and wildlife habitat
needs.
Proposed Management of Noxious Weeds and Invasive Non-Native Species
Non-native invasive plant species and/or noxious weeds would be managed using an integrated
vegetation management approach that would include manual, mechanical, biological control
methods, prescribed fire, and herbicides. Where herbicide applications are determined to be the
most appropriate treatment, they would be applied in conformance with label instructions.
Herbicide uses and applications would also be constrained by the Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) and other mitigation measures adopted in the Oregon FEIS ROD (BLM 2007, 2010b) and
any additional measures adopted by the Decision Record for this EA. Herbicides would be
applied using ground-based methods such as wicks and wipers, backpack sprayers, ATV, UTV,
truck-mounted, and aerial (helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft) sprayers, as described in the Oregon
FEIS (USDI BLM 2010a: p. 68-73).
In addition to the previously analyzed suite of products (2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, and
picloram), one additional herbicide, imazapic (Plateau), analyzed in the Oregon FEIS (BLM
2010a) would be used to treat noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant species. Imazapic
would be applied at a rate of 6 oz./acre (0.178 lbs./acre of active ingredient Imazapic) in the fall to
treat medusahead rye, ventanata, and cheatgrass. Application method would be by either low
boom or aerial spray. Aerial spray treatments for medusahead rye would be used on upland
infestations 100 acres or greater and/or on smaller infestations which ground equipment cannot
access.
Surveys
Cultural and botanical surveys would be conducted on all juniper treatment areas, as well as any
weed treatment areas involving treatment methods that may cause ground disturbance, prior to
signing a decision authorizing these treatments.
Page
10
Proposed Forage (AUM) Allocation by Pasture
This alternative would not change the permitted total number of AUMs, season of use, or grazing
system for each allotment. However, the BLM would set an upper limit for AUMs in each
pasture based on that pasture’s sustainable stocking rate (Table 2.8). Stocking rates were
established for each pasture based on actual use, utilization, and carrying capacity.
Table 2.8. Proposed Authorized Use in Each Pasture under Alternative 2
Allotment
No.
00420
Pasture
West Seeding/
Collins
Wee
Pettus
East Native
West Native (Bench)
West Native (Lake)
Middle Native
(Sheep dip)
Total
00705
East Ceres Flat
(Hockeman)
Oatman East (Coyote
Butte)
West Ceres Flat
Connely Hills
(Horning Gap)
Oatman West
Black Hills
Total
Authorized
AUMs
3260
17 acre/ AUM
192
1448
2077
3684
2501
1481
15 acre/ AUM
15 acre/ AUM
20 acre/ AUM
20 acre/ AUM
20 acre/ AUM
97
138
185
125
74
7027
20 acre/ AUM
351
21478
3669
20 acre/ AUM
20 acres/ AUM
1056*
184
8471
20 acres/ AUM
423
2658
6466
20 acres/ AUM
20 acres/ AUM
133
323
2494
20 acres/ AUM
125
4515
20 acres/ AUM
226
1414
Hayes Butte
2077
17 acre/ AUM
123
West
3160
17 acre/ AUM
186
Powerline
3064
17 acre/ AUM
180
East
618
10 acre/ AUM
47
8936
17 acre/ AUM
West
1531
19 acre/ AUM
81
East
1370
19 acre/ AUM
72
Bunchgrass Butte
666
13 acre /AUM
51
South
604
10 acre/ AUM
61
Total
00710
Acres of BLM
lands/AUM
28275
Total
00707
BLM
Acres
4171
* In the Egli Rim and Tuff Butte Allotments the total use of all pastures actually adds up to more than the allowable AUMs permitted on the
allotment. Due to the rest rotation grazing system implemented on the allotment on any given year only the permitted AUMs would be authorized.
Page
11
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative the current permits would not be renewed and livestock grazing would not
be authorized on public lands within the four allotments under consideration of this EA.
Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
Reduction of AUMs - A 50% reduction of AUMs on the allotment was considered as an
alternative, but was eliminated from further analysis because the impacts would fall within the
range of impacts already analyzed in the No Action (1) and No Grazing/No Vegetation
Treatments (3) Alternatives.
Additional Water Developments- This alternative considered increased water developments in the
Egli Rim and Oatman Flat Allotments to increase use of those pastures with limited reliable water
sources. Additional reliable water sources would be developed in each pasture of the allotments.
This alternative was eliminated as the large number of water developments would be cost
prohibitive.
CHAPTER III. 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 3.1 and will
not be 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 the allotments is variable, but typical of the Northern Great Basin or
high desert system. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 6-10 inches. Precipitation occurs
mostly in the form of snow during December through March with spring rains common. The soil
temperature regime is frigid. Mean annual air temperatures range from 40 to 43 degrees F. The
frost-free time period is from 50 to 80 days. The period of optimum plant growth is from April
through June.
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
Page
12
Table 3.1 Resources or Uses that Will not be Analyzed in Detail
Elements of the Human
Environment
Rationale
Air Quality (Clean Air Act)
Not
Affected
Environmental Justice
(Executive Order 12898)
Not Present
Fisheries/Aquatic Habitat
Forest/Woodlands
Not Present
Not Present
Flood Plains (Executive Order
13112) and Hydrology
Hazardous or Solid Waste
Lands
Minerals and Energy
Prime or Unique Farmlands
Recreation
Threatened and Endangered
Plants and Animals/Special
Status Plants
Visual Resources
Not
Affected
Not Present
Not
Affected
Not
Affected
Not Present
Not
Analyzed
Not Present
Not
Analyzed
Wild Horses (Wild Horse and
Burro Act)
Water Quality (Clean Water
Act)
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Not Present
Wilderness Characteristics
Not Present
Although some burning is proposed as part of Alternative 2, the potential effects to air
quality would be mitigated through following state smoke management plan and, therefore,
there would be minimal impacts to air quality. See fire/fuel management section.
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 or near the
allotments.
No perennial streams, aquatic or fish habitat exists within the allotments.
No forested habitats are present within the allotments. However, invasive western juniper
is present and has been analyzed in both the upland vegetation and fire/fuel management
sections.
No construction within, or other modification of flood plains, are proposed under any of the
alternatives. Therefore, there would be no floodplain or related hydrologic impacts.
No such sites or issues are known within the allotments.
None of the alternatives analyzed would have any effects on current land status or land
tenure.
None of the alternatives analyzed would have any effects on mineral or energy resources or
uses.
No such lands have been identified in the allotments.
The allotments contain limited dispersed recreation opportunities, primarily associated with
fall hunting and OHV use. Based on similar analyses contained within several recent
permit renewal EAs (BLM 2012c. 2012d, 2013a, 2013b, 2014e, 2014f, 2014g), recreation
uses and opportunities does not rise to the level of an issue that is likely to have a
significant effects or otherwise require detailed analysis.
No federally listed plant or animal species or their critical habitat are found within the
allotments. No special status plants are known to occur within the allotments.
The allotments fall within visual resource management classes II, III, and IV. Based on
similar analyses contained within several recent permit renewal EAs (BLM 2012c. 2012d,
2013a, 2013b, 2014e, 2014f, 2014g), potential impacts to visual resources does not rise to
the level of an issue that is likely to have a significant effects or otherwise require detailed
analysis.
The allotments are located outside of designated wild horse herd management areas.
Not Present
There are no perennial streams or municipal drinking water sources in the allotment.
Not Present
There are no Wild or Scenic Rivers within the allotments.
BLM's original wilderness inventory did not find wilderness characteristics to be present
within these allotments (BLM 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1980a, 1980b, 1989, 1991). Since
2007, the BLM has been conducting wilderness inventory updates following current
inventory guidance (BLM 2007a, 2008c, 2012c). 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 (BLM 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1980a,
and 1980b), and citizen-provided wilderness information (ONDA 2005, 2007). BLM
conducted field inventory, completed route analysis forms, made unit boundary
determinations, and subsequently evaluated wilderness character within each inventory unit.
BLM has completed wilderness character inventory updates for all lands within the
allotments (BLM 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, and 2010d). BLM hereby incorporates these
findings and all other inventory information by reference in its entirety. Based upon the
results of these inventory updates, there are no lands with wilderness characteristics in any
of the allotments. Therefore, there would be no impacts to such values.
this reason, the remainder of this discussion focuses on describing the potential changes in
greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration associated with the alternatives.
Page
13
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3
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 analyses contained in several recent permit renewal EAs (BLM 2012a, 2012d, 2014d),
the utilization of 0 to 4,077 AUMs (total Active AUMs) of forage would result in an extremely
small incremental contribution to total regional, national, and global greenhouse gas emissions.
None of the alternatives would have any scientifically verifiable effects on regional or global
climate, nor would they have any significant effects on either greenhouse gas emissions or carbon
sequestration processes. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed further.
Soils and Biological Soil Crusts
Affected Environment:
Soil and biological soil crust (BSC) cover data was compiled using Ecological Site Inventory
(ESI) data on file at the Lakeview District Office. This ESI data represents a combination of soil
and vegetation data collected by BLM and NRCS (see NRCS 2013). This data is herein
incorporated by reference in its entirety and is summarized in this chapter and in Appendix A.
BSCs such as mosses, lichens, micro fungi, cyanobacteria and algae play a role in a functioning
ecosystem. In addition to providing biological diversity, BSCs contribute to soil stability through
increased resistance to erosion and nutrient cycling (Belnap et al 2001). Lichen species diversity
is poorly known in the Pacific Northwest (Root et al. 2011). Further, identification of BSCs at
the species level is not practical for fieldwork, as it is very difficult and may require laboratory
culturing (Belnap et al 2001). For these reasons, BLM began collecting BSC cover data during
the North Lake ESI process. Crust cover data collected in the four allotments is summarized in
Table 3.2.1.
Biological soil crust data was also collected in one trend plot in the Egli Rim Allotment and one
in the Murdock Allotment. Crust cover (moss) present at these locations constituted less than 1%
overall ground cover.
Page
14
Table 3.2.1. Biological Soil Crust (BSC) Cover Classes*
Allotment
% BSC 0
% BSC 1
% BSC 2
% BSC 4
% BSC 6
% BSC 7
% BSC 8
Egli Rim
Oatman Flat
Tuff Butte
Murdock
6
2
4
8
1
0
0
14
6
1
0
1
56
54
67
47
21
31
14
31
1
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
*0= no crust cover
1= clearly a crust is present
2= just Cyanobacteria present
4= lichens and mosses covering 1-5% of the ground
6= lichens and mosses covering 5-10% of the ground
8= lichens and mosses covering 10-20% of the ground
10= lichens and mosses covering greater than 20% of the ground
Values in between are often a reflection of the field observer making a decision to use best judgment to assign a value to crust cover that may not fit
into one of the categories but fits between two of the categories.
There are 41 soil series representing 134 soil map units in the allotment collectively (Table A.1.
and Map 4). The majority of the allotments have soils that vary in texture from loamy to sandy
and variations in between. The majority of the Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments
are sandy loam soils, well-drained to excessively drained, and derived from volcanic parent
material. The majority (42%) of the Egli Rim Allotment is dominated by very cobbly loam welldrained soils.
The Rangeland Health Assessments found soils in the in all four allotments exhibited infiltration
and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability appropriate for soil, climate, and land form.
Root occupancy for the soil was appropriate, and therefore, Standard 1 was being met (BLM
1999a, BLM 1999b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). Soil surface factor (SSF) data collected during the
ecological site inventory (ESI) were used to assign an erosion class rating and the potential
susceptibility of soil to accelerated erosion. Within each allotment approximately 75% of the
acres are in the slight erosion condition class.
Observed Apparent Trend (OAT) data was used to determine trend indicators correlated to soil
stability. These indicators are: surface litter, pedestals, and gullies. OAT data indicates stable
soils on the allotment; i.e. surface litter is accumulating in place, there is little evidence of
pedestaling, and gullies are absent from the slopes at trend sites and from ESI data. Most all trend
sites located on the allotments were stable to upward concerning soil indicators. One trend plot in
Tuff Butte Allotment showed a downward trend with some pedestaling of plants and primarily
low plant vigor in 2012. This site is heavily dominated and invaded by Juniper which is causing
the overall downward trend observations, and is not related to livestock grazing. The invading
juniper has created decreased more deeply rooting perennial understory vegetation that typically
stabilized soil conditions.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to All Alternatives
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
Page
15
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. Ponzetti and
McCune (2001) found the differences in total crust cover and species composition between study
sites were most strongly related to soil pH, electrical conductivity, and the relative calcium
carbonate content of the soil. 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, for purposes of this analysis, the impacts to BSCs can generally be quantified by
quantifying the associated impacts to soils.
The impacts of livestock grazing on soils and BSCs within the Lakeview Resource Area were
analyzed in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003a) and that analysis is
incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. In summary, livestock use would continue to
impact area soils and BSCs due to compaction around waterholes and along livestock trails (pages
4-35 to 4-36). However, the rest-rotation grazing systems utilized in these allotments are
designed to reduce or mitigate these impacts.
These existing rest rotation grazing systems would continue under Alternatives 1 and 2 and would
provide both soils and BSCs time to recover during rest periods, as would natural processes such
as frost-heave and crust recruitment from adjacent areas.
Soils and BSCs would continue to be negatively impacted in livestock concentration areas near
water sources and cattle trails under Alternatives 1 and 2. By examining past use pattern maps,
and size and volume of the existing water sources (developed springs and dirt tanks), it can be
demonstrated that cattle tend to concentrate within about a quarter mile around the existing major
water sources (a quarter of a mile buffer around a water source represents approximately 125
acres). There are smaller waterholes and less productive springs with less water available
receiving less grazing pressure. The concentrated area of use is 0.1 miles around the source or
approximately 25 acres. These estimates of disturbed areas for both major and minor water
sources are for the purpose of calculation and comparison and vary depending on topography,
yearly precipitation, and location in the pasture.
However, the majority of all four allotments are currently meeting Rangeland Health Standards 1
and 3 (upland watershed health and ecological processes), and would continue to do so under all
alternatives.
Soil Effects for Alternatives 1: No Action
Within the 4 allotments there are 28 reliable water sources resulting in an estimated 3,500 acres of
concentrated livestock use and 14 intermittent water sources resulting in an estimated 350 acres of
additional concentrated livestock use (Map 5). Total concentrated livestock use and impacts
associated with water sources is about 3,850 acres. With the rest-rotation grazing system only
Page
16
half the pastures and water sources are used annually. Therefore, on any given year concentrated
livestock use would impact about 1,925 acres across the 4 allotments (Table 3.2.1).
Although there are several intermittent streams within the allotments, particularly Egli Rim, they
are typically dry most of the year and do not provide reliable water to livestock in most years.
These drainages do not support riparian vegetation and are not attractive to livestock any more
than the surrounding uplands. Due to a lack of livestock concentration in these areas they were
not included in calculations of concentrated livestock use areas.
Cattle trails tend to be located along fence lines and near water sources. These trails are typically
less than 5 feet wide. The miles of fence located within an allotment where cattle are known to
trail were estimated and using the formula (# mi. x 5 ft. x 5,280 ft. per mi./43,560 ft.2 per acre) the
area of potential disturbance associated with past fence construction and livestock trailing was
calculated (Table 3.2.1). BLM does not have a quantifiable means of estimating disturbed acres
associated with cross-country livestock trailing to water sources, but based on estimates
associated with fencing, believes that it represents a very small percentage of the allotments.
Ground disturbance associated with past fence construction and livestock trailing can also be
estimated at about 115 acres (Map 5). This estimate includes all BLM lands and private lands
occurring within the allotments. Since half of the pastures are grazed on any given year, only half
or 58 acres would be impacted by livestock trailing in a given year. Table 3.2.1 summarizes
concentrated livestock use by alternative.
Table 3.2.1. Summary of Concentrated Livestock Use in the Four Allotments
Alternative
1
2
3
# of
Water
Sources
42
42
42
Miles of fence
Total acres of
livestock
concentrated
use (50% for a
year)
% of allotments with
concentrated livestock
use
190
190
190
1,983
2,171
0
3
3
0
This alternative lacks specific pasture forage allocation upper limits and has the potential to
continue to allow grazing in some pastures at moderate to heavy utilization level, causing these
pastures to have higher soil impacts while other pastures routinely receive little or none.
Alternative 1 would not treat invading juniper in the Oatman Flat or Tuff Butte Allotments. This
would lead to increased acres moving towards late successional juniper woodlands, with an
associated decrease in shrub-grass understory and increase in bare soil (Miller et al. 2005). This,
in turn, would increase the potential for soil erosion by wind and water. The sandy soils on these
allotments have a higher potential risk to wind erosion.
While noxious weeds would continue to be treated under Alternative 1, medusahead and other
invasive annual grasses would not be treated (with imazapic), which would allow these invasive
grasses a continued advantage for reproduction and recruitment through prolific seed production.
Over time, this would decrease native perennial grass diversity and density. The reduction in
Page
17
perennial grasses (which have higher rooting capacity) would lead to an increased potential for
soil erosion.
Effects for Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
The impacts of livestock grazing/permit renewal would have generally the same effects on soils
and BSCs as Alternative 1. There is the potential to have an additional 375 acres of concentrated
livestock use associated with three additional water trough and an additional 3/4 mile of fence
(Table 3.2.2). However, these impacts would be offset by a more even distribution of livestock
across some areas (Egli Rim and Tuff Butte Allotments). Additional water sources would also
reduce impacts near existing water sources within the Egli Rim Allotment.
Some short-term impacts to soils/BSCs from compaction and ground disturbance from livestock
and juniper treatments would occur. However, the maximum limits for AUMs allowable per
pasture would ensure a more appropriate distribution of livestock and forage use across the
allotments, reducing impacts on soils/BSCs within the Egli Rim and Tuff Butte Allotments.
Treatments of weeds and invasive species could also result in some short-term increases in
ground disturbance/bare ground exposure. However, as areas repopulate with perennial species,
the soil erosion potential would go down over the long-term.
Effects for Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Under this alternative, little change to soils or BSCs would occur on the allotments in the shortterm (up to 5 years). Most of the concentrated livestock use areas around water sources and the
cattle trails (about 1,983 acres) would reclaim naturally with vegetation and BSCs over the longterm (5-10-years). However, the transition to juniper woodland over large portions of the
Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments, along with the expansion of weeds and invasive species
would lead to a loss of native grasses, shrubs, BSCs and an increase in bare ground. This would
result in an increase in soil erosion potential over the long-term.
Wetlands/Riparian Areas
Affected Environment
Although there are several drainages as shown on the map within the allotments, all are
intermittent that only flow seasonally during precipitation events or spring snowmelt. The
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies several of these drainages as “riverine” systems, but
due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation.
The 2004 rangeland health assessments identified many acres of palustrine wetlands across the
allotments from the NWI dataset. Recently these areas were reassessed and almost all found to be
man-made livestock waterholes or water catchment systems that do not support riparian or
wetland vegetation (Tables 3.8.1 to 3.8.4). The Murdock and Oatman Flat Allotments do not
contain any wetlands.
Page
18
Based on additional field work, the Egli Rim Allotment contains two palustrine wetlands totaling
about 6 acres that have recently been assessed and determined to be in proper functioning
condition (PFC) with stable trends. One is a 5-acre palustrine wetland adjacent to a reservoir on
private land in the northeast corner of the allotment (estimated in the 2014 rangeland health
assessment at 2 acres). The other is a shallow 1-acre lakebed (Skeleton) waterhole in the West
Native Lake Pasture that supports some wetland vegetation.
Based on the NWI, approximately 15 acres of palustrine wetlands may exist within BLM lands on
the Tuff Butte Allotment within the West Pasture associated with the Paulina Marsh. These areas
were noted as being in PFC in the 2004 rangeland health assessment. After completion of the
rangeland health assessment update, these areas were determined to not be currently capable of
supporting wetland or riparian vegetation due to lack of inundation by water and were not
included further in this analysis.
Environmental Consequences
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3
The palustrine wetland in the northeast corner of the Egli Rim Allotment is currently excluded
from livestock grazing. Therefore, none of the alternatives would have any effect on this wetland.
This area would continue in PFC and would continue to meet Rangeland Health Standard 2 over
the 10-year analysis timeframe.
Alternative 1: No Action
The wetland area near Skeleton Waterhole has maintained a stable trend under current
management and would likely continue to maintain a stable trend under this alternative. This area
would continue in PFC and would continue to meet Rangeland Health Standard 2 over the 10year analysis timeframe.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
The wetland area near Skelton Waterhole could experience an upward trend, due to the
implementation of a reduced forage allocation within the pasture. No weed or juniper treatments
are proposed specifically in this area and, therefore would have no effects to this wetland. This
area would continue in PFC and would continue to meet Rangeland Health Standard 2 over the
10-year analysis timeframe.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
The wetland area near Skelton Waterhole would experience an upward trend, due to the removal
of grazing within the pasture. This area would continue in PFC and would continue to meet
Rangeland Health Standard 2 over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
Page
19
Upland Vegetation
Affected Environment:
Vegetation data was compiled from Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) data on file at the Lakeview
District Office. The data for north Lake County was collected by BLM staff between the early
1990s and 2001. This data is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety and is summarized in
this chapter and in Appendix A.
There are 46 different vegetation types within the four allotments (Tables A2-A5, Map 6). The
dominant vegetation occurring on 41% of the four allotments is low sagebrush grass communities
in fair to good condition. The understory grass species within these low sagebrush sites include
Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and Blue Bunch Wheatgrass. Dominant vegetation combined
for the 4 allotments is summarized in Tables 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.
Table 3.3.2. Dominant Vegetation Communities by Allotment
Allotment
Egli Rim
Oatman Flat
Dominant Vegetation Community
Low sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, crested
wheatgrass seeding
Juniper, low sagebrush, mountain sagebrush
Tuff Butte
Murdock
Rabbitbrush, crested wheatgrass seeding
Rabbitbrush, mountain sagebrush, cheatgrass
Table 3.3.3. Dominant Vegetation within the Four Allotments Collectively
Percent of 4
Allotments
Low
Sagebrush
Basin Big
Sagebrush
Mountain Big
Sagebrush
Wyoming
Sagebrush
Green and
Gray Rabbit
brush
Juniper
41%
7%
6%
2%
10%
17%
Egli Rim Allotment
The dominant vegetation in this allotment is low sagebrush with a dominant understory grass of
bluebunch wheatgrass. The majority of this community is in good condition based on the ESI.
The Wee, Pettus and West seeding (Collins) pastures were seeded to crested wheatgrass in the
mid-1980s. Long term trend plots within these pastures indicate the seedings are stable with
sagebrush and rabbitbrush naturally increasing on site through natural successional processes.
Some cheatgrass occurs on these sites with very low frequency. Utilization of these pastures has
been moderate to high in the last recent years with the drought like conditions. Subsequently
those pastures have received one to two years of rest for plants to complete their reproductive
cycles completely and to allow the pasture a full recovery. The three other pastures are larger
and contain native vegetation in upward long term trend with plants having high vigor. The East
Native, Middle Native, Bench, and Lake Pastures all receive less use due to a lack of water in
drier years on these pastures. Two weed species are invading and could impact vegetation
conditions in the future (see noxious weed section).
Page
20
Tuff Butte Allotment
This allotment is primarily dominated by rabbitbrush and crested wheatgrass seedings on
approximately 36% of the allotment. The crested wheatgrass looks to have been planted
sometime during the 1960’s. Much of these seedings have benefitted range health by decreasing
density of cheatgrass plants in all 5 trend plots on the allotment based on photo trend analysis.
Four of the five trend plots were rated in upward trend with vegetation showing good seedling
recruitment and vigor. One trend plot in the west pasture looked to have and OAT in 2012 of
downward. This pasture was heavily grazed in 2012, showing low vigor of plants with very dry
conditions. This pasture was scheduled to be rested in 2013. Some accidental use did occur in
2013 with a lack of gap fences around Tuff Butte itself. West pasture was rested completely in
2014 to allow plants to recover from some use in 2013 and heavy use in 2012. Overall, the longterm-trend looks to be stable with appropriate species diversity and density of perennial plants.
Utilization has averaged moderate on the allotment with pastures typically grazed one year and
rested the next year, allowing plants a complete year of rest.
The allotment is also dominated by juniper (approximately 33%) with a variety of understory
grass vegetation. Post-settlement juniper has increased by approximately 5,000 acres and is outcompeting sagebrush and grasses due to a lack of reoccurring fire (see fuels reduction section).
Oatman Flat Allotment
Juniper with an understory of low sagebrush or mountain sagebrush and a variety of grass species
is the dominant vegetation on the allotment (approximately 50%). There are approximately 1,300
acres of post-settlement juniper encroaching on this allotment (see fuels reduction section).
Otherwise vegetation on the allotment is very diverse including silver, mountain, and basin
varieties of big sagebrush, both green and gray rabbitbrush, bitterbrush, juniper, and ponderosa
pine with a wide variety of understory species. Utilization has been measured moderate to heavy.
In those pastures and years with heavy utilization impacts were mitigated with rest the year
following year to ensure recovery of plants allowing them to fully complete their reproductive
cycle. There are 9 long-term trend plots located on the allotment. All trend plots are currently
rated at stable to upward based on photo analysis. Only one trend plot in 2009 showed a
downward OAT due to juniper invasion on site some loss of perennial grass was apparent. This
trend plot is due to be reread in 2014. The overall trend is vegetation has moved to a later seral
status with increase shrub and juniper cover and decreased perennial grass cover.
Murdock Allotment
Rabbitbrush with and understory of cheatgrass comprises 47% of the allotment with 44% of the
allotment comprised of mountain big sagebrush with and understory of crested wheatgrass. This
allotment has had moderate utilization levels for the last 10-years. In the South (Mahogany)
Pasture did receive 62% use in 2005 which is 12 percent more than the allowable 50% this
pasture was rested the following year to mitigate the higher than allowable use levels to allow
plants to fully recover from slightly higher use. This occurred again in 2005 where use was again
use was 60%. The following year was rested to mitigate slightly higher use levels. Although use
Page
21
was slightly above the 50% use was still considered to be moderate. This pasture is comprised of
crested wheatgrass which can receive some higher use.
There are 5 long-term trend plots within this allotment showing stable to upward trend within the
allotment. The overall trend of vegetation on the allotment in all pastures is natural successional
processes are occurring and increased shrub and rabbitbrush cover is increasing within the crested
wheatgrass seedings. Invasion from medusahead rye on the allotment is impacting vegetation
conditions (see noxious and invasive species section).
Environmental Consequences:
The impacts of livestock grazing on upland vegetation within the Lakeview Resource Area were
analyzed in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS 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 the rest rotation grazing systems utilized in all 4
allotments (BLM 2003a; pages 4-5 and 4-9).
Alternative 1: No Action
The upland vegetation communities would continue to be negatively impacted, primarily in
livestock concentration areas near water sources and cattle trails under this alternative. Livestocke
use would be concentrated within 0.1 mile around existing water sources (see impact discussion
in Soils and Biological Soil Crust section). An estimated 3,908 acres (6% of the allotments) of
concentrated vegetation use or trampling would continue around associated water developments
(in average years of use), and along fences.
This alternatives would continue to result in moderate to heavy forage utilization (vegetation
removal) while continuing to provide for soil health and vegetation productivity across the
majority of the allotments. The upland plant community and species composition would be
maintained at a stable trend.
Under the current grazing management, the allotments are meeting Rangeland Health Standards 1
and 3 related to upland watershed function and general ecological conditions (BLM 2004b, BLM
2014a, 2014b, 2014c 2014d). Continuing to graze as described in Alternatives 1 would be
expected to continue to meet these standards. The rest rotation grazing management would
continue to include rest to all pastures every second or third year. This grazing strategy would
sustain the current plant cover and species diversity. Grazing under this alternative has resulted in
moderate and on occasion heavy use levels on the allotments, but generally would result in
continued stable trends across the allotments.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 1. The additional 375 acres of
concentrated livestock use would occur associated with the additional 3 water sources and ¾ mile
of fence. These impacts are likely to be negated with increased distribution of livestock in
pastures and the fence on Tuff Butte keeping livestock within areas scheduled to be used.
Page
22
Alternative 2 would meet Rangeland Health Standards 1 and 3 related to upland watershed
function and general ecological condition. Grazing would be adjusted through the flexibility
provided in the annual application process when needed to control livestock distribution, grazing
utilization levels, and provide rest. The rest rotation grazing management would continue to
include rest to all pastures every second or third year. This grazing strategy would sustain the
current plant cover and species diversity. The upper use limits applied to each pasture under this
alternative would maintain grazing at more moderate intensities resulting in more diversity of
residual grass cover heights across the allotment and provide stable to upward trend of long-term
monitoring plots on the allotments.
This alternative proposes to treat medusahead invading the allotments within this EA. Control of
medusahead with imazapic within the allotments will benefit the vegetation resource and improve
rangeland health by decreasing an annual invasive. This will decrease competition for native
vegetation to occupy and create appropriate soil moisture while providing the optimum species
diversity and health for the vegetative community. Medusahead has the potential to create a
monoculture of vegetation which has little value to wildlife, livestock, or any resource use on
public lands and has economic disadvantages (see noxious weed section).
The proposal to reduce and treat pre-settlement juniper would improve native plant diversity and
improve understory vegetative cover improving overall range health conditions in those areas.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Plant community shifts occur slowly in the high desert climate without the influence of a major
disturbance such as fire, weed invasion, or other catastrophic event (Holechek et al. 2006). Under
this alternative, there would be little or no noticeable difference in plant communities in the shortterm (5 years) and possible some slight shifts in vegetation over the long-term (10 years). The
concentrated livestock use areas (3,908 acres) associated with fences and water sources would
reclaim naturally over the long-term (10 years).
No herbicide weed treatment would be implemented on the allotment, including the use of the
four herbicides authorized for use (2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate and picloram). Without herbicide
treatment, noxious weeds would continue to spread and compete or out-compete native
vegetation. A loss of native perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs would decrease the root holding
capacity within the soil, increasing the chance of erosion. Decreased diversity and cover of native
vegetation would decrease the health of the vegetative communities on the allotments.
Additionally, treatment of post-settlement juniper would not occur under this alternative causing
an increase of late successional juniper decreasing understory perennial vegetation.
Compared to the other two alternatives, the allotments under this alternative would likely
experience a downward trend in vegetation conditions and overall community health.
Overall, the allotments would generally continue to provide upland plant communities that would
continue to meet rangeland health standards 1 and 3 over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
Page
23
Fire/Fuels Management
Affected Environment:
The allotment is located in Desert West Fire Management Unit (FMU). Suppression of wildfires
is the primary fire management goal for this FMU. A number of fuel types are present in this
FMU. Vegetation within the allotment consists of sagebrush communities that are being
encroached by western juniper, in varying degrees. Grasses and shrubs are the primary carriers of
fire. Rapid rates of spread exist due to grass and shrub fuels and topography of the FMU.
Western juniper significantly alters fire behavior by adding intensity, holdovers, and increasing
spotting potential. These attributes can create containment issues, and cause burns to span
multiple burn periods. The timeframe when large fires typically occur is short, commonly
spanning August and September.
Fires in this FMU are generally infrequent, but when they occur during August and September
there is a high potential for large fire growth (example: Sharp Top Fire 1983). In general, all fires
are short in duration (majority of spread occurs within one to three burn periods). The majority of
ignitions in this FMU are caused by lightning. However, some large fires have been humancaused when those ignitions coincided with the timeframes that support large fire growth.
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a measurement used to determine how far a geographic
unit or plant community has departed from its historical fire regime or plant community
structure. A Condition Class 1 represents an area where composition and structure of vegetation
and fuels are similar to the natural (historic) regime. In other words, a Condition Class 1
represents what you would expect to find at the site prior to European settlement in the area. The
risk of loss of key ecosystem components is low. A Condition Class 2 represents an area where
composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are moderately altered from the natural regime.
The risk of loss of key ecosystem components is moderate. A Condition Class 3 represents an
area where composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are highly altered from the natural
regime. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.
Fire Regimes 2 and 4 and Condition Classes 2 and 3 are the most common for this area,
illustrating the expansion of juniper across most of the area presently compared to historic
estimates. To move the plant communities in the allotment toward a more appropriate fire
regime, the vegetation structure and composition over most of the area should be modified.
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1 - No Action
Fuel loadings would not be actively reduced through management actions under the No Action
Alternative. Plant communities would continue on a predicted successional transition to fullydeveloped juniper woodland. Fire fighters would be placed at greater risk during future
suppression efforts in environments with elevated fuel loads.
In areas being encroached by juniper, the size of most wildfires would remain small because of
Page
24
the reduced ability of the site to carry fire. This is caused by decreased understory herbaceous
plants and shrubs (areas lacking ground fuel connectivity). However, under severe conditions1
the risk of larger fires increases because of increased continuity of crown fuels. Fires under
these conditions have potential to burn large areas and are difficult to suppress.
Suppression actions under these conditions would rely primarily on indirect attack. This
suppression tactic relies on line constructed (hand, dozer, etc.), or existing fuel breaks such as
roads or streams, at some distance from the fire and unburned fuel between the fire line and
flaming front is burned as part of the suppression operation. This tactic increases the area
burned. Overall, the allotments would remain in a Condition Class 2 or 3, where the risk of
large-scale, high-intensity wildfires and risks to human life and the environment reach their
maximum.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would reduce intensity and severity of wildfires and risk to fire fighters by
altering the continuity of fuels in the allotments. Suppression actions would be able to employ
more direct attack strategies minimizing acres burned in wildfires. Firefighters may rely more
on natural fuel breaks and changes in fuels. Less fireline may need to be constructed to
suppress wildfires.
Implementation of this alternative would lower the risk of a large-scale, high-intensity wildfire
event occurring within the allotment. The overall FRCC rating of the allotment would likely
change from a Condition Class 3 to a Condition Class 1 or 2 as open, shrublands increase across
the landscape where closed-canopy juniper woodland stands are treated. Fire behavior in
severely treated areas would be expected to have low rates of spread, low fire intensities, and
low flame lengths immediately following fuel treatments.
Fuels reduction projects would produce smoke from pile burning fires and to a lesser degree dust
from mechanical treatments. Impacts to air quality from pile burning would range from reduced
visibility, to pneumonic irritation, and smoke odor affecting people in proximity to the Project
Area when such treatments are underway. These impacts would be short-lived, the greatest
impact would occur during the actual ignition or active burning phase, lasting from one to a few
days depending on the size or number of piles to be ignited. Residual smoke produced from the
burnout of large fuels, or slower burning fuel concentrations would occur, lasting for 1 to 3 days
following the ignition phase. Impacts to air quality from mechanical treatments would be
airborne dust generated while operating that would reduce visibility in the immediate Project
Area, ceasing quickly when such operations stop. The areas of greatest impact from mechanical
treatments would be the immediate project area and roads used in association with the project.
Subsequent site-specific burn plans would include a contact list of residents, and/or other places
of interest adjacent to the Project Area to communicate potential impacts.
_______________________________
1
Severe Conditions: Severe conditions could include any or a combination of all of the following: high
temperatures, low relative humidity, and high wind speeds.
Page
25
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Under this alternative, both overstory and understory fuels would increase at a slightly greater rate
than Alternative 1. The risk of future wildfires would be the greatest of all alternatives analyzed.
Fire fighters would be placed at greater risk during future suppression efforts.
Noxious Weeds and Non-Native Invasive Plant Species
Affected Environment:
Invasive plants (or weeds) are non-native, aggressive plants with the potential to cause significant
damage to native ecosystems and/or cause significant economic losses. They successfully
compete with native plants for light, water, soil nutrients, and space with the potential to result in
their dominance of plan community and the displacement of native plants and the fauna that
depends on them. Noxious weeds are a subset of invasive plants that are State or federally listed
as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or public or private property.
There are noxious weeds, non-native invasive plant species, and weed spreading vectors within
the allotments. The Following noxious weeds species are known to exist across the four
allotments: Mediterranean Sage (Salvia aethiopis), Medusahead Rye (Taeniatherum caputmedusa), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. Micranthos), and Whitetop (Lebidium
draba). A brief description of life histories for these species follows:
Hoary Cress (Cardaria draba (L.) Desv.)
Hoary cress is an erect perennial. The species reproduces by both seeds and through vegetative means. One
plant can produce from 1,200 to 4,800 seeds. The species also reproduce vegetatively, developing new
shoots from their extensive systems of vertical and horizontal roots. This is the primary method of spread.
The roots can penetrate deep into the soil at depths well over 10 feet. Because of these large and deep
underground systems, the three species form hard to control colonel colonies. This species can completely
displace desirable vegetation forming dense monocultures. Once established, they can be difficult to
control. Hand-pulling is fairly impractical with hoary cress due to its extensive root and rhizome system.
Mowing alone will not control Cardaria species due to its extensive root and rhizome system. Their roots
can remain alive even when the top-growth has been eliminated for a year. Improper cultivation or
disturbance can spread hoary cress by dispersing root fragment. Cattle tend to avoid eating them and those
animals that consume it may have tainted milk. In addition, plants containing glucosinolates, which can
form toxic compounds in cattle (DiTomaso et al. 2013, Page 76).
Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis L.)
Mediterranean sage is a biennial, sometimes a short-lived perennial. Plants produce only by seed and large
plants may produce 50,000 to 100,000 seeds. Seed dispersal occurs when mature plants break near the soil
surface and tumble in the wind, spreading seed for long distances. Little is known about seed longevity in
the soil, but it is expected that the seeds survive for several years. Mediterranean sage has spread over 1.3
million acres in the western United States with new infestation occurring each year. Between the allotments
the Lakeview BLM has estimated 45 acres of Mediterranean sage, with several hundred acres of
Mediterranean sage surrounding the allotments.
With small infestations, hand pulling or digging is feasible and effective. The root-feeding biocontrol
weevil, Phrydicuchus tau, is present with in the allotments. This species is a promising long-term
management strategy for Mediterranean sage. Areas near the allotment have enough Phrydicuchus tau
available that the site is used as a nursery site for the State of Oregon. The Phrydicuchus tau larva feeding
Page
26
damages flower shoot buds and root crown. Adults can cause minor defoliation of rosette leaves. The
biological control agent has been present near the allotments since the 1980s and would still continue to help
manage the Mediterranean sage for all alternatives. The biological control agent works in a cycle. Some
years Mediterranean sage plant populations will be high with lower numbers of insects. Over time insect
populations will be high and create low densities of Mediterranean sage plants populations and this is a
cycle.
Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)
This winter annual grass has a shorter life cycle than most grasses. This weedy grass species flowers in the
spring. Winter annual grasses are known to suppress other grasses in rangeland. All are fire promoters.
Since they germinate so early they also mature and dry out earlier in the season as well. The lack of
moisture in the plant matter allows the species to allow fire to quickly rage across the rangelands.
Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebeL. Ssp. Micranthos (Gugler) Hayek
Spotted knapweed is a bushy biennial to short-lived perennial. It produces both by seed and vegetative from
lateral roots just below the soil surface. New rosettes may develop at about 3-cm intervals along lateral root,
expanding population peripherally. Seeds can remain in the soil for up to 8 years and have three
germination patterns: non-dormant seeds that germinate with or without light exposures, dormant seeds that
germinate in response to light and dormant seeds that are not light sensitive. Spotted knapweed has been
shown to occasionally hybridize with diffuse knapweed. Spotted knapweed is highly competitive with
native vegetation. It forms dense stands that can exclude desirable vegetation and wildlife in natural areas.
Many of these weed infestations are present along roads, right-of-ways, and near disturbed areas
such as water developments. However, Medusahead rye has begun to spread out across the
rangelands of these allotments. The estimated acres of weeds have been summarized by allotment
in Table 3.5.1. These weeds are currently being managed under the Integrated Weed
Management Program EA (BLM 2004b). Through this plan, only noxious weed are currently
being managed using four herbicides (2, 4-D, picloram, glyphosate and dicamba), biological
control, and manual control methods.
However, none of these four herbicides or other available methods effectively controls
Medusahead rye. The only existing method that would likely have some effective control on
Medusahead rye would be to use glyphosate, but it may currently only be used through selective
spot spray applications on BLM rangelands. Medusahead rye is an aggressive winter annual grass
species that that is known for having a high silica content which makes it not palatable forage for
livestock or wildlife. This is the most troublesome species across the four allotments and is a
high priority for BLM control. There are also other non-native invasive species (that are not
legally designated by Oregon as noxious weeds) that do or are likely to cause similar impacts,
including Africa wiregrass (Ventenata dubia) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).
Environmental Consequences:
Effects of Noxious Weeds/Non-Native Invasive Species Common to All Alternatives
Noxious weeds are present along roads and right-of- ways, near water developments, and are
beginning to spread across the rangelands in the allotments. Since the noxious weeds have the
potential to spread through wind, water, animals, and humans, weeds would continue to spread
without effective control methods. In general, weeds spread at an average rate of 12% per year.
Page
27
Table 3.5.1.
Allotment
Existing Weeds and Proposed Control Methods
Known Noxious
Estimated Proposed
Weed Species
Acres
Herbicide
Rate
Egli Rim
Mediterranean Sage
(Salvia aethiopis)
30 Acres
Picloram
2 Quarts per
Acre
Egli Rim
Medusahead Rye
(Taeniatherum caputmedusa)
50 Acres
Imazapic
4-8 Ounces Per
Acre
Murdock
Medusahead Rye
(Taeniatherum caputmedusa)
200 Acres
Imazapic
4-8 Ounces Per
Acre
Oatman Flat
Mediterranean Sage
(Salvia aethiopis)
5 Acres
Picloram
2 quarts per acre
Oatman Flat
Spotted Knapweed
(Centaurea stoebe ssp.
Micranthos)
Whitetop (Lebidium
draba)
Medusahead Rye
(Taeniatherum caputmedusa)
5 Acres
Picloram
2 quarts per acre
5 Acres
2,4-D +
Dicamba
Imazapic
Tuff Butte
Tuff Butte
10 Acres
4-8 Ounces Per
Acre
Type of
Application
Broadcast
Ground
Application or
Aerial
Application
Broadcast
Ground
Application or
Aerial
Application
Broadcast
Ground
Application or
Aerial
Application
Broadcast
Ground
Application
Spot Spray
Broadcast
Ground
Application or
Aerial
Application
The spread of the noxious weed plant populations would likely have harmful effects on livestock.
Many studies and repeated landowner experiences show that weeds commonly reduce livestock
carrying capacity from thirty-five percent to ninety percent (Hiken 1980, USDA 1994a).
Effects Common to Alternative 1 and 2
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Egli Rim Allotment
The allotment would continue to be grazed during the current grazing period (4/1-8/15) under
both alternatives. Mediterranean sage and Medusahead rye are the only weeds currently within
the allotment.
Mediterranean sage originally invaded the allotment after a fire. The site has stayed relatively
close to the burn scar, which means cattle have not been a major vector of seed spread to date.
Since Mediterranean sage would be setting seed while the cattle are in the allotment it would be
possible for the cattle to assist in seed spread. However, Mediterranean sage seed has the ability
to break off from at the stem and blow in the wind, and it is more likely to be spread by the wind
than by livestock.
Page
28
Medusahead can spread from existing sites. Medusahead would also be producing seed during
the grazing period. However, livestock often avoid areas that are heavily infested since the plant
becomes unpalatable. Medusahead would continue to spread though wildlife, wind and spring
runoff vectors.
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Murdock Allotment
The allotment would continue to be grazed during the current grazing period (4/16-6/30) for both
alternatives. Medusahead rye is the only known weed in the allotment. The majority of the sites
are spreading from a large adjacent site on Forest Service land. During the time the cattle would
be in the allotment the medusahead will likely be in the flower stage and starting to set seed.
However, it is not likely that seeds would be dropping by the end of June; therefore the cattle
would not be a likely vector for the spread. Medusahead would more likely spread through wind,
wildlife, and spring water runoff vectors.
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Oatman Flat Allotment
The allotment would continue to be grazed during the same time frame (4/15-7/31) for both
alternatives. Currently there are only two weed species: Mediterranean sage and spotted
knapweed. Both of these species are located along the Highway 31 corridor. Deschutes County
is just north of the Oatman Flat Allotment, and is known for having one of the largest infestations
of spotted knapweed. Spotted knapweed is most likely being spread by vehicles traveling from
Deschutes County. Since both species are currently being aggressively managed it is not likely
that continued grazing would have any effect on weed spread.
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Tuff Butte Allotment
The Tuff Butte allotment would continue to be grazed during the same time frame (4/1-7/15) for
both alternatives. There is a very small amount of invasive plants in the allotment, which
demonstrates that grazing is not promoting or actively spreading weeds or invasive plants. The
only invasive plants are located along a power line right-of-way, indicating vehicles are a more
important vector of seed movement.
Effects of Range Improvement Maintenance
The continued maintenance of pipelines, troughs, wells, reservoirs and waterholes would continue
to cause some disturbance at the water development sites. This could lead to additional invasive
plant invasion. The fence maintenance would be non-significant to invasive plants.
Alternative 1: No Action
Effects of Weeds/Invasive Plants on Other Resources:
Livestock concentration and associated disturbance to native vegetation and soils around water
developments, fences, and within the non-excluded riparian areas would continue to provide an
Page
29
opportunity for weeds to invade these areas. While livestock would continue to serve as a minor
vector of seed spread, the majority of new weed infestations in the past 10-years (besides
medusahead) have been located along roads/utility lines.
Under Alternative 1, native plant communities would continue to be impacted by cheatgrass and
medusahead and may be invaded by Africa wire grass in the future. These species would
decrease plant diversity, habitat quality and productivity, and reduce forage available for livestock
and wildlife. There is a large amount of cheatgrass and medusahead that is invading these
allotments, except for a very few weeks early in the season, it is unpalatable. Noxious weeds
would continue to expand at their current rate.
Effects of Herbicides:
Although herbicides would be applied to fewer acres under this alternative than in Alternative 2
the potential toxicity of the four existing herbicides would be higher than the proposed herbicides
in Alternative 2. The 2,4-D and glyphosate present risks to mammals from direct spray and
consumption of contaminated grass at the typical and maximum application rates. Inadvertent
spraying of grass and other forage near treated invasive weeds, as well as drift and other avenues,
could result in increased risk of exposure. Picloram also presents low to moderate risks under
some exposure scenarios, and dicamba presents a low to moderate risk under food contamination
scenarios for typical and maximum rate respectively. Effects of these four herbicides on other
resource values are summarized in Table 3.5.2.
According to the analysis in Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicide on BLM Lands in Oregon
EIS (BLM 2010a), treatments that maintain or reduce the cover of noxious weeds and restore
native and other forage vegetation on grazed lands would benefit livestock and wildlife by
increasing the quantity and the quality of forage. Decline in range condition from invasive weeds
would be proportional to the acres projected to become infested over time. The difference
between the alternatives could be expected to have differing effects of grazing capacity over the
long-term (BLM 2010a: p. 4).
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
Effects of Weeds/Invasive Species:
This alternative would allow for an effective control method of non-native winter annual grass
species (medusahead rye, cheatgrass, and African wiregrass) by allowing more effective
herbicides. The reduced populations of annual grass species would allow the native grasses to
grow or recover with less competition.
Effects of Herbicides on Weeds/Invasive Species:
The use of the 4 existing herbicides (2,4-D, Dicamba, Glyphosate, and Picloram) would
generally be similar to Alternative 1 (see Table 3.5.2). In addition, under Alternative 2 imazapic
would be used to control invasive winter annual grasses. The non-native invasive winter annual
Page
30
Table 3.5.2. Environmental Effects of Existing Herbicides
Resource
2,4-D
Dicamba
Glyphosate
Picloram
Soils and
Biological
Crusts
2,4-D would have a very short half-life
that averages 10 days in moist soil. 2,4D would be readily broken into simpler
components soils which are typical on
the Allotments, but the break-down
would be slower in acidic soils.
Furthermore, most studies of the effects
of 2,4-D on microorganisms concluded
that the quantity of 2,4-D reaching the
soil from typical applications would
probably not have a serious negative
effect on most soil microorganisms
(Bovey 2001).
Dicamba would be moderately
persistent in soil. The half-life of
dicamba in soil is typically 1 to 4
weeks. Under conditions suitable
for rapid metabolism, the half-life
would be less than 2 weeks.
Metabolism by soil
microorganisms would be the
major pathway of loss under most
soil conditions. The rate of
biodegradation would increase
with temperature and increasing
soil moisture, and tends to be
faster when soil is slightly acidic.
Dicamba would slowly break
down in sunlight. It would be
stable to water and other
chemicals in the soil. Dicamba
does not bind to soil particles and
would be highly soluble in water.
It would therefore highly mobile
in the soil.
Dicamba would only be used
outside of the riparian areas.
Glyphosate would binds tightly
to soil particles. This binding
would increase with increasing
clay content, organic matter and
decreasing soil pH. Glyphosate
would biodegraded by soil
organisms and many use it as a
source of carbon. Currently no
information that indicates that
glyphosate would be harmful to
soil microorganisms and may
benefit some (Busse et al. 2004).
Picloram would break down primarily
through photolysis and biodegradation
mechanisms of dissipation (USDA
2000b). Picloram adsorbs to clay
particles and organic matter, but if the
soil contains little clay or organic matter,
picloram would easily move by water.
Picloram has been reported to remain
active in soil at levels toxic to some
plants for more than 1 year at typical
application rates (SERA 2003b). The
half-life of picloram in soil has been
reported to vary from 1 month under
favorable environmental conditions to
more than 4 years in arid regions (USDA
2000b). Picloram can be persistent in
plants. When plant parts containing
picloram degrade, they may release it into
the soil, where it can kill other plants.
Glyphosate, registered for
aquatic use, and would be
applied to wetland and emergent
aquatic vegetation. Strong
adsorption to soil particles and
organic matter slows microbial
degradation, allowing
glyphosate to persist in aquatic
environments in bottom
sediments (half-life of 12 days to
10 weeks) (Goldsborough and
Brown 1993, Extension
Toxicology Network 1996a, all
cited in Tu et al. 2001).
Picloram can move off site through
surface or subsurface runoff, and has
been detected in the groundwater of 11
states (Howard 1991). Picloram does not
bind strongly with soil particles and
would not degrade rapidly in the
environment (Tu et al. 2001).
Concentrations in runoff have been
reported to be great enough to damage
crops, and could cause damage to certain
submerged aquatic plants (Forsyth et al.
1997 cited in Tu et al. 2001).
(BLM 2010a:
p. 182-184)
Water
Quality
(BLM 2010a:
p. 184-185)
2,4-D: Some salt forms of 2,4-D are
registered for use in aquatic systems.
2,4-D has been a known groundwater
contaminant38 although potential for
leaching into groundwater would be
moderate by its being bound to organic
matter and its short half-life.
In terrestrial applications, most
formulations of 2,4-D would not bind
tightly with soils, and therefore would
have a moderate potential to leach into
the soil column and to move off site in
surface or subsurface water flows
(Johnson et al. 1995 cited in Tu et al.
2001
Dicamba: Dicamba has been a
known groundwater contaminant,
and has a high potential to leach
into groundwater. The EPA has
set health advisory concentration
levels for dicamba (e.g., 300 μg/L
for 1-day exposures
While glyphosate is very water
soluble it would be unlikely to
enter waters through surface
runoff or subsurface flow
because it binds strongly to soils,
except when the soil itself would
Page
31
Picloram would only be used in the
uplands where runoff into the stream
would not be an issue, because of the
potential negative effects described
above.
Riparian
Vegetation
(BLM 2010a:
p. 211-212)
2,4-D (aquatic): The principle hazard
would be unintended spraying or drift
to non-target plants; spot treatments
applied according to the labeled rate do
not substantially affect native aquatic
vegetation or significantly change
species’ diversity (USDA 2005a, WA
Dept of Ecology c).
Dicamba: Not for use in Riparian
Areas.
Only Aquatic formulations will be used
with in the riparian areas.
Upland
Vegetation
(BLM 2010a:
p. 146-147)
2,4-D (salts and esters) would be used
as a selective herbicide that kills
broadleaf plants, but not grasses. The
selectiveness would allow for weeds
control and native grass communities to
flourish. 2,4-D would have a long
history of use and would be relatively
inexpensive. Direct spraying of nontarget plant species would be the
highest potential for damage due to 2,4D application. Drift could damage nontarget broadleaf species close to the
application site (much less than 100
feet).
Dicamba would be used as a
selective, systemic herbicide that
can affect some annual, biennial,
or perennial broadleaf and woody
species as well as annual grasses.
Susceptible plants would
potentially be damaged by direct
sprays and drift. The greatest risks
to aquatic plants would be
associated with runoff, but are
highly site specific. Wind erosion
may cause impacts in arid regions
(SERA 2004g). Drift would have
potential to cause damage to
susceptible species at distances
less than 100 feet from the
application site. Vaporized or
volatilized dicamba can affect
non-target plants. Dicamba vapor
has been known to drift for
several miles following
Page
32
washed away by runoff; even
then, it would remain bound to
soil particles and generally
unavailable (Rueppel et al. 1977,
Malik et al. 1989, all cited in Tu
et al. 2001).
Glyphosate would be used along
banks to control grasses, and
herbaceous weeds and would be
approved for emergent aquatic
vegetation in riparian areas. It
has potential to move into
surface water with eroded soil
particles (although it would be
unlikely it will dislodge from the
particles and become active)
where it rapidly dissipates from
surface water by biodegradation
and adsorption. Freshwater
aquatic macrophytes and algae
are reported to be susceptible to
low amounts (20 mg/l
concentrations).
Glyphosate would prevent plants
from synthesizing three aromatic
amino acids including a key
enzyme, EPSP (5enolpyruvylshikimate-3phosphate). Glyphosate would
be a non-selective, systemic
herbicide that would damage all
groups or families of non-target
plants to varying degrees, most
commonly from off-site drift.
Plants susceptible to glyphosate
would be damaged by drift up to
100 feet from the application site
at the highest rate of application
proposed. Species that are more
tolerant are likely to be damaged
at distances up to 25 feet (SERA
2003a). Non-target species are
not likely to be affected by
runoff or absorption from soil.
Picloram: Not for use in Riparian Areas.
In the Pesticide Re-registration Fact
Sheet–Picloram (1995), the EPA noted
that picloram poses very substantial risks
to non-target (broadleaf and woody)
plants. The EPA also noted that picloram
would be highly soluble in water,
resistant to biotic and abiotic degradation
processes, and mobile under both
laboratory and field conditions. They
stated that there would be a high potential
to leach to groundwater in coarse
textured soils with low organic material.
Plant damage has potential to occur from
drift, runoff, and off-site where ground
water is used for irrigation or is
discharged into surface water (EPA
1995).
Because picloram persists in soil, nontarget plant roots can take up picloram
(Tu et al. 2001), which would affect
revegetation efforts. Lym et al. (1998)
application at high temperatures
(Cox 1994).
Dicamba would be applied early
in the day to prevent valorization.
Wildlife
(BLM 2010a:
p. 246-247)
Livestock
Grazing
(BLM 2010a)
2,4-D is one of the more toxic
herbicides for wildlife of the foliar-use
herbicides. The ester form would be
more toxic to wildlife than the salt
form. Ingestion of treated vegetation
would be a concern for mammals,
particularly since 2,4-D can increase
palatability of treated plants (USDA
2006b) for up to a month following
treatment (Farm Service Genetics
2008). Mammals would be more
susceptible to toxic effects from 2,4-D,
and the sub-lethal effects to pregnant
mammals were noted at acute rates
below LD50. Birds are less susceptible
to 2,4-D than mammals, and the
greatest risk would be ingestion of
contaminated insects or plants. The salt
form would be practically non-toxic to
amphibians, but the ester form would
be highly toxic. It would present low
risk to honeybees but little information
was available for other terrestrial
invertebrates.
2-4,D would present a low to moderate
acute risk to livestock under several of
the direct spray, ingestion, and spill
scenarios, and a moderate chronic risk
for large mammals for consumption of
on-site contaminated vegetation under
both typical and maximum rate (SERA
2006). The Risk Assessment suggest
Dicamba: No adverse effects on
mammals would be plausible for
either acute or chronic exposures
of dicamba. At the highest tested
rate, there would be adverse
reproductive effects possible for
acute scenarios consuming
contaminated vegetation.
Dicamba: The ingestion of food
items contaminated by direct
spray of dicamba at the typical
and maximum application rate
would pose a low to moderate
acute risk to large mammalian
herbivores respectively, and no
chronic risk. Dicamba would be
Page
33
Glyphosate strongly adsorbs to
soil particles, which would
prevent it from being taken up
from the soil by plant roots (Tu
et al. 2001, SERA 2003a).
Glyphosate may only be applied
though spot spray application on
rangelands which allows for
control of small populations of
invasive grasses and broadleaf
weeds.
Glyphosate would be a low
toxicity herbicide, widely used
for terrestrial applications and
would be approved for aquatic
use. Toxicity to most wildlife
groups is very low, so much so
that NOAEL levels are used
because the LD50 were not
found at high doses in many
cases.
Glyphosate would present a low
to moderate acute risk to
livestock under several of the
direct spray, ingestion, and spill
scenarios, and a low chronic risk
for large mammals for
consumption of on-site
contaminated vegetation under
recommended that livestock not be
transferred from treated grass areas onto
susceptible broadleaf crop areas for 12
months or until picloram would
disappeared from the soil without first
allowing seven days of grazing on an
untreated green pasture. Otherwise, urine
may contain enough picloram to injure
susceptible plants.
Picloram: Studies on birds, bees, and
snails generally support picloram as
relatively nontoxic to terrestrial animals.
The few field studies indicated no change
to mammal or avian diversity following
picloram treatment. Variations in
different exposure assessments would
have little impact to risk through
ingestion, grooming or direct contact.
Maximum rates have higher risk to
mammals due to contaminated grass or
insects. No information was found in the
literature about picloram’s effect on
reptiles (SERA 2003b).
Picloram would pose a low to moderate
risk for application at the typical and
maximum application rates for 100
percent absorption of direct spray by a
small animal would stand acute exposure
through consumption of contaminated
vegetation by a large mammal (SERA
2003b). Picloram is registered for use in
that because large livestock eating
larger quantities of grass and other
vegetation would be at risk from routine
exposure to 2, 4-D and because 2,4-D
is considered for use in rangeland, it
would not be applied over large
application areas where livestock would
only consume contaminated food. The
majority of the 2,4-D applications
within the four allotments will be spot
spraying or along roadsides. Due to
this the small areas where 2,4-D is
applied would not affect the livestock
grazing.
proposed for use in rangelands
and does have moderate residual
activity, livestock may be at risk.
However the use of dimamba will
be minimal within the Allotments.
Meat animals should be removed from
treated areas 3 days prior to slaughter
Page
34
the maximum rate (SERA
2003a). Ingestion of treated
grasses has potential to represent
a risk, but glyphosate is nonselective and kills grass,
suggesting that spot applications
in the allotments would be the
most appropriate use of this
herbicide. Spot applications
would reduce risk associated
with consumption of
contaminated vegetation, as
fewer non-target areas would be
impacted by direct spray or
spray drift. Based on label
direction, there are no restricts
on livestock use of treated areas.
rangeland and would be available to be
applied over large areas heavily infested
with weeds, as its primary targets are
broadleaf and woody species. Therefore,
in might be used to manage certain
broadleaved plants without impacting
native or other desirable grasses, but with
the potential to expose livestock.
Picloram has a number of restrictions on
use in areas grazed by livestock. In
general, livestock should not be grazed
on treated areas for 2 weeks after
treatment. Herbicide treatments using
picoloram would be coordinated with the
Range Staff to make sure the cattle are
not in the allotment during application if
large scale treatment is needed. Since the
allotments are such large areas small
scale spot spraying should not affect the
grazing animals.
grass species to be targeted with the imazapic application are medusahead rye (Taeniatherum
caput-medusae), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and African Wiregrass (Ventenata dubia).
Imazapic would allow control to be achieved on winter annual grass species. Imazapic would
limit damage to native grasses present in the allotments, if applied at the proposed rate (0.09375
1b. a.i). This would lead to containment of plants at existing sites and limit spread of new
populations. Removing the current infestation would allow the native grasses to recover through
both natural and assisted restoration measures. The potential effects of imazapic on other
resource values are summarized in Table 3.5.3.
Effects of Range Improvement Projects:
The well, pipeline, and associated troughs in the Egli Rim Allotment would have short-term
ground disturbances associated with construction and about 75 acres of additional concentrated
livestock use surrounding the 3 troughs. Overall, better distribution would allow the existing
water developments to have less total use and more recovery time. This would allow the native
plants time to out-compete the invasive plant that are often common to water development sites.
The two small additional fences (approximately ¾ of a mile constructed in the Tuff Butte
Allotments would also have some construction and trailing related ground disturbance (0.12 ac.),
but would not represent a significant effect to the non-native plants in the allotment.
AUM Allocation by Pasture
The proposed AUM allocation by pasture would lead to more evenly distributed utilization
across the allotments and less concentrated grazing disturbance at a given water source compared
to Alternative 1. While the pastures with new water sources would see an increase in dispersed
grazing use, the other pastures would receive more rest. Overall, the existing native plant
communities can support this level of distributed grazing use and would be expected to remain in
a healthy condition capable of out-competing potential new weed invasions across the majority
of the allotments.
Western Juniper Removal in Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments
This alternative would generally have more ground disturbances associated with juniper
treatments compared to Alternative 1. The ground disturbance associated with removal of the
juniper and burning of the piles has the potential to encourage spread of non-native invasive
plant species, especially winter annual grass species which seem to thrive or expand into newly
burned areas. Prescribed burning would increase the risk of annual grass invasion or spread.
However, there are no documented invasive winter annual grass species within the Oatman Flat
Allotment so risk of invasion in that allotment is low. In addition, the condition of native shrubs
and grasses would be expected to improve in vigor and spatial extent following treatment,
making it more difficult for invasive species to establish.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under Alternative 3, no measures would be taken to control noxious weeds, invasive annual
reduced. However, if noxious weeds were already present they would likely continue to spread.
Page
35
Table 3.5.3
Resource or
Use
Potential Effects of Imazapic
Proposed Herbicide: Imazapic
Soils
Imazapic would be moderately persistent in soils and has not been found to
move laterally with surface water. Most imazapic would be lost through
biodegradation. Sorption to soil increases with decreasing pH and increasing
organic matter and clay content. Sorption would be low within these
allotments.
Imazapic has low potential to leach into the groundwater. Imazapic would
have very high water solubility and negligible to slight potential for
transport in surface runoff, due to its adsorption potential with soil and
organic matter. It would be moderately toxic to fish, but is not proposed for
aquatic use. In addition, imazapic is rapidly degraded by sunlight in aqueous
solution, with a half-life of one or two days. Due to these characteristics and
the SOPs that would be employed by the BLM, water resources impacts
would not be anticipated to be significant from proposed imazapic
applications.
No effects would occur as there are no perennial streams or fish habitat in
the allotments and no treatment will take place with this herbicide within
riparian areas or wetlands.
Imazapic, an ALS-inhibitor, would be used as selective, systemic herbicide.
Direct spray of imazapic would not likely pose a risk to terrestrial animals.
Therefore, use of imazapic would primarily affect wildlife through habitat
modification. The Allotments do not have any documented sites of African
wiregrass. Therefore, the only areas planned for the use of imazapic would
be areas with planned range improvements. These areas would already have
temporary habitat modification and the use of imazapic would not add to the
habitat disturbance.
The use in rangeland and other wildlife habitat areas would benefit wildlife
by controlling invasive plant species, especially annual grass species. And
would promoting the establishment and growth of native plant species that
provide more suitable wildlife habitat and forage.
Risk quotients for terrestrial animals were all below the most conservative
LOC of 0.1, indication that direct spray or drift of imazapic would be
unlikely to pose a risk to livestock (Table 3-14; ENSR 2005h.) Based on
label direction, there would be no restrictions on livestock use of treated
areas, and since Imazapic will be applied in the fall there should be no
effects the livestock that use the allotment.
Imazapic would work by inhibiting the activity of an enzyme called
acetolactate synthase (ALS), which is necessary for plant growth. Imazapic
would be applied at a very low dose (6 ounces per acre). Because of the
high potency and longevity, this herbicide can pose a particular risk to nontarget plants. Off-site movement of even small concentration of this
herbicide can result in extensive damage to surrounding plants. Since
imazapic would be applied early fall most of the native vegetation would be
dormant from the long dry summers season. The key grass species listed
above for the Cahill Allotments are Thurbers needlegrass (Achnatherum
thurberianum), squirreltail (Elymus elymodies), Sandberg’d bluegrass (Poa
sandergii), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), basin wildrye (Elymus
cinereus), and Inland saltgrass (Distichlis stricta). These species would be
tolerant to Imazapic up to a rate of 12 ounces per acre (which is double the
rate we would be applying in the Cahill Allotment).
(BLM 2010a, p.
182-184)
Water Quality
(BLM 2010a, p.
188-208)
Fish, Riparian,
and Wetlands
Wildlife and
Special Status
Wildlife
Species
(BLM 2010a, p.
240-258)
Grazing
(BLM 2010a, p.
258-268)
Special Status
Plant Species
and Upland
Vegetation
(BLM 2010a, p.
144-146)
Target
Vegetation
Target
Areas
Medusahead
rye,
African
wiregrass,
Cheatgrass
Road
sides,
Range
lands,
ROWs
grasses, or invasive juniper. The disturbance around the water developments and trails would be
Even with the grazing removed, the native grasses and forbs would not be able to out-compete
with weeds where established. In particular, it is likely that medusahead and would continue to
spread across the allotments.
Page
36
Wildlife
Affected Environment:
Wildlife habitat is defined largely by the existing soils, topography, and vegetation communities
within the allotments. The allotments contain various vegetation communities which provide a
variety of wildlife habitats (see Table 3.3.2). The Rangeland Health Assessments for the
allotments determined that Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 (which relate to ecological
processes and wildlife habitat) were met in 2004 (BLM 2004a) and are still being met at the
present time (BLM 2014a). Water for wildlife within the allotments is available from a few
natural sources and livestock water developments (waterholes, reservoirs, and developed
springs). Competition for water can occur between wildlife and livestock in areas where water is
scarce.
The Egli Rim Allotment falls within the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wagontire
big game habitat management unit, the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments within Fort Rock
unit, and the Murdock Allotment falls within and Silver Lake unit. The mule deer and elk
populations are relatively stable within these units, but below the current management objectives.
While elk densities are low in the Fort Rock and Silver Lake units, elk cause significant damage
on private lands adjacent to Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments. Elk herd range
is not present on the Egli Rim Allotment. Pronghorn antelope herds range across all four
allotments and populations are stable to increasing, except within the Egli Rim Allotment where
trend data has indicated a declining population. The allotments comprise a small percentage of
the big game habitat units, but provide habitat capable of supporting mule deer, pronghorn
antelope, and elk. Habitat quantity and quality do not appear to be limiting big game population
size or health within the units. The area within the allotments provides year round habitats for
mule deer, including fawning habitat. There are currently 31 AUMs allocated for mule deer,
pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife species within the Egli Rim, 908 allocated AUMs for
mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, and other wildlife species within the Oatman Flat, 520
AUMs allocated for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, and other wildlife species within the
Tuff Butte, and 132 AUMs allocated for mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and other wildlife species
within the Murdock Allotments (BLM 2003b, pages A-48, A-95, A-97, and A-100, as
maintained). Based on previous consultation with ODFW biologists, these forage allocations are
adequate to support wildlife populations within the allotments.
Other mammals expected in the general area may 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 nongame birds
common to the Great Basin. There are many amphibian and reptile species that likely occur
within the allotments including fence lizards, sagebrush lizards, gopher snakes, rattlesnakes,
horned-lizards, and other common shrub-steppe reptile/amphibian species.
Table 3.6.1 contains 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://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~bbowman/birds/updates/abalist1.html (accessed 8/29/2013).
Page
37
American
Peregrine Falcon
Bald Eagle
Brewer’s
Sparrow
Burrowing Owl
Golden Eagle
Greater Sage
Grouse
Loggerheaded
Shrike
Sage Sparrow
Sage Thrasher
Wide range of habitats,
nests on cliff ledges,
bridges, quarries.
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
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
forbs.
Inhabits grasslands,
pastures with fence
rows, ag. fields,
sagebrush with scattered
juniper and open
woodlands. Requires
elevated perches
throughout for hunting
and nesting.
Found in se. and c. OR
Associated with semiopen 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.
x
(delisted)
x
(delisted)
x
(FC)
OR-SEN
Affected by Proposed
Actions In
Allotments with
Known or Potential
Habitat
Eagle Act
Game Birds Below
Desired Condition
Focal Species
Migratory Birds
Birds of Conservation
Concern
Special Status Species
Preferred Habitat
Species
Table 3.6.1. Wildlife Species with Special Designations
Avian Species
x
x
no
x
x
x
x
x
705, 707
yes
x
x
420, 705,
707, 710
no
420, 705,
707, 710
no
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Mammal Species
Page
38
x
420, 705,
707, 710
420
x
x
x
x
no
420, 705,
707, 710
yes
705, 707
yes
705, 707
yes
705, 707
yes
Kit Fox
Spotted Bat
Desert scrub and
grassland communities
Sagebrush with deep
soils
Trees, snags, buildings,
caves, cliffs, and
bridges.
Arid regions/rocky
outcroppings
Cliff Habitat
Townsend’s Bigeared Bat
Lava fields/Rocky Cliffs
/Abandoned Structures
Pygmy Rabbit
Fringed myotis
Pallid Bat
x
OR-SEN
x
OR-SEN
x
OR-SEN
420, 705,
707, 710
707,705,
707, 710
420, 705,
707, 710
no
x
420, 705,
707, 710
420, 705,
707, 710
420, 705,
707, 710
no
420, 705,
707, 710
no
x
OR-SEN
x
no
no
no
no
Insects
Western
x
Areas with appropriate
Bumblebee
flowering plants
OR-SEN
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
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 include the great horned owl, barn owl, short-eared owl, American Kestrel, chukar
partridge, California quail, common raven, various waterfowl and shorebirds, and other common
shrub-steppe bird species.
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 these bird
species are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether
they warrant consideration for ESA listing. The goal of this act 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 identified by the ODFW and
USFWS that are below desired condition (GBBDC) represent species whose population is below
long-term averages or management goals, or for which there is evidence of declining population
trends. Table 3.6.1 displays a list of the Migratory BCC and GBBDC in the 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 land birds and
many other species. Focal species are considered most sensitive to or limited by certain
Page
39
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).
Special Status Species
BLM policy on special status species (listed in Table 3.6.1) is to conserve those species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend (BLM 2008c). While there are no wildlife species
classified as federally-listed Threatened or Endangered or proposed or designated critical habitat
within the project area, the Greater Sage-grouse is a Federal Candidate Species and is currently
managed as a special status species.
Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons have been observed in the general area in all 4 of the allotments, possibly due
to releases from the Summer Lake hack site and may be an occasional visitor to the area.
However, no nesting habitat or actual nesting activity has been documented within the allotment.
For this reason, none of the alternatives would likely have any measurable impacts on peregrine
falcons or their habitat and are not carried forward for further analysis.
Bald Eagle
No bald eagle nesting habitat occurs within the 4 allotments. The closest known bald eagle nest
is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Oatman Flat Allotment boundary; however,
the nesting tree is suspected to have fallen, according to a 2012 survey report and subsequent
sites visits through 2014. Bald eagle foraging may occur within the allotment, however it is
probably restricted to road killed deer adjacent to the major roadways or occasional carrion
scattered through the allotment.
Ferruginous Hawk/Burrowing Owl
While potential habitat for ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl was identified in all 4 of the
RHA assessments, these species have not actually been confirmed within the allotments to date.
There have been no inventories or incidental sightings indicating ferruginous hawks or
burrowing owls. For this reason, none of the alternatives would likely have any measurable
impacts on ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl or their habitat and are not carried forward for
further analysis.
Golden eagles
Golden eagles (BOC species) have been observed within the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, and Tuff
Butte Allotments. The Egli Rim Allotment has one known nest with 1 successful young
observed in 2013. The Oatman Flat Allotment has four known nests of which two have known
nesting outcomes. Two successful young (less than 7 weeks old) were observed in one nest in
2013, and one successful young observed (2013) in the remaining nest. Nest sites have been
identified along the western and northern boundary of the Egli Rim Allotment, as well as one
Page
40
nest located on the northern boundary of Tuff Butte and eastern boundary of Oatman Flat
Allotments where suitable cliff habitat exists. No known golden eagle nest or nesting habitat has
been identified in the Murdock Allotment, and eagles are likely only occasional visitors.
Bats
Four Bureau Sensitive Species of bats 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 3 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). Chapman et al. 1994, suggest
that it is possible that grazing may physically enhance foraging opportunities, for pallid bats, by
reducing vegetative cover. 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 or lacking throughout
the 4 allotments. There are no known caves, adits, shafts, or outbuildings on the BLM portions
of the 4 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. Townsends big-eared bat summer roosts
and wintering habitat have been observed in the adjacent lava flow.
Due to the low potential or lack of roosting/resting habitat in the 4 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.
California Bighorn Sheep
California bighorn sheep range does not occur within the four allotments; however scattered
broken rims may provide habitat across the Egli Rim Allotment. Bighorn sheep may be
occasional visitors to the allotment. Bighorn sheep generally do not compete for forage with
cattle due to differences in habitat use patterns (ODFW 2003). For this reason, none of the
alternatives would likely have any measurable impacts on bighorn sheep or their habitat and are
not carried forward for further analysis.
Page
41
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) issued its 12-Month Findings which noted that that listing the greater sagegrouse 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. 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. 13939-13942). 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 sagegrouse across its range.
Collision Risks Associated with Existing Fences
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 existing fences within or along the boundaries of 4
allotments as a collision risk to sage-grouse.
West Nile Virus Risk Associated with Existing Water Developments
Another risk factor identified in the Monograph, the Oregon Strategy, and the 12-Month Finding
is West Nile virus spread by mosquitoes around standing water (Knick and Connelly 2011,
ODFW 2011, USFWS 2010). Sage-grouse are susceptible to West Nile Virus (Clark et al. 2006)
and mortality may be as high as 100 percent (Naugle et al. 2004) in certain areas. The virus is
primarily transmitted by infected mosquitoes, and was first detected in southeastern Oregon near
Burns Junction in 2006, and then later near Crane and Jordan Valley that same year. From
2006-2010, ODFW provided each successful sage-grouse hunting permit applicant with 2
Nobuto strips to collect blood samples from each harvested grouse to be assayed for west nile
virus. A total of 1,839 samples were assayed with 1 positive detection of the virus in the Beulah
WMU harvest in 2008 (letter from ODFW dated July 28, 2014). For these reasons, the risk of
virus spread or associated mortality associated with existing water developments would be low
and identical under all alternatives.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment
BLM’s sage-grouse interim management policy requires evaluating potential impacts to
preliminary priority habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat (PGH) (BLM 2011a). PPH
Page
42
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.
The policy also states that site-specific information should be incorporated for PPH using the
Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; see Stiver et al. 2010), when available, to characterize
sage-grouse habitat quality (BLM 2011a). HAF data represents third order (fine-scale) habitat
suitability and indicators. Sage-grouse select seasonal habitats (third order) within their home
ranges: breeding, summer, fall and winter periods (Connelly et al. 2004). Third order habitat
selection at the fine scale describes the physical and geographic area within home ranges. At this
level (third order) habitat descriptions (breeding, summer, and winter) map habitat indicators that
influence use of or movements between seasonal ranges which can be examined to determine if
limiting factors for habitat use exist.
The use and movement patterns typically observed of non-migratory sage-grouse indicate that
large areas of sagebrush habitat in good condition are important to sage-grouse. In better habitat
conditions, birds may not need to range as far to meet lek and seasonal use requirements. In a
study conducted in the northwestern portion of Lake County, Hanf et al. (1994), found that sagegrouse showed non-migratory movement patterns. Connelly et al. (2004) found most sagegrouse nest within 4 miles of a lek. Females typically distribute their nests spatially in relation to
the location of leks with >80% of nests located within a 6.4 km (4.0 mi) radius of lek sites.
Sage-grouse leks are located within or near the Egli Rim and Murdock Allotments, but are not
located within or near the Oatman Flat or Tuff Butte Allotment, based on the 4-mile proximity
criterion (Map 7).
Egli Rim Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are 6 known leks within the Egli Rim
Allotment and 1 occupied lek within 3.6 miles of the eastern allotment boundary (Table 3.7.1).
The allotment contains approximately 15,548 acres (71%) of PPH, as well as 6,171 acres (28%)
of PGH (Map 7). HAF was conducted on BLM-administered lands only and found that
approximately 42% of the allotment is currently yearlong habitat (Table 3.7.2).
Table 3.7.1. Egli Rim Sage-Grouse lek location
Lek Name
Status
Location
Muddy Waterhole (LA0906-02)
Upper Sheeplick Draw #1 (LA0906-01)
Upper Sheeplick Draw #2 (LA0906-03)
Sheeplick Lake (LA0905-01)
Egli Rim North (LA0912-01)
Egli Rim (LA0912-02)
Upper Sheep Corral (LA0904-01)
Picture Rock Pass (LA0910-01)
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Unoccupied-Pending
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
within allotment
within allotment
within allotment
within allotment
within allotment
within allotment
not within allotment
not within allotment
Page
43
Table 3.7.2 Sage-Grouse Assessment Framework (HAF) for Egli Rim Allotment
Acres
Habitat Assessment
Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Marginal
Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Marginal
Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Suitable
Breeding-Suitable_Winter-Suitable
Unsuitable-All
Yearlong-Suitable
Total
1826.2
463.1
275.1
2886.6
7018.6
9038.9
21508.48
Percent
8.5
2.2
1.3
13.4
32.6
42.0
100.00
Oatman Flat Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are no known leks found within the
allotment or within 4 miles of allotment boundary. The allotment does not contain PPH, but does
contain approximately 2,240 acres (6%) of PGH (Map 7).
Tuff Butte Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are no known leks found within the
allotment or within 4 miles of allotment boundary The allotment does not contain PPH, but the
does contain approximately 8,420 acres (76%) of PGH (Map 7).
Murdock Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are no known leks found within the
boundary of the Murdock Allotment; however, there are 4 leks found within 4 miles of the
allotment boundary (Table 3.7.3). The allotment does not contain PPH, but does contain
approximately 4,124 acres (78%) of PGH (Map 7). HAF was conducted on BLM-administered
lands only and found that approximately 25% of the allotment is currently breedingsuitable_summer marginal habitat (Table 3.7.4).
Table 3.7.3. Murdock Sage-Grouse Lek Locations
Lek Name
Status
Location
Silver Creek Silver Lake (LA0906-02)
Dry Creek Duncan (LA0906-01)
Duncan (LA0906-03)
East Duncan (LA0905-01)
Unoccupied-Pending
Unoccupied-Pending
Unoccupied
Unoccupied
not within allotment
not within allotment
not within allotment
not within allotment
Insects
The western bumblebee may occur in the 4 allotments. This species is suspected to occur on the
Lakeview Resource Area, but no records documenting their occurrence exist. Therefore, this
species will not be carried forward for further analysis.
Page
44
Table 3.7.4. Sage-Grouse Assessment Framework (HAF) for Murdock Allotment
Acres
Habitat Assessment
Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Marginal
Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Suitable
Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Marginal
Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Suitable
Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Marginal
Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Suitable
Breeding-Suitable_Winter-Suitable
Summer-Marginal
Summer-Marginal_Winter-Marginal
Unsuitable-All
Yearlong-Suitable
Yearlong-Marginal
Total
414.8
305.1
186.4
483.4
1059.9
164.6
47.8
398.7
93.0
46.0
644.8
429.9
4274.4
Percent
9.7
7.1
4.4
11.3
24.8
3.8
1.1
9.3
2.2
1.1
15.1
10.1
100
Environmental Consequences:
Alternatives 1: No Action
Bald and Golden Eagle
Stable trends for vegetation on the allotments should continue to provide adequate forage for
bald and golden eagle prey species resulting in an adequate food supply for nestling and adult
eagles.
Sage-Grouse
Currently there is little direct evidence linking grazing practices to population levels of greater
sage-grouse. However, testing the effects of livestock grazing at large spatial scales is
confounded by of the lack of control areas sufficiently large to include landscape testing of
impacts of grazing important to sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2011). As noted by Stohlgren et al.
1999, ranching as a land use generally supported greater biodiversity, as measured by native
plant species and shrub/grassland nesting birds than exurban development or reserves. Stohlgren
et al. (1999) research led to five generalizations regarding grazing impacts: (1) grazing probably
has little effect on native species richness at landscape scales; (2) grazing probably has little
effect on accelerated spread of most exotic plant species at landscape scales; (3) grazing affects
local plant species and life-form composition and cover, but spatial variation is considerable; (4)
soil fertility, climate, and other factors may have a greater effect on plant species diversity than
does grazing; and (5) few plant species show consistent, directional responses to grazing or
cessation of grazing.
Stohlgren et al. 1999, found no evidence that grazing led to a loss in plant species richness or
diversity at landscape scales in the vegetation types and management areas that were studied.
The continuation of rest rotation grazing systems in the allotments would promote healthy
sagebrush communities and the production of native grasses, and thus would maintain suitable
breeding and nesting habitat for sage-grouse. The timing of livestock turn out and trailing would
not contribute to livestock concentrations on leks during the breeding season.
Page
45
Nesting
Nesting sage-grouse consistently select areas with more sagebrush canopy cover and taller
grasses compared to available habitats (Hagen et al. 2007); tall, dense herbaceous cover—including residual grasses—in selected dense sagebrush stands increases the probability of a successful
hatch. Sage-grouse initiate nesting in April, prior to production of new herbaceous cover; thus,
residual grasses left from the previous year represent the initial cover available for nesting sagegrouse (Hausleitner et al. 2005, Holloran et al. 2005).
Residual vegetation cover, especially grass and litter, has often been noted as essential for
concealment during nesting and brood-rearing (Sveum et al. 1998a; Sveum et al. 1998b),
suggesting opportunities to improve herbaceous cover (without sacrificing safety of sagebrush
cover) may benefit fecundity. Nest predation has been linked to low herbaceous cover (Gregg et
al. 1994; Delong et al. 1995; Braun 1998; Coates and Delehanty 2010; Hagen et al. 2011). Sagegrouse select nesting sites specifically based on the amount of grass and forb cover (Hagen et al.
2007) because it is needed to conceal the nest from predators. Reduction of grass height due to
livestock grazing has been shown to negatively affect nest survival (Gregg et al. 1994).
However, abundant cover has also been shown to facilitate badger predation because it attracts
small mammals, the primary prey of badgers (Coates and Delehanty 2010). Adequate grass and
forb cover provides valuable hiding cover for young chicks (Schroeder and Baydack 2001), a life
stage during which mortality due to predation has been estimated to be highest, at 82% (Gregg et
al. 2007). To support maintenance of suitable grass and forb cover and minimize associated
predation risks, careful monitoring of grazing allotments within sage-grouse nesting habitat may
be coupled with livestock management to ensure suitable grass and forb cover is reserved.
Resting pastures from livestock grazing during periods of fastest growth of dominant grasses and
forbs in intermountain sagebrush-steppe generally enhances herbaceous plant growth and
reproduction and increases culm height, long-term tiller production, and flower and seed production (Pyke 2011) improving range conditions and habitat. Repeated grazing during this time
tends to favor sagebrush growth (Pyke 2011) through reduced competitive ability of grasses.
Brood Rearing/Breeding Behaviors
Spring or livestock grazing, as practiced in all 4 allotments, can be used as a tool to address
seasonal preferences for riparian plant species exhibited by livestock such as forbs, many of
which are important food sources during the brood rearing life history stage of sage-grouse.
Sage-grouse may avoid meadows where dense stands of grasses are dominant, controlled grazing
is recommended as a tool to prevent grass stands from becoming too dense. Thermal cover,
predator protection, and food availability are important for chick survival during the early broodrearing period with tall grasses and sagebrush creating this habitat structure. Brood-rearing
habitats having a wide diversity of plant species tend to provide an equivalent diversity of insects
that are important chick foods.
Page
46
Summer Habitat
According to Neel (1980), sage-grouse prefer grazed to ungrazed wet meadows where protective
cover conditions were otherwise equal, and rest-rotation grazing provided the best effects on
sage-grouse summer habitat through moderate stocking levels and a rest of a minimum of every
3 years. With few exceptions, ensuring adequate residual herbaceous cover through the nesting
season (through June in most areas) will provide for long-term resilience with plant communities
that include healthy bunchgrass understories and adequate residual grass cover and height to
support annual objectives (Pyke 2011).
Winter Habitat
Regionally relevant information (Hagen et al. 2011), found low sagebrush types are used equal
to or in higher proportion than their availability, which suggests these areas are important
wintering areas for sage-grouse and may also be important for other parts of sage-grouse life
history. Spring grazing may benefit sage-grouse winter range because grass reductions can
increase sagebrush densities (Wright 1970; Beck and Mitchell 2000) suggesting an opportunity
to graze winter habitats in spring when brood-rearing habitats would be avoided, and vice versa.
Winter diet of sage grouse consists almost exclusively of sagebrush, and winter habitat must
provide adequate amounts of sagebrush exposed above snow level.
General Wildlife Habitat
Under this alternative there would be very little change in the existing quality of wildlife habitat
for most wildlife species including big game, nongame bird and mammals, raptor, and migratory
bird habitats over the short-term (5 years). All of the allotments would continue to provide
adequate quality wildlife habitat that is capable of supporting an appropriate assemblage of
sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 would continue to be
met in the Egli Rim and Murdock Allotments over the 10-year analysis timeframe. However,
juniper encroachment would continue and over the long-term (10 or more years) would suppress
native shrub, grass and forb species that many sagebrush obligate wildlife species depend upon.
In addition, even though integrated weed management actions would occur, invasive species
would continue within the allotments and would likely expand over the long-term. The effects of
herbicide use on wildlife are discussed further in Table 3.5.2. This would have a negative effect
on wildlife habitats, particularly within the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments and could
lead to Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 not being met in the future. In addition, even
though integrated weed management actions would occur under this alternative, invasive species
would continue within the allotments and would likely expand over the long-term which would
have a negative effect on wildlife habitat quality. The effects of herbicide use on wildlife are
discussed further in Table 3.5.2.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
In general, the effects of renewing the grazing permit and continued grazing across the four
allotments under this alternative would be similar to Alternative 1. However, the existing
integrated weed management program would be expanded under this alternative which would
constrain or reduce invasive species across the allotments and over the long-term which would
Page
47
have a positive effect on wildlife habitat quality. The effects of herbicide use on wildlife are
discussed further in Tables 3.5.2 and 3.5.3. Effects that are specific to each allotment are
discussed below.
Egli Rim Allotment
The construction of water developments can increase the uniformity of grazing by improving the
distribution of grazing (Laycock 1983). Hart et al. (1993) showed that decreasing pasture size
and reducing distance from water were more important for improving forage utilization patterns
than implementing intensive rotational grazing systems.
As discussed earlier, West Nile virus can be spread by mosquitoes around standing water, but the
virus has not been detected near the allotments or in southeast Oregon since the first observations
in 2006 (DeBess 2009). For these reasons, construction of the proposed new water development
project in this allotment would have little to no increased risk of spreading the virus.
Oatman Flat Allotment
Under this alternative, juniper treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. However, if left
unchecked, juniper would continue to suppress native shrub, grass and forb species that
sagebrush obligate wildlife depend upon. Removal of post-settlement juniper would maintain or
restore sagebrush steppe habitats to proper functioning condition. The Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance
Populations and Habitat (ODFW 2011), and the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative Plan (ODFW
2009), support this need for sage-grouse and mule deer habitat restoration, respectively.
Four bird species identified as Birds of Conservation Concern are associated with healthy
sagebrush habitats. They include sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella
breweri), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
Taylor et. al. (2005) identified management goals for these species, including increasing the
amount of healthy sagebrush habitats across the historic distribution, maintaining existing high
quality sagebrush habitats, and restoring or enhancing degraded and converted sagebrush habitats
where feasible and appropriate. Taylor et al. (2005) also identified additional bird species that
depend on old-growth or mature juniper woodlands with management goals for these species,
that include protection of existing old-growth juniper woodlands and managing lands to maintain
current distribution of mature and old-growth habitats at existing levels over time.
Sage-grouse rely heavily on sagebrush systems throughout the year for foraging, cover and forbs
when available during the green-up periods of the year (Connelly et. al. 2011). They also require
residual herbaceous cover around nesting sites to conceal them from nest predators each spring
(Gregg et. al. 1994, Holeran et. al. 2005, Connelly et. al. 2011). Sage-grouse also require open
areas each spring for use as strutting grounds with adequate visibility to detect predators both
aerial and terrestrial. Sage-grouse avoid juniper communities for strutting, nesting and winter
use (Doherty et al. 2008; Freese 2009); however they occasionally use open juniper communities
for shade during hot summer afternoons. The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment
and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitats (Oregon
Strategy) (ODFW 2011) represents the most current and comprehensive sage-grouse
Page
48
management guidelines for Oregon. The Oregon Strategy identifies juniper invasion as a
problem in the local area and recommends management actions at the local, project level scale
that include the removal of juniper by mechanical or prescribed fire means, as long as the
activities promote the return of sagebrush, native grasses, and forbs.
Negative impacts from disturbance, juniper treatments and prescribed burning on wildlife species
including big game, nongame bird and mammals, raptor, and migratory bird habitats would be
minimal and short-term. Removing juniper and burning the slash would remove some of the
bitterbrush browse currently available over the short-term. However, retention of most shrubs
within the area would retain foraging habitats while reducing competition between forage species
and juniper. Removing juniper would improve food and shrub cover for small mammals by
increasing shrub and herbaceous recruitment and seed production.
There is an increased threat of noxious weeds being introduced into the area by administrative
vehicles associated with conducting the prescribed burns and other mechanical activities.
Tuff Butte Allotment
The construction of fences can increase the uniformity of grazing by improving the distribution
of grazing (Laycock 1983). Hart et al. (1993) showed that decreasing pasture size and reducing
distance from water were more important for improving forage utilization patterns than
implementing intensive rotational grazing systems.
ODFW (2011; page 13) cites two unpublished studies that documented sage-grouse mortality
associated with fencing as a risk factor in winter habitat in Wyoming and near lek sites in Idaho.
IM No. 2012-043 based on the “Steven’s” model identified in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS 2012) guidelines recommend marking high risk fences within 1.25
mile of occupied or occupied pending leks with anti-strike markers (reflectors). Neither of the 2
proposed fences in the allotment fall close enough to require anti-strike markers or were
otherwise identified as a high risk fence. For this reason, the risk of collision-related mortality
associated with the new fences would be very low.
Murdock Allotment
Under this alternative, the effects of juniper treatments on wildlife habitats, including sagegrouse, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, and loggerhead shrike habitat, would be
similar to those described in the Oatman Flat Allotment.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Under this alternative there would be very little change in the existing quality of wildlife habitat,
including big game, nongame bird and mammals, raptor, migratory bird, or special status species
habitat in the short-term (5 years) compared to Alternatives 1 or 2. All of the allotments would
continue to provide wildlife habitat that is capable of supporting an appropriate assemblage of
sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. The existing sagebrush habitat formerly impacted by
livestock trailing and concentration near existing water sources would improve over the long-
Page
49
term. This would provide some increased forage availability for many wildlife species, as well
as increased nesting habitat for ground nesting birds; however, forage availability does not
appear to be limiting these species populations at this time.
A previous review of literature discussed positive and negative impacts of grazing on sagegrouse habitats (Beck and Mitchell 2000) and indicated that simple modifications (such as
removing livestock) may not have the desired consequences for habitat conditions. According to
Lousia et al. (2013), models indicate that passive management, such as the removal of livestock
grazing, would not restore sagebrush communities that were cheatgrass-dominated or juniperencroached. Livestock removal does not necessarily result in large changes to sage-grouse
populations. For example, livestock have been excluded at Hart Mountain National Antelope
Refuge since 1995, where abundance of sage-grouse have fluctuated similarly as they have
elsewhere in Oregon (Hagen 2011). The effects of this alternative on sage-grouse habitat would
be similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, as the allotments would continue to provide adequate habitat
for sage-grouse over the short-term (5 years).
Stable trends for vegetation on the allotment should continue to provide forage for bald and
golden eagle prey species resulting in an adequate food supply for nestling and adult eagles over
the short-term.
However, in the absence of juniper and weed treatments, a gradual decline in wildlife habitat
diversity is expected, including loss of native understory shrubs, forbs, and grasses. While
Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 would likely continue to be met over the 10-year analysis
timeframe in the Egli Rim and Murdock Allotments, as juniper continues to increase habitat
conversion is likely to have a substantial, negative impact on sagebrush obligate wildlife habitats
within the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments over the long-term (10 or more years) similar
to Alternative 1.
Livestock Grazing Management
Affected Environment:
One, 10-year permit (#3601441) authorizes livestock use on the four allotments with a total of
4,077 AUMs by one permittee. Each allotment is discussed individually below.
Affected Environment: Egli Rim Allotment
This allotment is located 10 miles east of Silver Lake Oregon and has a total of 21,508 acres of
BLM-administered lands and 374 acres of private land. The 10-year permit authorizes 1,056
AUMs to be used between 4/1 and 8/15. There are 20 AUMs allotted for big game 11 AUMs
allotted for other wildlife. This allotment contains 7 pastures grazed in a rest-rotation system
where each pasture is grazed every other year generally. The Pettus, Wee, and West Seeding
pastures were seeded with crested wheatgrass while the East Native, Middle Native, West Native
Bench, and West Native Lake Pastures are primarily native grass vegetation.
Page
50
Following the Lakeview Grazing Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (BLM
1982) allotments were placed in management categories (maintain, improve, or custodial) based
on the following factors:
123456-
present resource conditions
potential productivity
presence of resource conflicts or controversy
present management situation
opportunity for positive economic return
appropriate local factors
The Egli Rim Allotment is categorized as a “maintain” (M) category. This category was
determined by a set of criteria:
• Present range condition satisfactory
• Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential, and are producing near their
potential (trend is moving in that direction)
• No serious resource-use conflicts exist
• Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investments
• Present management appears satisfactory
• Other criteria appropriate to area
An interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in
2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards.
The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In 2004 and 2014,
RHA all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of the conditions are contained in
Table 3.8.1 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004a, 2014a).
Environmental Consequences: Egli Rim Allotment
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file
and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the Egli
Rim Allotment. Trend photos on 7 long-term trend transects indicate stable and upward trend
and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The average
actual use for the last 10-years has been 613 AUMs. This is substantially lower than the
permitted 1,056 AUMs allowable on the allotment. Due to some years of dry climate conditions
on the allotment several pastures were not able to be used due to a lack of water in them. These
pastures include the bench, lake, and sheep dip pastures. Use would continue in pastures with
reliable water regularly and use would occur in pastures with less reliable water during more wet
years. Existing range improvements would be maintained as needed to support continued
livestock management objectives. The number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to
fluctuate based on forage and water availability. Rangeland Health Standards would likely
continue to be met.
Page
51
Table 3.8.1. Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Egli Rim Allotment (00420)
Standard
1. Watershed
Function –
Uplands
2. Watershed
Function
Riparian/
Wetland
Areas
2004
Assessment
Met
Met
2014
Assessment
Update
Met
Met
Comments
Upland soils in the Egli Rim Allotment exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability appropriate for soil,
climate, and land form. Root occupancy for the soil is appropriate. The plant composition and community structure is defined by the
soil type and precipitation zone. The Soil Surface Factor is slight in the majority (73%) of the allotment. Approximately, 6% of the
allotment was rated as stable and 21% of the allotment was rated as moderate for soil surface factor rating. 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. Overall a diverse plant community exists to provide root systems throughout the soil
profile, providing soil stability and water storage within the plant and soil systems. The most abundant plant composition is low
sagebrush with bluebunch wheatgrass as the dominant perennial grass occurring on 53% of the allotment. This vegetation was rated to
be in good condition and in late ecological status.
There are no perennial streams in the Egli Rim Allotment. There are a number of intermittent drainages that seasonally flow into the
Christmas Valley basin during precipitation events or during spring snowmelt. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies
several of these drainages as “riverine” systems, but due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation.
The NWI also identifies 11 small palustrine wetlands and 3 lacustrine systems scattered across the allotment totaling about 80 acres.
The 3 largest areas sit along in the southern boundary of the allotment and actually represent seasonally flooded playa lakebeds that do
not support wetland or riparian vegetation.
There is one permanent lake in the northeast corner of the allotment that provides about 2 acres of palustrine wetland habitat along the
shore. However, this area is not currently grazed, so livestock have no potential to impact this wetland.
The rest of these areas represent livestock water developments and are not wetlands.
Plant production 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 trend is stable to upward within the allotment. No special status plant species
have been documented in the allotment.
3. Ecological
Processes
4. Water
Quality
5. Native,
T/E, and
Locally
Important
Species
Met
NA
Met
Met
NA
Met
Noxious weeds that have been previously noted in the area and have been controlled near Highway 31 and the allotment boundary
include musk thistle and diffuse knapweed. The 2004 RHA mentioned possible populations of medusahead rye and Mediterranean sage
occurring in small isolated areas. Currently these weed populations have increased and threaten the natural vegetation community. The
Mediterranean sage population is estimated at 30 acres and growing. There are also larger infestations of medusahead rye. Both
species are being managed by the current integrated weed management plan, but effective control methods have not yet been approved.
Overall, this standard continues to be met across the allotment.
This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams which must comply with State water quality
standards. While there is one permanent lake in the northeast corner of the allotment, this area is not currently grazed, so livestock
have no potential to impact water quality.
The allotment contains an appropriate assemblage of wildlife species and wildlife habitat expected for the shrub-steppe ecosystem.
Special status wildlife species or habitats potentially present within this allotment may include bighorn sheep, bald eagle, ferruginous
hawk, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, sage-grouse, Townsends big-eared bat, fringed bat, pallid bat, spotted bat, kit fox, and pygmy
rabbit. There are also several species with high public interest or concern. These include golden eagle, mule deer, pronghorn, and elk.
There are no known resource conflicts between current livestock grazing management activities and existing wildlife species (including
special status species) or their habitat within the allotment. For these reasons, this standard is being met. See discussion of Standard 5
below for more details.
Page
52
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain the permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing
system, and current grazing management. A new well and pipeline would be constructed
providing additional water to three pastures, which would increase distribution of livestock and
reduce grazing pressure at existing water sources. This would provide a reliable water source in
the Middle Sheep Dip Pasture which is currently limited to use in only high water years provided
by livestock dugouts. This alternative incurs maximum stocking rates on a per pasture basis
across the allotment to ensure the 50% utilization standard would not be exceeded. Rangeland
Health Standards would continue to be met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the
1,051 AUMs of lost forage in the allotment. The additional cost to replace this forage would be
at the permittees 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. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the
BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent
pastures. Although there is 374 acres of private land within the allotment the permittee does not
own this land and those acres are not included in the forage allocation on this allotment. Those
private lands could still be grazed by privately owned livestock, but the owner would be required
to keep his livestock off of public lands through the construction of a fence or other means. It is
possible that some unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment. Regardless,
Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Affected Environment: Oatman Flat Allotment
This allotment is located about 4 miles northwest of Silver Lake, Oregon. The Oatman Flat
Allotment has a total of 28,256 acres of BLM-administered lands and 6,966 private land acres.
The 10-year permit authorizes 2,082 AUMs to be used sometime between 4/15-7/31. This
allotment contains 6 pastures grazed in a rest rotation grazing system during the spring and
summer months.
The Oatman Flat Allotment is categorized as an “Improve” (I) category allotment. The allotment
has low forage production potential and historically has had some conflict between livestock
grazing in the winter within deer winter range. Livestock grazing was changed from winter
grazing to spring-summer grazing, eliminating the conflict between livestock and wildlife. An
allotment management plan was drafted up sometime in the early 1980s, but is out of date with
current management. An allotment management plan (AMP) was drafted up in the early 1980s.
Some of the management goals were implemented and included vegetation treatments of juniper
and establishment of a rest rotation grazing system. Other portions of the AMP are currently
considered out of date and have not been implemented.
Page
53
An interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in
2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards.
The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In 2004 and 2014,
all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of these assessments are contained in Table
3.8.2 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004b, 2014b).
Environmental Consequences: Oatman Flat Allotment
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file
and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the
Oatman Flat Allotment. Trend photos on 9 long-term trend transects indicate stable or upward
trends and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The
average actual use for the last 10-years has been 672 AUMs. This is substantially lower than the
permitted 2,082 AUMs. Due to some years of dry climate conditions, several pastures were not
used due to a lack of water. Under this alternative, regular use would continue in those pastures
with reliable water, while those pastures with less reliable water would be used only during more
wet years. Existing range improvements would be maintained, as needed to support continued
livestock management objectives. The number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to
fluctuate based on forage and water availability. There would potentially be a decline in forage
production over the long-term as western juniper would continue to expand into the area in the
absence of wildfire. Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing
system, and most aspects of current grazing management. This alternative would incur
maximum stocking rates on a per pasture basis within the allotment, while ensuring that the 50%
utilization standard would not be exceeded within each pasture. Rangeland Health Standards
would continue to be met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would be limited to wildlife species and grazing on the allotment
would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the 2,082 AUMs of lost forage in
the allotment. The additional cost to replace this forage would be at the permittees 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. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the
BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent
pastures. Although there is 6,966 acres of private land within the allotment the permittee does
not own this land and those acres are not included in the forage allocation on this allotment.
Those private lands could still be grazed by privately owned livestock, but the owner would be
required to keep his livestock off of public lands through the construction of fencing or other
Page
54
Table 3.8.2 Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Oatman Flat Allotment (00705)
Standard
2004
Assessment
2014
Assessment
Update
The 2004 rangeland health assessment (RHA) found Soil Surface Factor for the majority of the allotment (71%) was in the slight
category and 16% of the allotment in the stable category. Plant composition and community structure of grasses, forbs, and
shrubs were what was expected for the area. There was good plant vigor and plants able to complete their reproductive cycle
following the grazing rotation. Organic matter in the form of litter was accumulating and being incorporated into the soil.
1. Watershed
Function –
Uplands
Met
Met
2. Watershed
Function
Riparian/
Wetland
Areas
Met
NA
3. Ecological
Processes
Met
Met
4. Water
Quality
NA
NA
5. Native,
T/E, and
Locally
Important
Species
Comments
Trend data shows that plant cover and the amount of distribution of bare ground is within the range of variability expected for the
ecological sites found in the allotment. Due to the diverse vegetation within the allotment, the most abundant vegetation type only
comprises 20% of the allotment and is dominated by juniper, mountain big sagebrush, with an Idaho Fescue understory. Some
cheatgrass occurs in the allotment. Juniper is continuing to encroach into the allotment and is having a negative impact on
watershed function. Some successful juniper treatments have occurred in recent years in the Hockeman/East Ceres Flat and Black
Hills Pastures totaling 1300 acres.
There are no perennial streams in the allotment. There are a number of intermittent drainages that seasonally flow during
precipitation events or during spring snowmelt. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies several of these drainages as
“riverine” systems, but due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation.
The NWI also mis-identifies about 535 acres of forested/shrub wetlands on BLM-administered lands within the allotment. Based
on examination of digital orthophotos, these areas actually represent playa lakebeds that do not support wetland/riparian
vegetation or are alkaline shrublands that do not meet the definition of a wetland. The NWI also identifies about 28.7 acres of
palustrine, emergent wetlands and 3 acres of freshwater ponds scattered across BLM-administered lands. Virtually all of these
acres represent livestock water developments and are not wetlands. For these reasons, this standard is not applicable to the
allotment.
Most plant reproduction is appropriate for site conditions and organic matter is being incorporated in the soil. Trend photos
indicate appropriate vigor of vegetation species with trends stable to upward within the allotment. Noxious weeds mentioned in
the 2004 RHA update are a few small historic patches of musk thistle and diffuse knapweed. These species are being managed
through the more up to date IPM invasive plant management program. Current noxious weeds occurring in the allotment are
Mediterranean sage and spotted knapweed. Other likely invasive plants to invade the allotment are bull thistle, Canada thistle, and
medusahead rye.
This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams or other water sources in this allotment
which must comply with State water quality standards.
The allotment supports an appropriate assemblage of sagebrush-steppe wildlife habitat and populations. There are 730 AUMs of
forage allocated for deer and pronghorn, another 150 AUMs of forage allocated for elk, and 28 AUMs allocated for other wildlife.
These forage allocations are adequate to support currently wildlife populations.
Met
Met
Special Status wildlife species or their habitats that may be present within the allotment include bald eagle, ferruginous hawk,
peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, kit fox, sage-grouse, and pygmy rabbit. Species of high public interest in the allotment are mule
deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope. About 2,240 acres of sage-grouse preliminary general habitat (PGH) occurs within the
Connelly Hills/Horning Gap pastures of the allotment.
Page
55
Table 3.8.3 Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Tuff Butte Allotment (00707)
Standard
2004
Assessment
2014
Assessment
Update
Comments
The 2004 rangeland health assessment (RHA) states that Soil Surface Factor (SSF) for the majority of the allotment (74%) was in
the slight category with 10% being stable and 4% in the moderate SSF rating. Plants communities were stable with some juniper
encroachment noted as impacting watershed function and ecological conditions.
1. Watershed
Function –
Uplands
Met
Met
Some invasion of cheatgrass was previously documented. Some long-term trend photos showed a decrease in cheatgrass with the
introduction of crested wheatgrass on some sites. Cheatgrass is still a component in the allotment today, but has decreased in total
cover.
Organic matter, in the form of litter, is accumulating and being incorporated into the soil. For these reasons, the allotment
continues to meet this standard.
There are no perennial streams on BLM lands within the allotment. There are a few intermittent drainages that seasonally flow
during precipitation events or spring snowmelt. Due to their intermittent nature, these drainages do not support wetland or
riparian vegetation. As a result, there are no lotic wetlands or associated riparian areas.
2. Watershed
Function
Riparian/
Wetland
Areas
Met
Met
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) shows about 350 acres of palustrine, emergent wetland along the western boundary of the
allotment associated with the Paulina Marsh. The majority of these acres are on private land. The few acres located on BLMadministered lands were found to be in proper functioning condition (PFC) during the 2004 RHA and are assumed to still be in
PFC.
There are another 10 acres of freshwater ponds in this same area. Based upon a comparison with the digital orthophotos, these
areas represent livestock water developments or playa lakebeds that do not support wetland vegetation or otherwise do not meet
the definition of a wetland.
The dominant vegetation community (36%) on the allotment is rabbitbrush with crested wheatgrass or cheatgrass as the
understory. Juniper/sagebrush/grass community is the next most abundant vegetation type on the allotment (33%) of the
allotment. Most plant reproduction is appropriate and organic matter is being incorporated in the soil.
3. Ecological
Processes
Met
Met
Long-term trend monitoring photos generally indicate a stable to upward trend across the allotment. However one long-term
monitoring site does show a decrease in trend due to an increase Juniper causing a decrease in perennial grasses on the site.
Grazing is not a causal factor in the downward trend at this one site.
Juniper has increased across the allotment and is impacting ecological community diversity and processes of energy flow. Known
noxious weeds species located on this allotment include whitetop and medusahead.
4. Water
Quality
NA
NA
This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams or other water sources in this allotment
which must comply with State water quality standards.
No special status plant species have been documented within the allotment.
5. Native,
T/E, and
Locally
Important
Species
The allotment supports an appropriate assemblage of wildlife species and populations.
Met
Met
Special status wildlife species or their habitat that may be present in the allotment include the bald eagle, ferruginous hawk,
peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, kit fox, sage-grouse, and pygmy rabbit. Species of high public concern may include mule deer,
elk, and pronghorn antelope.
Page
56
No conflicts have been identified between any wildlife species and livestock grazing at this time. For these reasons, this standard
continues to be met.
Page
57
means. It is possible that some unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment.
Regardless, Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Affected Environment: Tuff Butte Allotment
This allotment is located about 9 miles northeast of Silver Lake, Oregon. An allotment
management plan was drafted up sometime in the early 1980s, but is out of date with current
management. The allotment has a total of 8,936 acres of BLM-administered lands and 2,192
private land acres. A 10-year permit authorized 536 AUMs to be used sometime between 4/17/15. Five hundred and twenty AUMs are allocated for wildlife. This allotment contains 4
pastures grazed in a rest rotation grazing system during the spring and summer months. An
interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in
2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards.
The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In both the 2004
and 2014, all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of the conditions are contained
in Table 3.8.3 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004b, 2014c).
The Tuff Butte Allotment is categorized as a Maintain (M) category allotment. This was based
on forage production being near potential. No serious resource conflicts have been identified,
some positive economic returns exist, and the present management is satisfactory. An allotment
management plan was drafted that outlined range improvements. Some improvements were
implemented, including pipelines providing water and fences to improve pasture rotations.
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file
and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the Tuff
Butte Allotment. Trend photos on 6 long-term trend transects indicate stable or upward trends
and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The average
actual use for the last 10-years has been 330 AUMs. This is lower than the permitted 536 AUMs
allowable on the allotment. Dry climate conditions have decreased some available water on the
allotment and the permittee has decreased livestock use accordingly. Use would continue to be
less than the 536 AUMs on the allotment with continued dry conditions. This level of use, along
with managed grazing, would provide a sustainable forage base. Existing range improvements
would be maintained as needed to support continued livestock management objectives. The
number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to fluctuate based on forage and water
availability. There would potentially be a decline in forage production over the long-term as
western juniper would continue to expand into the area in the absence of wildfire. Rangeland
Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing
system, and current management. In the past livestock occasionally drift over tuff butte into
private lands causing some difficulty with mixing of livestock, or livestock grazing off the
allotment. This alternative would build two small drift fences to ensure livestock stay within the
Page
58
West Pasture of the allotment. This alternative would incur maximum stocking rates on a per
pasture basis within the allotment, while ensuring that the 50% utilization standard would not be
exceeded within each pasture. Rangeland Health Standards would continue to be met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the
536 AUMs of lost forage. The additional cost to replace this forage would be at the permittees
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. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the
BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent
pastures. There is 2,192 acres of private land within the allotment. Some of these lands are
owned by the permittee and some are not. Those lands owned or controlled by the permittee
could continue to be grazed, but the permittee would be required to keep his livestock off of
public lands through the construction of fencing or other means. It is possible that some
unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment. Regardless, Rangeland Health
Standards would likely continue to be met.
Affected Environment: Murdock Allotment
The Murdock Allotment is located approximately 2 miles southeast of Silver Lake, Oregon, and
has a total of 4,274 acres of BLM-administered lands and 1,020 private land acres. A 10-year
permit authorized 403 AUMs to be used sometime between 4/16-6/30. This allotment contains 4
pastures grazed in a rest-rotation grazing system during the spring and summer months. In 1960,
this area was burned and 1,306 acres were reseeded with crested wheatgrass. Private lands
originally considered to be within the allotment have sold and since been fenced out of the
allotment.
An interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in
2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards.
The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In both 2004 and
2014, all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of the assessments are contained in
Table 3.8.4 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004b, 2014d).
The Murdock Allotment is categorized as an I category allotment. The Key Rating form in 1986
rated the allotment as “improve” with moderate production potential and forage conditions that
could be improved with treatment. No serious other resource conflicts exits with good
opportunity for positive economic returns, and improvement on forage conditions. In the past
this included seeding and treatments to sagebrush. Management in 1986 was unsatisfactory due
to inferior fencing and no rotation of grazing established. Since that time four pastures have
been created and a rest-rotation grazing system implemented.
Page
59
Table 3.8.4. Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Murdock Allotment (00705)
Standard
2004
Assessment
2014
Assessment
Update
1. Watershed
Function –
Uplands
Met
Met
2. Watershed
Function
Riparian/
Wetland Areas
Met
NA
3. Ecological
Processes
Met
Met
4. Water
Quality
NA
5. Native, T/E,
and Locally
Important
Species
Comments
Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and
landform. Trend data show that there has been a shift from early seral grass and shrub species to later seral shrub dominated
vegetation. Some decline in forage for livestock has occurred over time. However, current livestock management has
continued to be appropriate to maintain healthy upland vegetation and stable soils. The most dominant vegetation on the
allotment is mountain big sagebrush with an understory of crested wheatgrass. Medusahead rye is invading the allotment
and, if not treated in the near future, will start negatively effecting upland function.
There are no perennial streams in the allotment. There are a number of intermittent drainages that seasonally flow during
precipitation events or during spring snowmelt. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies these drainages as
“riverine” systems, but due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation. Therefore, there
are no lotic wetlands or riparian areas within the allotment. The NWI also identifies four small freshwater ponds on BLMadministered portions of one drainage. All four represent livestock water developments and are not wetlands. For these
reasons, this standard is not applicable to the area.
Plant reproduction is appropriate for the area and organic matter is being incorporated into the soil. Trend photos indicate
appropriate vigor of vegetation species with trends stable to upward across the allotment. The most dominant vegetation on
the allotment is mountain big sagebrush with an understory of crested wheatgrass. Plant composition and community
structure are appropriate for this allotment.
The 2004 RHA update noted are a few small historic patches of musk thistle and diffuse knapweed. These weed species are
being managed under the current integrated weed management program. Current noxious weeds occurring in the allotment
are Mediterranean sage, medusahead rye, and spotted knapweed. Over 100 acres of medusahead are currently found the
allotment. Other likely invasive plants to invade the allotment are bull and Canada thistle.
NA
This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams or other water sources in this allotment
which must comply with State water quality standards.
The allotment supports an appropriate assemblage of sagebrush-steppe wildlife habitats and populations. There are 60 AUMs
of forage allocated for deer and pronghorn, another 60 AUMs of forage allocated for elk, and 12 AUMs allocated for other
wildlife in the allotment. These forage allocations are adequate to support currently wildlife populations.
Met
Met
There are no known special status plants located within the allotment. Special status wildlife species or their habitats that
may be present within the allotment include bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, kit fox, sagegrouse, and pygmy rabbit. Species of high public interest in the allotment include mule deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope.
About 78% of the allotment contains sage-grouse preliminary genera habitat (PGH).
Page
60
Environmental Consequences: Murdock Allotment
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file
and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the
Murdock Allotment. Trend photos on 5 long-term trend transects indicate stable or upward
trends and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The
average actual use for the last 10-years has been 174 AUMs. This is lower than the permitted 403
AUMs allowable on the allotment. Some dry climate conditions have decreased available water
on the allotment and the permittee has decreased use accordingly. Use would continue to average
174 AUMs on the allotment under this alternative. This level of use, along with managed
grazing, would continue to provide a sustainable forage base. Existing range improvements
would be maintained as needed to support continued livestock management objectives. The
number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to fluctuate based on forage and water
availability. Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing
system, and current grazing management. This alternative would incur maximum stocking rates
on a per pasture basis within the allotment, while ensuring that the 50% utilization standard
would not be exceeded within each pasture. Rangeland Health Standards would continue to be
met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the
403 AUMs of lost forage. The additional cost to replace this forage would be at the permittees
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. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the
BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent
pastures. There are about 1,020 acres of private land within the allotment. Those private lands
owned or controlled by the permittee could be grazed by the permittee, but the permittee would
be required to keep his livestock off of public lands through the construction of fencing or other
means. It is possible that some unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment.
Regardless, Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Page
61
Traditional Practices and Cultural Resources
Affected Environment: Traditional Practices
The 4 allotments are within an area which would have been used by either the Klamath or the
Yahooskin Band of the Northern Paiute or both. These groups may have used the area at the
same time or at separate times.
There are two sites with known Traditional Use areas within the Egli Rim Allotment in the form
of rock cairns. Rock cairns were made as part of personal religious practices and are considered
sacred by the Klamath Tribes. Several sites within the area have rock art present which is
considered to be sacred by Tribes of the region. Often this rock art is found within the context of
other site types and materials. The two rock cairn sites are associated with occupation sites.
No Traditional Cultural Properties have been identified within the other 3 allotments at the
present time. However, the lack of knowledge of such sites does not mean that they are not
present within the allotment. The two tribes have been contacted and provided an opportunity to
provide BLM with information regarding the presence of these values, if they exist.
Affected Environment: Cultural Resources
None of the 4 allotments have been comprehensively surveyed for the presence of cultural or
historic resources. Some surveys have been done on portions of the allotments around water
developments, right-of-ways, and other ground-disturbing projects in the area. 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
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 allotments is estimated at $800 to $1080 per acre based upon current costs
for contract survey work. Surveying the remaining 51,883 unsurveyed acres within the
allotments would cost approximately $41.5-56 million 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.
Page
62
Egli Rim Allotment
Only about 15% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for
cultural resources. Sixty (60) cultural resources sites have been recorded in the allotment to this
date. Recorded sites within the allotment include small to large lithic scatters some of which
have projectile points present, small to large occupation sites which may also have stone house
rings present, rock cairn sites, rock art sites and historic rock walls. The time range for these
sites is early archaic (10,000 to 7500 BP) through middle Archaic (7,500 to 4,500 BP) and Late
Archaic (4,500 to 200 BP). Some of the sites represent all three of these time period, others may
have only one or two time periods represented. The Two historic stone walls which have been
identified are probably from the early 1900s to 1940s time period when livestock grazing was
brought into this area.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of obsidian in the area, it is likely that
many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the allotment were to be made. Sites
expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation
sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have
more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to
be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Oatman Flat Allotment
Only about 20% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for
cultural resources. Eleven cultural sites have been recorded to date. Recorded sites within the
Oatman Flat #705 Allotment are all listed as lithic scatters. The time range for these sites ranges
from early Archaic from 8,000 BP to mid Archaic at around 4,500 BP.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of sites in other local areas, it is likely
that many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the area were to be made. Sites
expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation
sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have
more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to
be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Tuff Butte Allotment
Only about 20% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for
cultural resources. Eight cultural sites have been recorded to date. Recorded sites within the
allotment include seven (7) lithic scatters and one (1) historic stone wall. The time range for
these sites has not been determined due to the lack of time diagnostic artifacts on the sites. The
historic stone wall which has been identified is probably from the early 1900s to 1940s time
period when livestock grazing was brought into this area.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of sites in other local areas, it is likely
that many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the area were to be made. Sites
expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation
Page
63
sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have
more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to
be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Murdock Allotment
Less than 10% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for cultural
resources. One cultural site has been recorded to date. The single recorded site in the allotment
is recorded as an occupation site. The time range for this site has not been determined due to the
lack of time diagnostic artifacts on the site.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of sites in other local areas, it is likely
that many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the area were to be made. Sites
expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation
sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have
more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to
be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative would continue grazing at its present level and timing. There would be no
impact to known Traditional Cultural Properties under this alternative.
It is unknown to what extent livestock may currently be impacting cultural sites within the 4
allotments. There have been few, if any, studies of livestock trampling impacts to cultural
resources, but based on field observations by BLM cultural resources staff, concentrated
livestock use can impact cultural materials located in the soil profile. These effects could include
ground cover removal, surface scuffing, and hoof shear. Cultural materials within the top 12
inches of soil are the most susceptible to exposure and trampling damage, potentially resulting in
reduced site integrity. The deepest disturbance is typically seen at wet sites near water sources
and trailing areas where livestock tend to congregate and concentrated hoof shear and soil layer
mixing is common. Artifacts can be mixed between layers of the soil profile, moved both
vertically and horizontally, or broken and chipped. In addition, removal of vegetation, especially
within concentration areas can lead to erosion by wind and water, further exposing cultural
materials near the surface. Dispersed grazing, on dry uplands, away from water sources, may
cause light hoof shear and surface scuffing to sites over time.
The treatment of weed sites using an integrated approach includes methods (mechanical, manual,
biological, and chemical) that vary in the amount of ground disturbance that could potentially
affect cultural sites. The use of herbicides applied with backpack sprayer, ATV, or aerial
methods would not cause substantial additional ground disturbance in the four allotments and,
therefore, would not have any impacts on cultural resources. Noxious weed treatments that
involve methods that cause ground disturbance would be surveyed for cultural resources before
treatments are implemented. National Register quality sites would be avoided or other non-
Page
64
ground-disturbing treatment methods would be substituted to eliminate potential impacts to
cultural resources.
Maintenance of existing range developments would have little or no additional impact on
cultural resources beyond those that may have occurred when the improvement was originally
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
Effects Common to All Four Allotments
The effects of re-issuing the permit and continued livestock grazing across the 4 allotments
would generally be similar to Alternative 1. Some pastures would receive more evenly
distributed grazing, while others would receive more rest.
The treatment of weed sites using an integrated methodology would be similar to those described
for Alternative 1. The use of one additional herbicide (imazapic) applied with backpack sprayer,
ATV, or aerial methods would not cause substantial additional ground disturbance in the four
allotments and, therefore, would not have any impacts on cultural resources.
Egli Rim Allotment
The proposed well, pipeline, and trough locations have been surveyed for cultural resources and
no cultural resources were found, thus there would be no impacts to cultural resources associated
with project construction or use.
Oatman Flat Allotment
The proposed fence locations have been surveyed for cultural resources and no cultural resources
were found, thus there would be no impacts to cultural resources associated with project
construction or subsequent livestock trailing along the new fences.
The cutting of juniper by hand crews would not generally impact cultural resources. However,
machine cutting/piling and burning this material could have an impact upon sites, if present.
Treatment areas would be surveyed for cultural resources prior to implementation. Cut material
would be hand-piled and burned away from National Register quality sites and would, therefore
avoid or eliminate potential impacts to cultural resources.
Tuff Butte Allotment
The impacts of implementing juniper treatments would be similar to those described in the
Oatman Flat Allotment.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
This alternative would eliminate all ground disturbance associated with livestock trampling and
weed treatments. This would eliminate the potential for damage to cultural sites which may be
present near the surface within the allotments.
Page
65
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Research Natural Areas (ACEC/RNA)
Affected Environment:
The Connley Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)/Research Natural Area
(RNA) is located within the Oatman Flat Allotment (Map 3). This area was designated as an
ACEC/RNA in 2003 to protect important botanical, cultural, and ecological values (BLM 2003a;
2003b). The area supports 4 Oregon Heritage Plant Community cells associated with the Basin
and Range Ecosystem including:
(4) western juniper, big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass
(7) western juniper, bluebunch wheatgrass
(8) western juniper, Idaho fescue
(11) big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1: No Action
The ACEC/RNA remains open to grazing use. The potential environmental effects of renewing
the permit and continuing to authorize grazing use on the relevant and important ACEC values
(cultural, wildlife, ecological values) would generally be the same as those already described for
the Oatman Flat Allotment under Alternative 1 within the vegetation, cultural resources, and
wildlife habitat sections of this EA. The reader should refer to those sections of this document
for details.
Alternative 2: Range Improvement and Vegetation Treatments
Since the range improvement and juniper treatment projects are located outside of the
ACEC/RNA, the potential environmental effects to the relevant and important ACEC values
(cultural, wildlife, ecological values) would generally be the same as those already described for
the Oatman Flat Allotment under Alternative 1 within the vegetation, cultural resources, and
wildlife habitat sections of this EA. The reader should refer to those sections of this document
for details.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
The potential environmental effects to the relevant and important ACEC values (cultural,
wildlife, ecological values) that would result from not issuing the permit or continuing weed
treatments would generally be the same as those already described for Alternative 3 for the
Oatman Flat Allotment in the vegetation, cultural, and wildlife habitat sections of this EA. The
reader should refer to those sections of the document for details.
Page
66
Visual Resources
Affected Environment:
The BLM-administered lands within the allotments are managed according to Visual Resource
Management Classes (VRM) II, III and IV. Portions of the allotments also fall along scenic
travel routes (State Highway 31 and County Road 5-14F) where RMP management direction
requires “all developments, land alterations, and vegetation manipulations within a 3 mile
buffer… 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, as maintained) (Table 3.10.1).
Table 3.10.1. Visual Resource Management Classes and Scenic Corridors in the Allotments*
Allotment
VRM II
VRM III
VRM IV
Scenic Corridor
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
Egli Rim
Oatman Flat
Tuff Butte
Murdock
6,452 / 30%
1,722 / 6%
2,111 / 50%
4,866 / 17%
2,410 / 27%
2,124 / 50%
14,958 / 70%
21,434 / 77%
6,457 / 73%
-
16,868 / 79%
18,844 / 67%
666 / 8%
1,032 / 24%
• 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.”
• VRM IV is managed to allow for “major modifications to the landscape,” though “every effort should be made to … minimize disturbances and
design projects to conform to the characteristic landscape” (BLM 2001, page 290).
Observable developments/disturbances/alterations in the allotments include:
•
•
•
•
Egli Rim Allotment : 49.5 miles of motorized routes, 51 miles of fence, 1.25 miles of pipelines, 2 large
wildfires (4,804 acres), 1 prescribed fire (3,101 acres), 1 seeding (1,135 acres), 10 reservoirs, 8 waterholes,
3 troughs, 3 cattle guards, and a 1 acre mineral pit.
Oatman Flat Allotment: 99 miles of motorized routes, 7 miles of Highway 31, 64.5 miles of fence, 2.5
miles of distribution lines, several seedings/chainings (2,456 acres), several prescribed burns (1, 655 acres),
3 mineral pits (12 acres), 7 reservoirs, 6 waterholes, 3 wells, 1 trough, 6 cattle guards, and 3 guzzlers.
Tuff Butte Allotment: 28 miles of motorized routes, 23 miles of fence, 5 miles of pipelines, 3.5 miles of
major BPA utility lines, juniper thinning (100 acres), prescribed fire (100 acres), wildfire (25 acres), 9
troughs, 1 water tank, and 1 well.
Murdock Allotment: 23.5 miles of motorized routes, 4 miles of cat lines, 20 miles of fence, 3.5 miles of
minor distribution lines, prescribed fire (2,060 acres), seeding (1,806 acres), 2 wells, 1 developed spring,
and 1 waterhole.
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1: No Action
The No-Action Alternative would result in minimal to no effects on existing visual quality.
Current visual objectives for VRM Classes II, III and IV, as well as the scenic corridor
management direction would continue to be met.
Page
67
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
The proposed water developments within the Egli Rim Allotment would have low to moderate
negative impacts to visual quality in a very small portion of the 5-14F corridor due to
construction of the pipeline, well, water tank, troughs, and the resulting cattle-trampled areas
around them, as most of these would be visible to the average user traveling on only about 4
miles of County Road 5-14F. The project would have no impacts on the majority of this
corridor. The visual setting near these developments would shift toward a more agricultural
characteristic, away from the current predominantly pastoral appearance.
Placement of the project in this location would have high visual impacts in a localized area with
a high scenic quality rating (VRM II). However, these potential impacts would be greatly
mitigated by utilizing a low profile water tank and painting the tank and troughs to blend into
the background in accordance with the BLM’s Standard Environmental Color Chart (CC001).
The Outdoor Recreation Planner would assist in proper selection of paint color and hue. These
measures would reduce visual contrast by blending in developments with surrounding colors
and forms of the landscape to prevent structures from being seen from a distance. With these
mitigation measures applied, the proposed water developments would meet visual resource
objectives for VRM Class II.
The two, short proposed fences in Tuff Butte Allotment would have minimal negative impacts
to visual resources (VRM III) in that portion of the allotment.
The proposed juniper treatments in the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments could have
moderate to substantial impacts to visual quality, depending upon how visible they are from
Highway 31. Treatments would occur within VRM Class III and IV areas and less than half of
these treatment areas would fall within the visible portions of the Highway 31 scenic corridor
buffer.
The proposed invasive species treatments would likely have low to moderate negative impact to
visual quality in the immediate vicinity of a given treatment areas. Impacts could be mitigated
by adopting appropriate Best Management Practices or Standard Operating Procedures from the
Oregon FEIS ROD (BLM 2007, 2010).
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
This alternative would moderately enhance visual quality across the allotments by eliminating
the occurrence of viewing non-native animals on the landscape and by minor
improvements/recovery of esthetically pleasing upland plant communities along old cattle trails
and around water sources. However, the visual impacts of observable developments (motorized
routes, fences, and water developments, etc.) scattered across these allotments would likely
remain until such time that they either deteriorate or funds and resources are made available to
facilitate their removal. Overall, visual objectives for VRM Classes II, III, and IV, as well as the
scenic corridor management direction, would be met.
Page
68
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,
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 allotment accounts for a total of 4,077 AUMs
which the permittee uses for 5 months of the year. This calculates to providing forage for about
815 cows for 5 months. The cows would produce an average of 647 calves for market, assuming
54 are bulls and 85% calf crop each year.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3:
Public lands in and around the allotment would continue to contribute social amenities such as
open space and recreational opportunities. These amenities encourage tourism in the surrounding
region and provide economic benefits to the nearby community of Silver Lake, though the
specific contribution of these allotments cannot be accurately estimated.
Effects Common to Alternatives 1 and 2:
Under Alternative 1 and 2 the Federal Government would continue to collect grazing fees (4,077
AUMs X $1.35) which amounts to a maximum amount of about $5,503 in annual revenue. The
permittee would continue to produce about 647 calves each year providing continued economic
stability for the livestock operator. This would contribute less than 1% of the total county-wide
annual cattle production.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
Alternative 2 would include additional costs to both the Federal Government and permittee
associated with constructing and maintaining the new water developments and fences. These
estimated costs range from $25,000 to $100,000. The cost of weed treatments could cost
approximately 100,000 to treat 100 acres of imazapic on medusadahead within the allotments.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
A loss of possible maximum amount of $5,503 would occur to the Federal Government due to
the loss of grazing fees collected from the permittee. This alternative would also 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 0.23 tons of forage to feed one 600 pound stocker calf
Page
69
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 for hay. It would cost the rancher
$138,550 in hay to feed his 815 cows for 5 months not including transportation cost of
transporting hay to his ranch.
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 cost to the
rancher for renting private pasture land for those 5 months would be approximately $61,155.
If the permittee wishes to graze on private lands within the allotments it may take up to a rough
estimate of 34 miles of fencing off private lands which could possible cost 170,000.
Cumulative Effects
Analysis Scale and Timeframe
For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative impacts are addressed at the collective allotment
scale. The reasons for choosing this analysis scale include the fact that issuing a permit is a
decision that affects all five allotments, and BLM has a good idea of other potential reasonably
foreseeable actions that may occur within the pastures due to management direction identified in
the Lakeview RMP/ROD (Appendix E, BLM 2003b). However, the analysis spatial scales
could vary somewhat depending upon the resource value/use being addressed. The timeframe of
analysis is defined as the same 15-20 year expected life of the Lakeview RMP/ROD. The reason
for choosing this timeframe is because this represents the same analysis timeframe considered in
the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003a) and portions of that analysis may be
appropriate for tiering purposes.
Known Past Activities
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued cumulative impact guidance on June 24,
2005, that states the “environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking,” and
review of past actions is required only “to the extent that this review informs agency decisionmaking regarding the proposed action.” Use of information on the effects of past action may be
useful in two ways: one is for consideration of the proposed action’s cumulative effects, and
secondly as a basis for identifying the proposed action’s direct and indirect effects.
The CEQ stated that “[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis
by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical
details of individual past actions.” This is because a description of the current state of the
environment (ie. affected environment section) inherently includes the effects of past actions.
Further, the “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past
actions to determine the present effects of past actions.” Information on the current
environmental condition is more comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a useful
starting point for a cumulative effects analysis than attempting to establish such a starting point
by adding up the described effects of individual past actions to some environmental baseline
Page
70
condition in the past that, unlike current conditions, can no longer be verified by direct
examination.
The second area in which the CEQ guidance states that information on past actions may be
useful is in “illuminating or predicting the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action. The
usefulness of such information is limited by the fact that it is anecdotal only, and extrapolation of
data from such singular experiences is not generally accepted as a reliable predictor of effects”.
The Department of Interior issued some additional guidance related to past actions which state,
“when considering the effects of past actions as part of a cumulative effects analysis, the
Responsible Official must analyze the effects in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and in
accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, such as
‘‘The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past
Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis’’ dated June 24, 2005, or any superseding Council on
Environmental Quality guidance (see 43 CFR 46.115)”.
Based on this guidance, BLM has summarized known disturbances that have occurred within the
allotments as part of past or on-going management activities. These include: livestock grazing
and management, road construction and maintenance, prescribed fire, wildfire suppression,
wildfire restoration and seeding, juniper treatment, and range improvement project construction
and maintenance.
The allotments have historically been grazed by cattle. Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1935,
grazing on public lands was essentially uncontrolled. After the Taylor Grazing Act, allotments
were established, tied to private base property owned by a permittee, and were initially under the
management responsibility of the Grazing Service. Under the Grazing Service and then under
the BLM in 1946, the number of grazing livestock was generally higher and the pattern of
grazing use was generally more intense than what occurs today.
Based on a GIS analysis of current data, approximately 190 miles of single-lane constructed
roads representing about 276 acres of road disturbance. There are approximately 7 miles of
double-lane roads within the allotments representing another 17 acres of road disturbance.
Although a major two-lane State highway does go through the Oatman Flat Allotment, the
highway and associated right-of-way are fenced separate from the allotment and, therefore, this
total was not included in this analysis.
Seven miles of pipelines exist representing about 4 acres of ground disturbance. Approximately
10,238 acres have been treated in the past via wildfire, prescribed fire, sagebrush removal using
herbicide, chaining, and/or seeding. A total of 48 acres of weed sites have previously been
treated within the allotments. An estimated 1,983 acres of concentrated livestock disturbance
currently occurs across the allotments that is associated with trailing along fence lines and
congregating near constructed water developments and natural water sources (Map 5). All of
these past disturbances represent an estimated total of about 12,518 acres of past or on-going
ground disturbance (Tables 3.14.1).
Page
71
All of these past activities have affected or shaped the landscape within the allotment into what it
is today. Current resource conditions are described further in the “Affected Environment”
portions of Chapter 3 earlier in this document, as well as in the Rangeland Health Assessment(s)
for the allotments (BLM 2004b, 2004c, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d).
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Foreseeable future actions in these allotments include continued road and range improvement
maintenance comparable to what has gone on in the recent past. Hunting, and other dispersed
recreation activities may also occur.
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.
Environmental Consequences
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.
Road 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 maintenance related ground disturbances under all alternatives would be similar and is
estimated to remain at about 293 acres (Table 3.14.1).
Table 3.14.1 . Cumulative Acres of Ground Disturbance by Alternative
Alternative 1- No
Action
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Roads and Trails
Pipelines
Juniper Treatment
Seedings
Weed Treatment
Concentrated Livestock Use*
293
4
4,875
5,363
48
1,983
293
4.3
22,875
5,363
148
2,171
293
4
4,875
5,363
48
0
Cumulative Total
12,518
30,854
10,583
*Includes areas around constructed water developments, near natural water sources, and trailing along fences; see also Table
3.2.2.
Table 3.14.1 lists the total acres of ground disturbance associated with each alternative.
Alternative 1 represents the amount of ground disturbance associated with past and present
management activities.
Alternative 2 would increase ground disturbance by about 18,336 acres compared to Alternative
1. Although Alternative 2 would increase total disturbance (associated primarily with additional
juniper treatments) this disturbance would be dispersed, short-term and provide long-term
Page
72
benefits to soils, native sagebrush steppe plant communities, sagebrush wildlife habitats, and
ecological diversity. The three new water sources and fences would also provide for more
dispersed livestock grazing use across the majority of the allotments. Alternative 3 would
incrementally reduce concentrated livestock related disturbance on about 1,983 acres compared
to Alternative 1.
CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
The EA was made available for a 30-day comment period. Interested public, groups, agencies,
and tribal interests were notified of this review opportunity. A mailing list is contained in the
file.
List of Preparers
Range Management Specialist
Assistant Field Manager (Range)
Natural Resource Specialist (Weeds)
Botanist
Wildlife Biologist
Cultural Resource Specialist
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Fisheries Biologist
Planning and Environmental Coordinator
Lori Crumley
Theresa Romasko
Grace Haskins
Ian Grinter
John Owens
Bill Cannon
Chris Bishop
Jimmy Leal
Paul Whitman
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 by mail of the availability of the EA for review. This mailing list is contained in the
allotment file.
CHAPTER 5 - REFERENCES
Beck, J.L., and Mitchell, D.L. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat: Wildlife
Society Bulletin, v. 28, p. 993–1002.
BCME. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) in British Columbia. Prepared
for the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Victoria, B.C.
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.
Page
73
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. . USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office.
Portland, OR.
BLM 1982. Lakeview Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon/Washington State
Office, Portland, OR. . USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM 1985. BLM manual Handbook Fencing. Rel. 1-1419 . USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State
Office. Portland, OR.
BLM. 1989. Oregon Wilderness Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon/Washington State
Office, Portland, OR. Four Volumes.
BLM. 1991. Wilderness Study Report. OR-EA-91-45-8561.6. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland,
OR. 3 volumes.
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. USDO, BLM, Washington
Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 1997a. 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.
BLM. 2003a. Lakeview Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement.
USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 4 volumes.
Page
74
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. Rangeland Health Assessment for the Silver Lake Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview District,
Lakeview, OR. 13 p.
BLM 2004c. Rangeland Health Assessment for the Saint Patricks and Egli Rim Allotments. USDI, BLM,
Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 9 p.
BLM. 2007a. H-6300-1-Wilderness Inventory Maintenance in BLM Oregon/Washington. April 2007.
Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in
17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. USDI, BLM, Washington Office,
Washington, DC.
BLM. 2007c. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17
Western States Programmatic Record of Decision September 2007. USDI, BLM, Washington Office,
Washington, DC.
BLM. 2008a. H-6300-1-Wilderness Inventory Maintenance in BLM Oregon/Washington. 4-18-08
Current Edition. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2008b. BLM. H-1790-1 - National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. USDI, BLM,
Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2008c. Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. USDI, BLM, Washington Office,
Washington, DC. 48 p.
BLM. 2009. Wilderness Character Inventory. Black Hills Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area,
Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 43 p. Available online at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010a. Wilderness Character Inventory. Bell Rim Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area,
Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 7 p. Available online at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010b. Wilderness Character Inventory. Hager Mountain, Duncan Reservoir, and Egli Rim Area.
USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 20 p. Available online at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010c. Wilderness Character Inventory. Hayes Butte Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource
Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 21 p. Available online at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010d. Wilderness Character Inventory. Oatman Flat Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource
Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 13 p. Available online at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
Page
75
BLM. 2012a. Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (Public).
USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2012b. Manual 6330 – Management of Wilderness Study Areas (Public). USDI, BLM,
Washington Office, Washington, DC.
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. 52 p.
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. Cahill Grazing Permit Renewal for Round Mountain (00211), Rahilly Gravelly (00212),
Burro Springs (00213), Hill Camp (00215) and FRF Cahill (00219) Allotments. Environmental
Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0030-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR.
160 p.
BLM. 2013b. Grazing Permit Renewal for Flagstaff Bench and Swamp Lake Pastures of the Warner
Lakes Allotment. Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0019-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview
Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 71 p.
BLM. 2014a. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update. Egli Rim Allotment. USDI, BLM,
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. 10 p. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014b. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update. Oatman Flat Allotment. USDI,
BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. 9 p. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014c. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update, Tuff Butte Allotment. USDI,
BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014d. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update, Murdock Allotment. USDI, BLM,
Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014e. Buck Creek – Bridge Creek Allotment Grazing Permit Renewal. Environmental
Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0038-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR.
51 p.
BLM. 2014f. Dicks Creek Allotment Grazing Permit Renewal. Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLML050-2013-0045-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 73 p.
BLM. 2014g. Grazing Permit Renewal for the Fremont, North Webster, and Wastina Allotments.
Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0043-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area.
Lakeview, OR. 91 p.
Page
76
Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on
Neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 296 - 309 in Status and
management of Neotropical migratory birds, D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (Eds). Gen Tech.
Rep. RM-229, Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, 422 pp.
Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proceedings
of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 78: p. 139–156.
Chapman, K., K. McGuiness, and R. M. Brigham. 1994. Status of the pallid bat in British Columbia.
Wildlife Working Report Number WR-61. British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Wildlife
Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
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, GTRRM-285.
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.
Coates, P. S. and Delehanty, D. J. 2010. Nest Predation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Relation to
Microhabitat Factors and Predators. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74: 240–248.
Connelly, J.W., and Braun, C.E. 1997. A review of long-term changes in sage grouse populations in
western North America: Wildlife Biology, v. 3, p. 229–234.
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.
Cox, M., D. W. Lutz, T. Wasley, M. Fleming, B. B. Compton, T. Keegan, D. Stroud, S. Kilpatrick,
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.
Crawford, J.A., Olson, R.A., West, N.E., Mosley, J.C., Schroeder, M.A., Whitson, T.D., Miller, R.F.,
Gregg, M.A., and Boyd, C.S. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat:
Journal of Range Management, v. 57, p. 2–19.
DeBess, E. 2009. State of Oregon West Nile virus summary report 2008. Oregon Department of Human
Services. Portland, OR.
Delong, A.K., Crawford, J.A., and Delong, D.C., Jr. 1995. Relationships between vegetational structure
and predation of artificial sage grouse nests: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 59, p. 88–92.
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.
Page
77
Doherty, K., J. Tack, J. Evans, and D. Naugle. 2010. Mapping Breeding Densities of Greater SageGrouse: A Tool for Range-wide Conservation Planning. Prep. For Bureau of Land Management,
Interagency Agreement #L10PG00911.
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 PSWGTR-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.
Freese, M. T. 2009. Masters Thesis. Linking Greater-Sage Grouse Habitat Use and Suitability across
Spatiotemporal Scales in Central Oregon.
Gray, K., J. Carlson, L. Carpenter, K. Urquhart, B. Johnson, and C. McLaughlin. 2009. Habitat
Guidelines for Mule Deer: Intermountain West Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Gregg, M.A., Crawford, J.A., Drut, M.S., and DeLong, A.K. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of
sage grouse nests in Oregon: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 58, p. 162–166.
Gregg, M.A., Dunbar, M.R., and Crawford, J.A. 2007. Use of implanted radiotransmitters to estimate
survival of Greater Sage-Grouse chicks: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71, p. 646–651.
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.
Hagen, C.A., Connelly, J.W., and Schroeder, M.A. 2007. A meta-analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) nesting and brood-rearing habitats: Wildlife Biology, v. 13, p. 42–50.
Hagen, C.A., Willis, M.J., Glenn, E.M., and Anthony, R.G. 2011. Habitat selection by Greater SageGrouse during winter in southeastern Oregon: Western North American Naturalist, v. 71, p. 529–538.
Hagen, C.A. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to
Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Hart, R.H., J. Bissio, M.J. Samuel, and J.W. Waggoner, Jr. 1993. Grazing systems, pasture size, and cattle
grazing behavior and gains. J. Range Manage. 46:81–87.
Hausleitner, D., Reese, K.P., and Apa, A.D. 2005. Timing of vegetation sampling at Greater Sage-Grouse
nests: Rangeland Ecology & Management, v. 58, p. 553–556.
Page
78
Holechek, Baker, Boren, and Dee Galt. 2006. Grazing Impacts on Rangeland Vegetation: What we
Learned.
Holloran, M.J., Heath, B.J., Lyon, A.G., Slater, S.J., Kuipers, J.L., and Anderson, S.H. 2005. Greater
Sage-Grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 69,
p. 638–649.
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 the 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. 1983. Evaluation of management as a factor in the success of grazing systems. USDA
Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157.
Louisa B. E, R. F. Miller, P. S. Doescher, M. Hemstrom, and R. P. Neilson. 2013. Simulating Current
Successional Trajectories in Sagebrush Ecosystems with Multiple Disturbances Using a State-andTransition Modeling Framework. Rangeland Ecology and Management 66:313-329.
Miller, R., J. Bates, L. Eddleman, F. Pierson, and T. Svejcar. 2005. Biology, Ecology, and Management
of Western Juniper. Technical. Bulletin 152, Oregon State University. Agricultural. Experiment. Station.
77 p.
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. 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.
Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage Grouse Response to Grazing Management in Nevada. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of
Nevada, Reno. Reno, Nevada.
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. 2012. Sage-Grouse Initiative Oregon Implementation Strategy 2013-2017. USDA, NRCS,
October 2012 – Draft.
NRCS. 2013. Official Soil Series Descriptions . USDA. Available online at
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [Accessed November 2013].
ODFW. 2003a. Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat Management Plan. Salem, OR.
ODFW. 2003b. 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.
Page
79
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.
ODFW. 2012a. 2012 Aerial Pronghorn Population Trends (January – March 2012). Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
ODFW. 2012b. 2012 Mule Deer Spring Fawn Survival Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Salem, OR.
ONDA. 2005. Wilderness Inventory Recommendations: Lakeview BLM District. Bend, OR. 214 p.
Oregon-Washington Weekly Hay Report. 2013. Accessed April, 2013.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ml_gr310.txt.
Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats, in Knick, S.T., and Connelly, J.W.,
eds., Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitats: Berkeley, Calif., University of
California Press, Cooper Ornithological Union, p. 531–548.
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.
Root, H.T., Miller J.E.D., McCune B. 2011. Biotic soil crust lichen diversity and conservation in shrubsteppe habitats of Oregon and Washington. The Bryologist 114(4): 796-812.
Schroeder, M.A., and Baydack, R.K. 2001. Predation and the management of prairie grouse: Wildlife
Society Bulletin, v. 29, p. 24–32.
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.
Stevens, B.S. 2011. Impacts of fences on Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho: Collision, Mitigation, and Spatial
Ecology (Masters Thesis). University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Stiver, S., E. Rinkes, and D. Naugle. 2010. Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework. Multi-scale
habitat assessment tool. Unpublished Report. USDI, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, ID. 135 p.
Stohlgren, T. J., L. D. Schell, B. Vanden Heuvel. 1999. How grazing and soil quality affect native and
exotic plant diversity in Rocky Mountain grasslands. Ecological Applications 9:45-64.
Stockmans Journal. 2013. Central Oregon Livestock Auction, Madras, OR. Vol. 14 Issue 8 June, 8, 2013.
Sveum, C.M., Crawford, J.A., and Edge, W.D. 1998a. Use and selection of brood-rearing habitat by sage
grouse in south-central Washington: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 58, p. 344–351.
Page
80
Sveum, C.M., Edge, W.D., and Crawford, J.A. 1998b. Nesting habitat selection by sage grouse in southcentral Washington: Journal of Range Management, v. 51, p. 265–269.
Taylor, B. et. al. 2005. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Eastern Oregon.
Oregon Habitat Joint Venture. 43pp.
USGS. 2008. The Challenges of Linking Carbon Emissions, Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas
Concentrations, Global Warming, and Consequential Impacts. Memorandum to Director, USFWS.
USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 p.
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.
Page
81
APPENDIX A
Table A1. Collective Summary of Soils on the Allotments
Soil Series
ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES
Abert
399
1
ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES
ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES
ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES
ANAWALT GR-CL, 1-12% SLOPES
Abert
Abert
Abert
Anawalt
353
5
4
1003
0
0
0
1
ANAWALT-FREZNIK CMPLX, 1-5%
SLOPES
Anawalt
150
0
BONNICK GR-A-LS, 1-5% SLOPES
Bonnick
1768
2
BONNICK-KUNCEIDER CX, 1-10%
SLOPES
Bonnick
1625
2
BONNICK-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-8%
SLOPES
Bonnick
578
1
Bonnick
Borobey
Borobey
Borobey
289
550
503
159
0
1
1
0
Borobey
Bunyard
97
213
0
0
Chancelakes
25
0
Connleyhills
3132
4
Connleyhills
852
1
Crackedground
1705
2
Dunres
2722
4
Dunres
2145
3
Dunres
424
1
Dunres
382
1
Dunres
Dunres
203
153
0
0
DUNRES-MURLOSE-NUSS TAXA
CMPLX, 1-20% SLOPES
Dunres
145
0
DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES
Dunres
84
0
DUNRES CB-A-SL, THICK SURF, 1-8%
SLOPES
Dunres
25
0
DUNRES-MOONBEAM-NUSS CMPLX, 120% SLOPES
Dunres
18
0
BONNICK GR-A-SL, 0-4% SLOPES
BUNYARD A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES
CHANCELAKES-SWALESILVER (TAXA)
CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES
CONNLEYHILLS A-COSL, 2-15% SLOPES
CONNLEYHILLS A-COSL, 2-15% SLOPES
CRACKEDGROUND CB-A-LS, 1-6%
SLOPES
DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES
DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20%
SLOPES
DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES
DUNRES-NINEMILE CMPLX, 2-20%
SLOPES
DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES
DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES
Page
82
Acres
Percent of
allotments
Soil Map Unit
DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20%
SLOPES
DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20%
SLOPES
ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S
SLOPES
ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S
SLOPES
ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S
SLOPES
FLAGSTAFF CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES
FORT ROCK-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-8%
SLOPES
FORT ROCK A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES
FORT ROCK-MOREHOUSE CMPLX, 0-2%
SLOPES
FORT ROCK-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-8%
SLOPES
FORT ROCK-LAPHAM CMPLX, 0-2%
SLOPES
GLENCABIN GR-A-L's, DRY, 15-35%
SLOPES
GLENCABIN GR-A-L's, DRY, 15-35%
SLOPES
GLENCABIN GR-A-L, 30-65% N SLOPES
GOODTACK A-FSL, LOW PPT, 1-5 %
SLOPES
GREENMOUNTAIN-JACKSPLACE
CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
GREENMOUNTAIN-JACKSPLACE
CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
HENKLE-WANOGA CMPLX, 1-15%
SLOPES
HENKLE-WANOGA CMPLX, 1-15%
SLOPES
KUNCEIDER-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-5%
SLOPES
KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER-RO CMPLX, 0-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER-RO CMPLX, 0-15% SLOPES
LAPHAM GR-A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES
LEGLER, TAXA-CHANCELAKES, TAXA
ASSOC, 0-2% SLOPES
LOCANE-ANAWALT CMPLX, 2-15%
SLOPES
LUDI GRV-A-SL, 15-35% SLOPES
Dunres
16
0
Dunres
5
0
Erakatak
461
1
Erakatak
243
0
Erakatak
76
0
Flagstaff
35
0
Fort Rock
881
1
Fort Rock
28
0
Fort Rock
13
0
Fort Rock
6
0
Fort Rock
2
0
Glencabin
6341
9
Glencabin
101
0
Glencabin
97
0
Goodtack
1077
1
Greenmountain
1220
2
Greenmountain
353
0
Henkle
1462
2
Henkle
95
0
Kunceider
1061
1
Kunceider
Kunceider
Kunceider
Kunceider
Kunceider
Kunceider
Kunceider
Lapham
346
260
213
115
48
33
2
1646
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Legler, taxa
110
0
Locane
105
0
Ludi
374
1
Page
83
LUDI GR-A-SL, LOW PPT., 15-30% S
SLOPES
MILLENIUM SIL, 0-2% SLOPES
MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM-CONNLEYHILLS CMPLX,
1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM-GOODTACK CMPLX, 1-8%
SLOPES
MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
MOREHOUSE A-S, 2-20% SLOPES
MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES
MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 0-2% SLOPES
MURLOSE CB-A-L, 2-20% SLOPES
MURLOSE GR-A-COSL, 1-6% SLOPES
MURLOSE CB-A-L, 2-20% SLOPES
NINEMILE CBV-L, LOW PPT, 2-15%
SLOPES
NINEMILE CBV-L, LOW PPT, 2-15%
SLOPES
NORCROSS GR-A-L, 1-15% SLOPES
Ludi
220
0
Millenium
Moonbeam
321
2645
0
4
Moonbeam
929
1
Moonbeam
753
1
Moonbeam
Moonbeam
Moonbeam
Moonbeam
Morehouse
Morehouse
Morehouse
Murlose
Murlose
Murlose
279
34
31
11
869
223
19
950
491
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
Ninemile
9272
13
Ninemile
44
0
Norcross
482
1
NORCROSS CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
PAULINA-CHINARISE CMPLX, 0-4%
SLOPES
PERNTY,TAXA-CHESEBRO-RO CMPLX,
15-30% SLOPES
PERNTY,TAXA-CHESEBRO-RO CMPLX,
15-30% SLOPES
PITCHERANCH-CHINARISE CMPLX, 04% SLOPES
PLAYAS
POORJUG-RO CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES
Norcross
150
0
Paulina
340
0
Pernty (Tax)
301
0
RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES
RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES
RO-XERIC HAPLOCAMBIDS-RBL
CMPLX, 50-90% SLOPES
SENRA-GOODTACK-SUCKERFLAT
COMPLX, 1-4% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT CB-A-L, 2-10% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT CB-A-L, 2-10% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% N
SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% S
SLOPES
Pernty (Tax)
261
0
Pitcheranch
1
0
Playas
Poorjug
Rock outcrop
51
351
48
0
0
0
Rock outcrop
Rock outcrop
43
31
0
0
Rock outcrop
20
0
Senra
364
1
Suckerflat
Suckerflat
Suckerflat
Suckerflat
4014
1027
758
385
6
1
1
1
Suckerflat
33
0
Suckerflat
9
0
Page
84
SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% S
SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 8-15%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1%
SLOPES
THORNLAKE A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES
THORNLAKE A-SIL's, 0-2% SLOPES
THORNLAKE A-SIL's, 0-2% SLOPES
TONOR A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES
TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES
TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES
TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES
WANOGA-HENKLE CMPLX, DRY, 0-15%
SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, 0-3%
SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 015% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 015% SLOPES
WEGERT CBV-A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 015% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH
PPT, 0-15% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, 0-3%
SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH
PPT, 0-15% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH
PPT, 0-15% SLOPES
Suckerflat
1
0
Suckerflat
0
0
Suckerflat
0
0
426
1
34
0
31
0
30
0
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Swalesilver
(taxa)
Thornlake
Thornlake
26
0
21
0
10
0
8
0
6
0
3
0
343
76
0
0
Thornlake
Tonor
Tuffcabin
Tuffcabin
Tuffcabin
1
59
113
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
Wanoga
297
0
Wegert
3043
4
Wegert
2220
3
Wegert
1278
2
Wegert
457
1
Wegert
375
1
Wegert
170
0
Wegert
168
0
Wegert
116
0
Wegert
8
0
Page
85
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH
PPT, 0-15% SLOPES
WEGLIKE-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-3%
SLOPES
WILDCATBUTTE-SUCKERFLAT-ROCK
OUTCROP COMPLX, 15-40% SLOPES
WILDCATBUTTE-RO CMPLX, 15-30% S
SLOPES
XEROLLS-RO CMPLX, 30-65% N SLOPES
XEROLLS-RO CMPLX, 30-65% N SLOPES
Wegert
4
0
Weglike
218
0
Wildcatbutte
513
1
Wildcatbutte
70
0
Xerolls
Xerolls
34
7
0
0
Table A2. Dominant Vegetation in the in Egli Rim Allotment (00420)
Percent of
Allotment
Vegetation Type
Acres
Low sagebrush/grass
ARAR8/POSE4 low sagebrush/ Sandberg’s bluegrass
ARAR/PSSP low sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass
Total
105
10896
11001
4
50
Silver sagebrush/Grass
ARCA12/ELEL5 silversage/ squirrel tail
ARCA13/MURI silversage/ mat muhly
Total
110
31
141
0
0
Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass
ARTRT/AGCR basin big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass
ARTRT/BRTE basin big sagebrush/ cheatgrass
ARTRT/LECI4 basin big sagebrush/ great basin wildrye
ATRT/PSSPS basin big sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass
Total
899
2177
33
67
3176
0
1
0
0
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass
ARTRV/FEID mountain big sagebrush/ Idaho fescue
319
0
Wyoming Sagebrush/ Grass
ARTRW8/AGCR Wyoming sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass
ATRTW8/POSE4 Wyoming sagebrush/ Sandberg’s bluegrass
991
620
0
0
Rabbitbrush/Grass
CHNA2/BRTE gray rabbitbrush/ cheatgrass
CHVI8/AGCR green rabbitbrush/ crested wheatgrass
Total
1932
10
1942
1
0
Spikerush/poverty weed
25
0
Greasewood/Grass
SAVE4/BRTE greasewood/cheatgrass
0
Page
86
Juniper/Sagebrush/Grass
JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS juniper/mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch
wheatgrass
Total
463
0
TOTAL VEGETATION
Rockland/ Rubble
Inclusions**
ALLOTMENT TOTAL
20,461
* The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at
http://www.plants.usda.gov).
** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped)
vegetation communities.
Table A3. Dominant Vegetation in the in Tuff Butte Allotment (00707)
Acres
Percent of
Allotment
Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass
ARTRT/AGCR basin big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass
ARTRT/BRTE basin big sagebrush/ cheatgrass
Total
90
573
663
1
5
6
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass
ARTRV/BRTE mountain big sagebrush/ cheatgrass
ARTRV/PSSPS mountain big sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass
Total
167
693
860
1
6
7
Rabbitbrush/Grass
CHNA2/AGCR gray rabbitbrush/ crested wheatgrass
CHNA2/BRTE gray rabbitbrush/ cheatgrass
CHNA2/ LETR5 gray rabbitbrush/ beardless wildrye
CHNA2/STCO4 gray rabbitbrush/ needle and threadgrass
Total
2101
1774
15
127
4017
19
16
0
1
36
Greasewood/Grass
SAVE4/BRTE greasewood/cheatgrass
SAVE4/DISPS2 greasewood/saltgrass
Total
99
245
344
1
1
2
1220
11
64
19
169
2
123
1576
1
33
9,444
85
0
0
1,709
11,153
15
Vegetation Type
Juniper/Sagebrush/Grass
JUOC/ARTRT/BRTE juniper/basin big sagebrush/cheatgrass
JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS juniper/mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch
wheatgrass
JUOC/ARTRV/STCO4 juniper/mountain big sagebrush/needle and thread
grass
JUOC/CHNA2/BRTE juniper/grey rabbitbrush/cheatgrass
Total
TOTAL VEGETATION
Rockland/ Rubble
Inclusions**
ALLOTMENT TOTAL
Page
87
* The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at
http://www.plants.usda.gov).
** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped)
vegetation communities.
Table A4. Dominant Vegetation in the in Oatman Flat Allotment (00705)
Silver sagebrush/ Grass
508
Percent of
Allotment
3
Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass
2825
8
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass
3833
12
Gray Rabbitbrush/Grass
2743
8
Green Rabbitbrush/Grass
437
1
Bitterbrush/Grass
2211
7
Juniper/Grass
Juniper/low sagebrush/grass
Juniper/Mountain Big Sagebrush
Juniper/Gray Rabbitbrush
2509
727
12732
248
8
2
39
1
986
466
3
1.4
2116
33161
6
Vegetation Type
Acres
Ponderosa Pine/ Mountain big sagebrush/ Idaho Fescue
Ponderosa Pine/ Green Rabbitbrush
Rockland/ Rubble
Inclusions**
ALLOTMENT TOTAL
* The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at
http://www.plants.usda.gov).
** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped)
vegetation communities.
Page
88
Table A5. Dominant Vegetation in the in Murdock Allotment (00710)
Vegetation Type
Low Sagebrush/Grass
ARAR8/POSE4 Low sagebrush/Sangbergs bluegrass
Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass
ARTRT/BRTE basin big sagebrush/ cheatgrass
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass
ARTRV/BRTE mountain big sagebrush/ cheatgrass
ARTRV/AGCR mountain big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass
ARTRV/ELEL5 mountain big sagebrush/ squirreltail
ARTRV/POSE4 mountain big sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass
ARTRV/ STTH2 mountain big sagebrush/ needle and threadgrass
Total
Rabbitbrush/Grass
CHNA2/BRTE gray rabbitbrush/ cheatgrass
Acres
Percent of
Allotment
693
13
8
0
424
1786
58
47
334
2225
8
44
1
1
7
9
47
150
364
31
119
491
178
3
7
1
2
10
3
Juniper/Sagebrush/Grass
JUOC/ARAR8/AGCR juniper/ low sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass
JUOC/ARAR8/POSE4 juniper/ low sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass
JUOC/ARAR8/PSSPS Juniper/ low sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass
JUOC/ARTRV/AGCR Juniper/ mountain big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass
JUOC/ARTRV/FEID Juniper/ mountain big sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass
JUOC/ARTRV/POSE4 juniper/mountain big sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass
JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS juniper/mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch
wheatgrass
JUOC/PUTR2\PSSPS Juniper/bitterbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
Total
34
1
163
1530
3
TOTAL VEGETATION
Inclusions**
ALLOTMENT TOTAL
4892
227
5119
* The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at
http://www.plants.usda.gov).
** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped)
vegetation communities.
Page
89
Deschutes County
Map 1 - General Vicinity
Lake County
Fort Rock
Christmas Valley
Silver Lake
Alkali Lake
Summer Lake
Legend
Lakeview Resource Area
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
Allotments
0
Lake County
Plush
Lakeview
Westside
New Pine Creek
Adel
Harney County
Valley Falls
Lake County
Klamath County
Paisley
4.5
9
18 Miles
5-14
F
Map 2 - Proposed Range Improvements
UNALLOTED
Proposed
MOSTLY
PRIVATE
5-14
F
15
WEE
Well Location and Trough1
14
Proposed Pipeline
28S
16E
EG LI RIM
Proposed Trough 2
Proposed Trough 3
MIDDLE
NATIVE
22
23
WEST
SEEDING
Ü
27S 36
14E
Legend
27S
15E
Allotment
ownership
private
ownership
Ï
31
BLM
proposed_fences
proposed_water_developments
proposed_pipelines
TUFF
BUTT E
Ï
Proposed Fences
Ï
0
12
0.04 0.08
6
Miles7
0.16
5
8
3
Ï Ï
28S
15E
Proposed4Fences
Ï Ï
28S
14E
1
34
33
32
9
10
Map 3 - Proposed Juniper Treatment Areas
µ
Moderate Density 2,158 ac
Connley Hills
Research Natural Area
High Density 11,580 ac
OATM AN
FLAT
OATM AN
FLAT
TUFF
BUTTE
31
High Density 4,720 ac
TUFF
BUTTE
P
O
Legend
State Highway 31
Allotment
Soil Series
ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES
ANAWALT GR-CL, 1-12% SLOPES
ANAWALT-FREZNIK CMPLX, 1-5% SLOPES
BONNICK GR-A-LS, 1-5% SLOPES
BONNICK GR-A-SL, 0-4% SLOPES
BONNICK-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-8% SLOPES
BONNICK-KUNCEIDER CX, 1-10% SLOPES
BUNYARD A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES
CHANCELAKES-SWALESILVER (TAXA) CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES
CONNLEYHILLS A-COSL, 2-15% SLOPES
CRACKEDGROUND CB-A-LS, 1-6% SLOPES
DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES
DUNRES CB-A-SL, THICK SURF, 1-8% SLOPES
DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
DUNRES-MOONBEAM-NUSS CMPLX, 1-20% SLOPES
DUNRES-MURLOSE-NUSS TAXA CMPLX, 1-20% SLOPES
DUNRES-NINEMILE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES
ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S SLOPES
FLAGSTAFF CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES
FORT ROCK A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES
FORT ROCK-LAPHAM CMPLX, 0-2% SLOPES
FORT ROCK-MOREHOUSE CMPLX, 0-2% SLOPES
FORT ROCK-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-8% SLOPES
GLENCABIN GR-A-L's, DRY, 15-35% SLOPES
GLENCABIN GR-A-L, 30-65% N SLOPES
GOODTACK A-FSL, LOW PPT, 1-5 % SLOPES
GREENMOUNTAIN-JACKSPLACE CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
HENKLE-WANOGA CMPLX, 1-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-5% SLOPES
KUNCEIDER-RO CMPLX, 0-15% SLOPES
LAPHAM GR-A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES
LEGLER, TAXA-CHANCELAKES, TAXA ASSOC, 0-2% SLOPES
LOCANE-ANAWALT CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
LUDI GR-A-SL, LOW PPT., 15-30% S SLOPES
LUDI GRV-A-SL, 15-35% SLOPES
MILLENIUM SIL, 0-2% SLOPES
MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM-CONNLEYHILLS CMPLX, 1-8% SLOPES
MOONBEAM-GOODTACK CMPLX, 1-8% SLOPES
MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 0-2% SLOPES
MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES
MOREHOUSE A-S, 2-20% SLOPES
MURLOSE CB-A-L, 2-20% SLOPES
MURLOSE GR-A-COSL, 1-6% SLOPES
NINEMILE CBV-L, LOW PPT, 2-15% SLOPES
NORCROSS CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES
NORCROSS GR-A-L, 1-15% SLOPES
PAULINA-CHINARISE CMPLX, 0-4% SLOPES
PERNTY,TAXA-CHESEBRO-RO CMPLX, 15-30% SLOPES
PITCHERANCH-CHINARISE CMPLX, 0-4% SLOPES
PLAYAS
POORJUG-RO CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES
RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES
RO-XERIC HAPLOCAMBIDS-RBL CMPLX, 50-90% SLOPES
SENRA-GOODTACK-SUCKERFLAT COMPLX, 1-4% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT CB-A-L, 2-10% SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% N SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% S SLOPES
SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 8-15% SLOPES
SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% SLOPES
THORNLAKE A-SIL's, 0-2% SLOPES
THORNLAKE A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES
TONOR A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES
TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES
WANOGA-HENKLE CMPLX, DRY, 0-15% SLOPES
WEGERT CBV-A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 0-15% SLOPES
WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH PPT, 0-15% SLOPES
WEGLIKE-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES
WILDCATBUTTE-RO CMPLX, 15-30% S SLOPES
WILDCATBUTTE-SUCKERFLAT-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLX, 15-40% SLOPES
XEROLLS-RO CMPLX, 30-65% N SLOPES
Map 4 - Soil Complexes in the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, Murdock Allotments
0 0.5 1
2
3
Miles
4
Development Type
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏÏ
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
ÏÏ
Ï ÏÏ
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Main Roads
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
ÏÏ
Private/Unknown
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
USFS
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
BLM
Ï
ÏÏ
RIM
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
RIDGE
Ï
Ï
Ï
FENCE-Fence line
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Fences
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï ÏÏ
Ï
<all other values>
ÏÏ
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Waterhole - Includes dugouts
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Water Tank
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Trough
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Spring Development
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Reservoir - Includes ponds
Ï
Ï
Guzzler
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Dam - Barrier across a watercourse
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
ÏÏ
Ï Ï
ÏÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï
Legend
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Map 5 - Existing Range Improvements
for the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, And Murdock Allotment
0 0.5 1
2
3
Miles
4
Legend
Dominant Vegetation
///
//ELEOC/IVAX
//JUNCU/SENEC
/ARAR8/POSE4/
/ARAR8/POSE4/PHDI3
/ARAR8/PSSPS/
/ARAR8/PSSPS/ASTRA
/ARAR8/PSSPS/PHHO
/ARCA13/ELEL5/
/ARCA13/ELEL5/LUPIN
/ARCA13/MURI/
/ARTRT/AGCR/
/ARTRT/BRTE/
/ARTRT/ELEL5/
OATMAN FLAT
/ARTRT/LECI4/
/ARTRT/PSSPS/
TUFF BUTTE
/ARTRV/AGCR/
/ARTRV/BRTE/
/ARTRV/ELEL5/
/ARTRV/FEID/
/ARTRV/POSE4/
/SAVE4/BRTE/DESCU
/ARTRV/STCO4/
JUOC//BRTE/
/ARTRV/PSSPS/
/SAVE4/DISPS2/
/ARTRV/STOC2/
/ARTRV/STOC2/EPILO
/ARTRV/STTH2/
/ARTRW8/AGCR/
JUOC/ARAR8/STTH2/
/CHNA2/BRIN2/
JUOC/ARTRT/BRTE/
/CHNA2/BRTE/DESCU
/CHNA2/STCO4/
/CHNA2/STOC2/
/CHVI8/AGCR/
/CHVI8/ELEL5/
/CHVI8/STOC2/
/PUTR2/FEID/
/PUTR2/STOC2/
/PUTR2/STTH2/
/SAVE4/BRTE/
JUOC/ARAR8/AGCR/
JUOC/ARAR8/PSSPS/
/CHNA2/AGCR/
/CHNA2/LETR5/
JUOC//PSSPS/
JUOC/ARAR8/POSE4/
/ARTRW8/POSE4/
/CHNA2/BRTE/
JUOC//FEID/
JUOC/ARTRV/AGCR/
JUOC/ARTRV/ELEL5/
JUOC/ARTRV/FEID/
JUOC/ARTRV/POSE4/
JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS/
JUOC/ARTRV/STCO4/
JUOC/ARTRV/STTH2/
JUOC/CHNA2/BRTE/
JUOC/PUTR2/PSSPS/
PIPO/ARTRV/FEID/
PIPO/CHVI8/STOC2/
Highways
31
EGLI RIM
MURDOCK
Map 6 - Dominant Vegetation in the Egli Rim,
Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments
00.425
0.85
1.7
2.55
Miles
3.4
Map 7. Sage-Grouse Habitat from Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF), Preliminary Priority Habitat, and Preliminary General Habitat
OAT MAN F LAT
TUF F BU TTE
Legend
Allotment
Oregon Greater Sage Grouse Leks
Occupied
Occupied Pending
Unknown
EG LI R IM
Unoccupied
Unoccupied Pending
Sage-Grouse Habitat (BLM)
Preliminary General Habitat (PGH)
Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH)
Sage-Grouse HAF
Habitat Summary
MU RD OCK
Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Marginal
Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Suitable
Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Marginal
Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Suitable
Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Marginal
Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Suitable
Breeding-Suitable_Winter-Suitable
Summer-Marginal
Summer-Marginal_Winter-Marginal
Unsuitable-All
Yearlong-Marginal
Yearlong-Suitable
0 0.5 1
2
3
Miles
4