Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration
Environmental Assessment
#DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT - Klamath Falls Resource Area
ABSTRACT: The following Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the environmental impacts
associated with a variety of proposed treatments in the Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration Analysis
Area. The proposed actions include removal of encroaching western juniper within sagebrush steppe and
juniper woodland habitat, including hand cutting of juniper along Miller and Antelope Creeks; firewood
and biomass utilization; pile burning of material that is not utilized; planting bitterbrush and other native
shrubs in units where piles are burned; seeding of disturbed areas with native species; construction of a
livestock exclosure along a section of Antelope Creek; and installation of four metal pipe gates within the
Klamath deer winter range closure area. The issues addressed in the EA concern potential impacts to
rangeland vegetation, soils, wildlife, water quality, air quality, socioeconomics, and other resources as they
affect the ecosystem in the proposed project area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Klamath Falls Resource Area, BLM
2795 Anderson Avenue, Bldg. 25
Klamath Falls, OR 97603
541-883-6916
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND RESPONDENT’S PERSONAL PRIVACY INTERESTS:
The Bureau of Land Management is soliciting comments on this Environmental Assessment. Comments,
including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the above
address during regular business hours. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, please be aware that your entire comment –
including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you
can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public inspection in their entirety.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...….1
Location........................................................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................................... 1
Management Direction and Conformance with Existing Plans.................................................................... 2
Management Recommendations from the RMP and Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis.............. 3
Public Input Summary and Issue Development ........................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES………………………………………...…..4
Proposed Management Common to All Action Alternatives ....................................................................... 4
Proposed Action: .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 5
No Action ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Other Alternatives Considered, But Not Analyzed in Detail ....................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES…………….13
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Vegetation - Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 13
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences................................................................................................ 20
Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Affected Environment ................................................................................ 26
Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 28
Soils - Affected Environment ..................................................................................................................... 31
Soils - Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 33
Roads - Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 37
Roads - Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................... 37
Hydrology/Water Quality - Affected Environment .................................................................................... 38
Hydrology/Water Quality - Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 40
Aquatic Species and Habitat – Affected Environment ............................................................................... 45
Aquatic Species and Habitat – Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 47
Livestock Grazing Management – Affected Environment ......................................................................... 50
Livestock Grazing Management - Environmental Consequences.............................................................. 51
Cultural Resources – Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 53
Cultural Resources – Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 53
Recreation Resources - Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 53
Recreation Resources - Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 54
Wilderness Characteristics - Affected Environment .................................................................................. 54
Wilderness Characteristics - Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 54
Fuels – Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 54
Fuels - Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................ 55
Air Quality – Affected Environment .......................................................................................................... 56
Air Quality – Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................. 57
Visual Resources - Affected Environment ................................................................................................. 58
Visual Resources - Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 58
Socioeconomics – Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 58
Socioeconomics – Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 59
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Affected Environment...................................................... 61
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Environmental Consequences .......................................... 62
CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................ 65
CHAPTER 5 – LIST OF PREPARERS…………………………………………………………………… .65
CHAPTER 6 – BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………….66
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
ii
Appendices
Appendix A – Summary of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs)….. 71
Appendix B – Definition of “Old” Juniper and Juniper Succession Phases………………………………. 74
List of Tables
Table 1: Location of BLM-administered Lands within Proposed Treatment Units…………………………1
Table 2: Existing Rights-of-Way and Withdrawals within the Analysis Area…………………….………..1
Table 3: Actions Past, Present, and Future on BLM Lands in and Adjacent to the Project Area…….……...6
Table 4: Comparison of Action Alternatives in the SW Gerber EA…………………………………………7
Table 5: Summary of Rangeland Vegetation Conditions and Weed Survey Data by Site……….……….18
Table 6: Special Status Species in the SW Gerber Analysis Area…….………………..……………...…..26
Table 7: Soils of the SW Gerber Habitat Restoration Units………………………………………………. 32
Table 8: 6th field Watersheds within the SW Gerber Analysis Area………………………………………38
Table 9: Road Densities by Watershed within the SW Gerber Analysis Area……………………………..39
Table 10: Miles of Road on BLM-administered Land within the Analysis Area by Subwatershed…...… 39
Table 11: Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings in Analysis Area..………….…….. 40
Table 12: Acres of Proposed Treatments Relative to Project Area & Size of 6th Field Watershed………. 42
Table 13: Native Fish Species Potentially Affected by the Proposed Action in Analysis Area…………... 45
Table 14: Non-native Fish Species Potentially Affected by the Proposed Action in the Analysis Area…...46
Table 15: Approximate Gallons of Fuel Used by Alternative………………………………………..…….64
Table A-1: Riparian reserve types and widths from the KFRA RMP………………………………..……72
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Map of Treatment Units for Proposed Action……………………………………………………..8
Map of Treatment Units for Alternative 1………………………………..……………………..…9
Map of Treatment Units for Alternative 2………………………………………………………..10
Map of Treatment Units for Alternative 3………………………………………………………..11
Map of Riparian Treatment Units for all Action Alternatives……………………………………12
Ventenata and Medusahead Infestations in Project Area (from 2012 Weed Survey Data)…..…..19
Allotment and Pasture Boundaries in the Analysis Area……………………….………………...52
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
iii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The Klamath Falls Resource Area Management Plan (RMP, 1995) provides direction to manage lands within
the western portion of the Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area
(KFRA). The Gerber-Willow Valley (GWV) Watershed Analysis provides updated information and
recommendations for the lands on the east side of the KFRA known as the “Gerber Block” which includes the
proposed project area. The Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration Environmental Assessment (SW Gerber
EA) will analyze the effects from proposed vegetative treatments and other management actions designed to
meet the recommendations and direction in the GWV Watershed Analysis and RMP.
Location
The area proposed for treatment under the SW Gerber EA consists of several units, totaling approximately
5,000 acres of land, located southeast of Klamath Falls, Oregon (refer to locations in Table 1 and map in
Figure 1). The analysis area is in the southwest portion of the largest contiguous block of public land in the
KFRA, and includes portions of three 5th Field watersheds: Rock Creek-Lost River, Langell Valley-Lost
River, and Gerber Reservoir-Miller Creek. Treatments proposed in this EA would be conducted on BLMadministered lands and lands that have been withdrawn for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
Reclamation has approved BLM’s management of vegetative resources consistent with BLM’s RMP.
Table 1: Location of BLM-administered Lands within Proposed Treatment Units
Location
Township
T. 39 S.
T. 40 S.
T. 41 S.
T. 41 S.
Range
R. 13 E.
R. 14 E.
R.14 E.
R.14½ E.
All or Part of Sections:
33, 34
4, 5, 16, 21
8-20, 22-24
4, 5, 8, 9, 16-21
Table 2: Existing Rights-of-Way and Withdrawals within the Analysis Area
Legal
Description
T41S, R14E
T41S, R14 ½ E
T41S, R14E
T41S, R14 ½ E
ROW Case
Number
Entity
Purpose
Acres
10,11,13
19,20,21
13,14,15,19,20,21,22,24
19,20,21,22
OR66677
Pacific Power
Transmission Line
24.78
OR64807
Ruby Pipeline
Natural Gas Pipeline
71
T39S, R13E
34
OR631786
SO 7/27/1922
T41S, R14E
19, 20
OR631786
SO 6/20/1922
Section
Withdrawn Klamath
River Rec Project
Withdrawn Klamath
River Rec Project
240
91.58
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to implement direction in the RMP and recommendations in the GWV
Watershed Analysis that are designed to improve the overall condition of the rangelands and riparian habitat
for a variety of wildlife species. The rangelands of focus for the proposed project are designated as critical
winter range for mule deer and historic sage grouse habitat. The riparian areas of focus are in the Miller Creek
and Antelope Creek drainages.
The sage grouse is a BLM sensitive species and currently a Candidate for listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The mule deer is a high value species for the public, and within the proposed project area
the population is currently below the State of Oregon’s management objectives. The purpose of the proposed
management actions will be to improve habitat for both of these species plus a variety of others associated
with sagebrush steppe habitat.
The expansion of western juniper over the past 120 years has been well-documented (Eddleman 1986;
Gedney et al. 1999; Miller et al. 2000; Young and Evans 1984). Excessive grazing in the past, along with fire
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
1
suppression and climate shifts, are believed to be the causes of juniper expansion (Burkhardt and Tisdale
1976; Knapp and Soule 1998; Miller and Rose 1995; and Young and Evans 1984 as cited in Azuma et al.
2005). The proposed project area was historically more open juniper woodland or shrub-dominated
communities than current rangeland conditions. The expansion of juniper forest has had a pronounced effect
on the sagebrush steppe and riparian vegetative community. Juniper competes directly with shrub and grass
communities and as juniper increases in density, there is typically a reduction in understory shrubs and
grasses (Miller et al. 2005). This reduction in the sagebrush steppe community can have a direct effect on
mule deer winter range forage and other wildlife associated with this habitat type. The reduction in riparian
vegetation can have negative implications on watershed process and infiltration rates due to reduced riparian
vegetation and increased soil exposure.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 1976 – Defines BLM’s organization and provides the
basic policy guidance for BLM’s management of public lands. The BLM is directed by statutory obligation
under FLPMA “ [t]he secretary shall manage the public lands in accordance with the land use plans developed
by him under Section 202 of this Act when they are available…”. The KFRA RMP guides and directs
management on BLM lands and is used in identifying the following needs within the project area:
•
•
•
The KFRA has a need to manage the Southwest Gerber Analysis Area to meet land use plan
objectives from the RMP and to implement recommendations from the GWV watershed analysis.
There is a need to improve and restore rangeland and riparian habitat to provide quality winter range
for mule deer and quality sagebrush steppe habitat for a variety of wildlife species. This need will be
met by the removal of encroaching western juniper that currently competes with and has reduced the
quality of sagebrush steppe and riparian habitat within the analysis area.
There is a need to provide opportunities for the public and local industry to utilize materials (i.e. as
firewood, logs, chips or biomass) generated from restoration activities, where ecologically
appropriate.
Management Direction and Conformance with Existing Plans
This project has been designed to comply with the land use allocations, management direction, and objectives
of the 1995 KFRA RMP. The project design and recommendations for implementation are contained in the
Record of Decision (ROD)/RMP and a number of other supporting documents including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen
Western States (1991)
Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon ROD (2010)
Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program FEIS and ROD (1985) and Supplement (1987)
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001)
Rangeland Reform 1994 FEIS and ROD (1995)
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public
Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington
(1997)
Standards for Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the
States of Oregon and Washington (1998)
National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (2004)
Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (2005)
Migratory Bird Memorandum of Understanding with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (2010)
Interim Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) for Lands Administered by the BLM in the
Gerber Reservoir Watershed and the Oregon Portion of the Upper Lost River Watershed (2003)
Aquatic Conservation Strategy Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Record of
Decision 2004 (ACS SEIS EIS/ROD – 2004)
The Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis (2003)
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
2
This Environmental Assessment is tiered to the Final Klamath Falls Resource Area Environmental Impact
Statement and Resource Management Plan Record of Decision, June 1995(KFRA RMP/ROD).
Management Recommendations from the RMP and Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed
Analysis
The vegetation objectives fall into two categories – maintenance or improvement. Where ecological
conditions are thought adequate, the minimum objectives would be to maintain the current habitat conditions.
Where ecological condition improvements are desired, objectives would be to provide a reasonable amount of
improvement of habitat conditions within a practical timeframe (USDA/USDI, 2003 pp. 302). The following
are objectives for the project:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conduct thinning of encroaching juniper to protect and improve forage areas for big game. These
thinnings would be designed to protect old growth juniper and be designed to consider edge,
escape cover, and proper unit size (RMP, pp. 34).
Trees older than 100 years, and particularly over 150 years (pre-European settlement), are
considered endemic and, with few exceptions, should be left (USDA/USDI, 2003 pp. 304)
Reduce juniper/conifer encroachment in shrub areas and meadows. Create a mosaic of brush ages
by burning and/or mechanically or manually treating approximately 3% per year over the next
decade (USDA/USDI, 2003 pp. 316).
Reduce competition by removing junipers and/or conifers in order to achieve a more historic level
of sagebrush steppe composition (USDA/USDI, 2003, pp. 318).
Reduce juniper encroachment into historic sage grouse habitat...and mule deer habitat by treating
approximately 3% a year over the next 30 years (USDA/USDI, 2003, pp. 316, 319).
Management actions should be directed toward maintaining and increasing amount and vigor of
riparian habitat (USDA/USDI, 2003, pp. 319). Maintain or improve ecological conditions in
riparian and wetland vegetation (USDA/USDI, 2003, pp. 293).
Continue the implementation of the current noxious weed program using an integrated pest
management approach to contain or reduce noxious weed infestations and prevent the
establishment of new invaders (UDSA/USDI, 2003, pp. 311).
Maintain and enforce current winter range closure plans (UDSA/USDI, 2003, pp. 311).
Public Input Summary and Issue Development
The BLM sent a scoping letter to interested publics on February 25, 2010 that identified proposed actions
within the SW Gerber EA project area. The BLM received one set of comments on March 15, 2010, which
are summarized below. These comments, along with internal scoping, were used in the development of the
refined Proposed Action and alternatives. The comments are filed in the administrative record for this EA.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“…the habitat being restored is a historical anachronism that may not be sustainable under the
current regime of climate and disturbance, and the fact that restoration activities will cause lots of
ground disturbance, soil degradation, and nutrient loss.”
“…the recent expansion of juniper will not be reversed by this logging project.
“Road construction must be avoided. This is simply not restoration if it requires road
construction.”
“Use of heavy equipment should be avoided on fragile, unproductive rangeland soils.”
“Nutrients contained in juniper trees should be retained on site.”
“Ground disturbance and spreading weeds should be avoided.”
“Carbon storage should be retained on site in the form of juniper trees.”
“There appear to be additional riparian areas that need to be protected, such as the canyon
northwest of Willow Valley Reservoir.”
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
3
CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
Five alternatives analyzed in this environmental assessment are described below. See maps of each action
alternative in Figures 1-4. Table 4 displays the comparison of action alternatives in the SW Gerber EA.
Proposed Management Common to All Action Alternatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Juniper considered as “old” juniper, typically those trees older than 150 years in age (see Appendix B
for description), would be reserved from cutting.
In units where piles are burned, bitterbrush and other native shrubs would be planted upon completion
of pile burning.
Juniper on approximately 140 acres along Miller Creek, Antelope Creek, and an unnamed tributary to
Antelope Creek would be cut by hand and limbed to a six-inch top. The limbs and tops would be
lopped and left on site or hand piled away from the channel and burned. The boles of the trees would
be left in place. In some cases, certain junipers would be identified by BLM specialists to be felled
whole directly into the stream channel in order to improve aquatic species habitat.
After hand-cutting of juniper, a fenced riparian livestock exclosure would be constructed to reduce
grazing along the intermittent section of Antelope Creek above Duncan Springs. This exclosure
would exclude approximately 15 acres of riparian habitat from annual grazing within the Willow
Valley Allotment.
Areas of ground disturbance (i.e skid trails, landing areas) resulting from cutting and removal of
juniper would be reseeded with native grass and shrub species where necessary.
Maintenance would be conducted within treatment units as necessary to remove young juniper trees
encroaching into previously treated areas. This would take place within 15 years of the treatment for
each unit. These junipers are typically those that were small (below or within the sagebrush
vegetation) and missed during the initial treatment. These small trees would be cut using hand
operated devices (i.e. chainsaws, hand shears, etc.) and left on-site.
Firewood would be made available for the public in juniper treatment areas within a 300 foot distance
of a permanent open road where ecologically appropriate. Firewood units would be designed to avoid
weed infestations, riparian areas and special status plant areas.
Four metal pipe gates would be installed in the Klamath deer winter range closure area (see map for
location). The gates would be placed at currently non-gated road junctions that are being accessed by
motorized vehicles during the closure period. This is an existing seasonal road closure from
November 1 through April 15 established by the Record of Decision for the KFRA RMP (1995
ROD/RMP pg. 51-52) and Federal Register (Vol. 63, No.113, pg. 32244 - 32245). This seasonal
closure was established to protect a variety of resource values including natural surface roads,
riparian/watershed, and wildlife habitat.
Proposed Action:
The Proposed Action differs from the version that was sent out in the scoping letter in 2010. Modifications to
the original Proposed Action were derived from field work conducted post-scoping, internal scoping, and
public scoping comments received. After further field review, the interdisciplinary team determined that the
actions as described in the scoping letter may not provide the desired outcome based on weed issues
(primarily medusahead rye and ventenata, non-native invasive species) in the proposed project area. The
current Proposed Action is designed to accomplish similar restorative goals to sage steppe habitat, but based
on the weed issues that have been observed, the overall acres proposed to be treated was reduced from 12,000
to approximately 5,000. The acreage proposed for treatment with a mechanical shear was reduced while
acreage proposed for hand treatment was increased. Additionally, a livestock exclosure upstream of Duncan
Springs is proposed along Antelope Creek. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of treatments considered
under the Proposed Action.
The Proposed Action is a compilation of restoration treatments in juniper woodland, sagebrush steppe and
riparian areas proposed for the Southwest Gerber Analysis Area. These treatments are designed to improve
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
4
the health of vegetation and wildlife habitat and would be implemented over a period of five to ten years.
Figure 1 shows the approximate location of treatments considered under the Proposed Action. A description
of these actions is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed management common to all alternatives, as described above
Encroaching western juniper on approximately 2,000 acres within sagebrush steppe and juniper
woodland habitat would be cut using chainsaws. The cut juniper would be lopped and left on site.
Encroaching western juniper on approximately 3,000 acres within sagebrush steppe and juniper
woodland habitat would be cut using mechanical shear equipment.
Approximately 3,000 acres of the sheared juniper would be piled and burned at the site after the boles
have dried sufficiently.
Approximately 60,000 one-year-old antelope bitterbrush and curl leaf mountain mahogany seedlings
would be planted in units where piles have been burned. The seedlings would be protected with vexar
tubing and bamboo stakes.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 was developed to analyze the effects of juniper utilization in some units where it may be
ecologically feasible. Figure 2 displays the approximate location of treatments proposed in Alternative 1.
Treatments in Alternative 1 are identical to the Proposed Action with the exception of the differences
described below:
• In Alternative 1, approximately 3,000 acres of the mechanically sheared juniper is proposed for
utilization. Cut juniper trees would be yarded with full suspension methods and sold as saw logs,
firewood, chips, or other products, depending upon public and market demand. Residual material that
is not utilized would be piled and burned.
• Alternative 1 includes construction of approximately 2.8 miles of temporary spur roads. This total is
comprised of five short segments: three road segments in Unit 3-1, one segment in Unit 5-1, and one
segment in Unit 8-1 (see Figure 2 for the proposed temporary spur road locations). These spur roads
would be obliterated upon project completion, which includes blocking the roads, seeding with native
species, and rendering them impassable.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 was developed based on comments received during the scoping process regarding the option of
hand thinning only (no use of large “heavy” equipment) to meet the restoration needs. Figure 3 shows the
approximate locations of treatments considered under Alternative 2. Treatments in Alternative 2 are identical
to the Proposed Action with the exception of the differences described below:
• In Alternative 2, encroaching western juniper on approximately 5,000 acres within sagebrush steppe
and juniper woodland habitat would be cut using chainsaws. The cut juniper would be limbed and
lopped to a six-inch top, with the bole and limbs left on site.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 was developed to address the potential fuel hazard of leaving cut juniper on site. This alternative
is a modification to Alternative 2 in that in areas of high density juniper (approximately 50% of the area)
material would be hand cut, piled and burned, rather than left on site. Approximate locations of treatments
considered under Alternative 3 are essentially the same as Alternative 2 and are shown in Figure 4. A
description of these actions is as follows:
• Encroaching western juniper on approximately 5,000 acres within sagebrush steppe and juniper
woodland habitat would be cut using chainsaws. In areas of sparse juniper, the cut trees would be
limbed and lopped to a six-inch top, with the bole and limbs left on site. In areas of dense juniper
(approximately 3,000-3,500 acres), the limbs and tops would be hand-piled and burned.
No Action
The BLM National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook recommends the inclusion and analysis of a
No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, none of the management activities considered in this
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
5
project would be conducted. Activities proposed in and adjacent to the analysis area that have been analyzed
and approved in other NEPA documents would still take place, such as fuel reduction treatments, routine road
maintenance, forest inventory and surveys, and fire suppression. Selection of the No Action Alternative
would not change land allocations or the direction the BLM follows to manage these lands. The No Action
Alternative serves as a baseline or reference point for evaluating the environmental effects of the action
alternatives.
It should be pointed out the No Action Alternative is not a “static” alternative. It is implied that the present
environmental conditions and trends will continue. This includes trends, such as vegetation succession and
consequent terrestrial and aquatic habitat changes, increases in fire hazard, and deteriorating road conditions.
Under the No Action Alternative, implementation of actions listed in Table 3 as cumulative actions would
continue. These are activities proposed in and adjacent to the analysis area that were analyzed in other NEPA
documents.
Table 3: Actions Past, Present and Future on BLM Lands in and Adjacent to the Project Area
Treatment
Juniper Removal Treatments
South Gerber Forest Health Treatments EA
#OR-014-04-06
Livestock Grazing
Ruby Pipeline right-of-way Construction and
Management
Juniper Maintenance (CX-09-04)
Chemical Treatment of Weeds
BLM Annual Road Maintenance
Approximate Acres
or Miles
4,300 acres
8,000 acres
Anticipated Year
Cumulative Action
2004-2009
2004-ongoing
Past
Past and Future
5,000 acres
Ongoing
71.53 acres
Ongoing
Past, Present and
Future
Past and Future
3,000 acres
<1000 acres
6 miles (annually)
Ongoing
2014-2023
Ongoing
Past and Future
Future
Past, Present, and
Future
Juniper maintenance treatment (CX-09-04) includes units within the watershed where juniper was removed in
the past through mechanical treatment. Juniper trees not cut at that time, or that have since re-established,
continue to be cut with manual methods (chainsaw or hand loppers) and left on site. Chemical weed
treatments within the watershed are proposed in the Vegetation Management Step-down Environmental
Assessment (EA) currently being developed that tiers to the “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on
BLM Lands in Oregon Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (ROD).”
Other Alternatives Considered, But Not Analyzed in Detail
Weed Treatment as Part of Juniper Treatment
Chemical weed treatments in the units described in the Southwest Gerber EA and past juniper treatment units
within the watershed are proposed in the Vegetation Management Step-down Environmental Assessment
(EA) currently being developed that tiers to the “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in
Oregon Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (ROD).”
Underburning to control juniper
Underburning to control juniper was considered, but it would not meet the purpose and need of controlling the
juniper while enhancing the sagebrush habitat. The fire would likely burn much of the vegetation community
along with the juniper. In addition, infestations of medusahead and ventenata would likely be increased by
underburning. These weed species can recover more quickly than native perennial species following fire if
additional treatments including herbicide application and seeding are not included.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
6
Table 4: Comparison of Action Alternatives in the SW Gerber EA
Treatment Unit
(Approximate
Acres,
rounded up)
Proposed Action
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
1.1 (15 acres)
1.2 (60 acres)
Mechanical shear, pile,
and burn juniper; plant
bitterbrush
Mechanical shear, yard
with full suspension and
utilize juniper
Hand cut, lop, and
leave juniper
Hand cut, hand pile
and burn
2.1 (50 acres)
2.2 (600 acres)
2.3 (600 acres)
2.4 (400 acres)
2.5 (300 acres)
Hand cut, lop, and leave
juniper
Same as Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed Action
Hand cut, hand pile
and burn
Mechanical shear, pile,
and burn juniper; plant
bitterbrush
Mechanical shear, pile,
and burn juniper; plant
bitterbrush
Mechanical shear, pile,
and burn juniper; plant
bitterbrush
Hand cut juniper, lop,
scatter portions and pile
and burn portions
Hand cut juniper, lop,
scatter portions and pile
and burn portions
Mechanical shear, pile,
and burn juniper; plant
bitterbrush
Hand cut juniper, lop,
scatter portions and pile
and burn portions
Hand cut juniper, lop,
scatter portions and pile
and burn portions
Hand cut juniper, lop,
scatter portions and pile
and burn portions
Hand cut juniper, lop,
scatter portions and pile
and burn portions
Riparian Fence without
water gap
Mechanical shear, yard
with full suspension and
utilize juniper
Mechanical shear, yard
with full suspension and
utilize juniper
Mechanical shear, yard
with full suspension and
utilize juniper
Hand cut, lop, and
leave juniper
Hand cut, hand pile
and burn
Hand cut, lop, and
leave juniper
Hand cut, hand pile
and burn
Hand cut, lop, and
leave juniper
Hand cut, hand pile
and burn
Hand cut juniper, lop &
scatter
Same as Alt. 1
Hand cut juniper, pile
and burn
Hand cut juniper, lop &
scatter
Same as Alt. 1
Hand cut juniper, pile
and burn
Mechanical shear, yard
with full suspension and
utilize juniper
Hand cut, lop, and
leave juniper
Hand cut juniper, pile
and burn
Hand cut juniper, lop &
scatter
Same as Alt. 1
Hand cut juniper, pile
and burn
3.1 (1600 acres)
4.1 (720 acres)
5.1 (320 acres)
6.1 (20 acres)
Riparian
7.1 (40 acres)
Riparian
8.1 (260 acres)
9.1 (10 acres)
Riparian
10.1 (20 acres)
Riparian
11.1 (20 acres)
Riparian
12.1 (45 acres)
Riparian
13.1 (15 acres)
Temporary road
construction
Summary – Total
Treatment Acres
Shear, pile, burn
Shear and yard
Hand cut (upland)
Hand cut, lop and leave
Hand cut, pile and burn
Hand cut (riparian)
none
Proposed Action
2,975
-----
Hand cut juniper, lop &
scatter
Same as Alt. 1
Hand cut juniper, pile
and burn
Hand cut juniper, lop &
scatter
Same as Alt. 1
Hand cut juniper, pile
and burn
Hand cut juniper, lop &
scatter
Same as Alt. 1
Hand cut juniper, pile
and burn
Same as Proposed
Action
Same as
Proposed Action
Same as Proposed
Action
2.8 miles (see Figure 2)
none
none
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2,975
1,950
1,950
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
155
155
155
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
-----
4,925
4,925
155
7
Figure 1: Map of Treatment Units for Proposed Action
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
8
Figure 2: Map of Treatment Units for Alternative 1
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
9
Figure 3: Map of Treatment Units for Alternative 2
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
10
Figure 4: Map of Treatment Units for Alternative 3
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
11
Figure 5: Map of Riparian Treatment Units for All Action Alternatives
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
12
CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
Introduction
The affected environment reflects the current condition for each resource that has developed as a result of all
past natural events and management actions within the analysis area. It is a combination of natural and
human caused fires, fire suppression, road building, timber harvesting, grazing, fuel reduction treatments, and
the effects of recreational use. It is therefore unnecessary to individually catalog all past actions in this EA.
Such detail would be irrelevant to making a rational decision among alternatives. The important value of this
EA is to assess and display for the deciding official the impacts of the alternatives on those resources as they
exist today. This will allow a determination as to whether the resulting project effects and/or cumulative
effects are significant or are greater than those analyzed in the KFRA RMP/EIS. (Refer to Table 3 for a list of
actions included for analysis of cumulative effects.)
Resource values that are either not present in the project area, or would not be affected by any of the proposed
alternatives are floodplains, wilderness study areas (WSAs), areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs),
research natural areas (RNAs), paleontological resources, prime or unique farmlands, wild and scenic rivers,
and minerals. There are no known hazardous waste sites in the analysis area. No direct or indirect
disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low income
populations are expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action or the alternatives. This
chapter is designed to focus on those specific resources that would be most impacted by the Proposed Action.
In addition, it discusses the mitigation measures proposed to minimize or avoid those impacts.
Vegetation - Affected Environment
Special Status Plant Species
Currently there are no documented Special Status plant species within the proposed treatment area. Extensive
surveys for federally listed grasses, Orcuttia tenuis and Tuctoria greenei were conducted in 2010 and 2011 in
the SW Gerber area, but neither species was located. However, a new species was found, Callitriche
trochlearis, which has never been recorded in the state of Oregon. This species of annual forb is considered a
rare endemic in the state of California, and occurs solely in vernal pool and riparian habitats.
Rangeland Vegetation
An Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) was completed during 1997 and 1998 for areas within the Gerber Block
portion of the KFRA which classified all of the BLM lands into an array of ecologically distinct vegetation
communities. The following excerpts from the Gerber –Willow Valley Watershed Analysis, July 2003
provide a brief description of the ESI process. Further details of this 1998 ESI data can be found in the SW
Gerber EA project file.
A major aspect of the ESI survey, in addition to an Order 3 Soil Survey, was a vegetation survey and mapping
that compares the current vegetation against the potential vegetation by ecological site. A rangeland
ecological site is, according to the National Range and Pasture Handbook (USDA 1997), “…a distinctive
kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce
a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation.” The potential vegetation for a given ecological site is described
in an ecological site description. The ESI vegetation information is based on an estimate of current year’s
growth by plant species, and results in an ecological condition, or “seral stage” rating. The more the current
vegetation resembles the potential vegetation from the ecological site description, the higher the condition
rating, and vice versa. The rating system is based on a scale of 0% to 100% similarity to the ecological site
description. The seral stages are classified into four different levels as follows:
• 0-25% similarity is early seral (or “poor”) condition
• 25-50% is mid-seral (or “fair”) condition
• 51-75% is late seral (or “good”) condition
• 76-100% is the Potential Natural Community (PNC or “excellent” condition).
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
13
Data from the Gerber Block ESI was used to help describe the rangeland vegetation conditions for the
different proposed treatment units in that area. There are also Range Monitoring Utilization (RMU) Points
within some of the units. These points are visited every other year in pastures that have livestock use to
determine levels of forage utilization. Information from RMU points and qualitative observations from recent
field visits was also used to describe the current vegetation conditions. Some changes in grazing management
and recent juniper treatments have been completed since the ESI was done. Additionally, new invasive,
exotic weed populations have developed, and existing populations have spread since the ESI was completed.
A summary of rangeland vegetation conditions is displayed by unit in Table 5. Further details from the 1998
ESI data and the range monitoring information can be found in the SW Gerber EA project record.
Noxious Weeds/Invasive Species
A noxious weed inventory was completed within the proposed project area during the summer of 2012.
During the survey, transects were walked throughout the project units and noxious weed/invasive species
populations were recorded. Two species of invasive annual grasses, medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caputmedusae) and ventenata (Ventenata dubia), were the only species recorded during the survey although other
species, including cheatgrass and Japanese brome, were observed. Invasive annual grasses are particularly
difficult to measure accurately due to the nature of their growth habits. They tend to grow sparsely, and fill in
ground between native bunchgrasses and sagebrush species. Even if an annual grass species was recorded in
high densities in some areas, there may have been bare ground and other species that occurred in the same
area. Medusahead and ventenata were recorded only when they occurred in densities of 10% or more of the
total vegetative cover. For reference, a one square meter by one square meter (1m² x 1m²) area was used to
estimate the percentage of weed infestation. Visual estimations were made the majority of the time. Table 5
shows the number of acres within each unit where medusahead rye and ventenata were recorded during the
survey. Figure 6 is a map of the recorded areas.
Medusahead Rye
The 2012 weed survey data showed an increase in the presence of the exotic, annual grass, medusahead rye
(Taeniatherum caput-medusae), an Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Noxious Weed Control
Program “B” listed noxious weed. In 2012, infestations of medusahead rye were mapped using GIS within
the proposed treatment units. Medusahead rye infestations were recorded in approximately 52% of the project
area, with the largest infestations in Units 2-2, 2-5, 3-1, and 5-1 (see Table 5). The following description of
medusahead impacts is from the Oregon Department of Agriculture website
(http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/profile_medusaheadrye.shtml):
“Found in virtually every county in the state, medusahead rye demonstrates its negative qualities best on the
east side of Oregon where it out-competes other grasses by extracting the majority of moisture well before
perennial grasses have begun to grow. Medusahead is rich in silica and becomes unpalatable in late spring
as forage for cattle or sheep. Once land is invaded by this grass, it becomes almost worthless for forage
production, supporting neither native animals, birds or livestock. The stiff awns and hard florets can injure
eyes and mouths of grazing animals. Medusahead rye changes the temperature and moisture dynamics of the
soil, greatly reducing seed germination of other species, and creating fuel for wildfires.”
Ventenata
Although not yet classified as a noxious weed, the exotic, annual grass ventenata (Ventenata dubia) is of
concern in the proposed project area. In 2011, qualitative field observations showed high levels of ventenata
throughout the BLM’s Gerber Block including observations in most of the proposed treatment units. In 2012,
infestations of ventenata were mapped within units. Ventenata was observed in the bare soil areas between
native grasses, forbs, and shrubs with infestations ranging from approximately one-quarter acre to patches of
over 80 acres in size. Ventenata infestations were recorded in approximately 57% of the proposed project
area, with the highest concentration in Units 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, and 9-1 (see Table 5). During the Ecological Site
Inventory of 1997 and 1998 ventenata was rarely recorded on field sheets. This was due to a misidentification
of the species and the lower levels present. Ventenata was likely recorded as either annual hairgrass
(Deschampsia danthonioides) or tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa). The following characteristics of
ventenata are from a 2008 Washington State University Extension publication:
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
14
“Ventenata is a relatively new weed to the Pacific Northwest that is rapidly infesting newly seeded and poorly
managed grass areas. Ventenata infestations seriously degrade the quality of hay, pastures, and
[Conservation Reserve Program] CRP fields, as well as native range and transitional forest habitats. It has
no known forage value for livestock or wildlife, causes soil to be prone to erosion due to its shallow rooting
depth, limits the function of waterways, and reduces land values. Ventenata can be difficult to control with
common weed management tools such as foliar herbicide, tillage, and mowing, and therefore requires more
integrated methods for effective control. Fire may enhance ventenata populations by increasing germination
and producing exposed soil.”
The Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed Analysis (Table 3-30, p.88) lists other noxious weed species that occur
in the watershed, but none have been identified in the proposed treatment units to date.
Units 1-1 and 1-2
These units were classified in the 1998 ESI survey as being within the Juniper Loamy Hills ecological site,
which is characterized as being “dominated by an open stand of western juniper, including scattered older
trees or patches of older trees reflective of historic fire patterns. Antelope bitterbrush and big sagebrush,
particularly Mountain big sagebrush, are prominent along with other shrubs such as wax currant, desert
gooseberry, buckwheat and sometimes serviceberry. Bluebunch wheatgrass dominates the understory but
Idaho fescue is common, especially in partially shaded areas. Other grass species present include Thurber’s
needlegrass and Sandberg bluegrass. Some of the common forbs include balsamroot, fleabane, phlox, yarrow,
lomatium, woolly eriophyllum, lupine, hawksbeard and penstemon.”
The ESI write up for this area rated the site as being in mid-seral or Fair condition with a 50% similarity to
the ecological site description. Notes from the write-up described it as being a historically heavily grazed
area, with 10 to 20 large juniper stumps per acre, and with low production. Extensive weed surveys during
2012 recorded zero occurrences of noxious weeds in Units 1-1 and 1-2.
Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, & 2-5
These units were mainly classified in the ESI as a mix of the Juniper Claypan, Juniper Loamy Hills, and
Shallow Stony ecological sites. The Juniper Claypan ecological site comprises over 60% of the units with the
Shallow Stony representing about 25%. The Juniper Loamy Hills is about 15% of the total area, but about
40% of Units 2-1, 2-3, and 2-4.
The Juniper Claypan ecological site is described in the ESI as “dominated by open stands of western juniper
(more than 5 mature juniper/acre). Juniper reproduction is sparse. Low sagebrush is prominent with antelope
bitterbrush and buckwheat. Few other shrubs occur except as inclusions. Idaho fescue dominates the
understory, but Sandberg bluegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass are important secondary species. One spike
oatgrass is more common in low moist areas of the stand or in light swales. Small amounts of squirreltail and
junegrass are present. Some of the common forbs include scab balsamroot, fleabane, phlox, yarrow,
lomatium, agoseris, lupine, onion, yampa and pussytoes.”
Juniper Claypan areas in the boundaries of Units 2-2 and 2-3 were rated as mid to late seral or Fair to Good
condition. The write-ups showed juniper present in all size classes with the highest levels (10 to 30 per acre)
in the 12 to 20 ft. and 20 ft. or taller size classes. Old growth junipers were at 5 to 10 per acre. Native
perennial grasses accounted for about 40% of the composition. The invasive exotic annual grasses cheatgrass
and medusahead were present in both areas. Cheatgrass comprised between 2 to 9% of the vegetation with
medusahead at 1%. However, recent surveys indicated a major upward trend in noxious weed/invasive
species infestation since the ESI was completed in 1998. The 2012 weed surveys recorded medusahead rye
infestations in 94% and ventenata infestations in 73% of Unit 2-2. In Unit 2-3, 48% of the unit had
infestations of medusahead rye and 61% had ventenata. See Table 5 for a summary of rangeland vegetation
conditions and weed infestations by unit, and Figure 6, Map of Ventenata and Medusahead Infestations in
Project Area (from 2012 Weed Survey Data).
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
15
The ESI Juniper Loamy Hills ecological site characteristics were described above (for Units 1-1 and 1-2).
The Juniper Loamy Hills areas near Unit 2-1 were rated as late seral with a Fair condition rating due to low
native vegetation production levels. All size classes of juniper were present with the highest levels of 10 to 30
trees per acre in the 20 ft. or taller size (height) class. Old growth juniper was rated at 5 to 10 per acre.
Cheatgrass and medusahead were present in moderate levels throughout the area. Recent field observations
of the road that bisects Unit 2-1 showed heavy levels of medusahead rye on and along the road. The private
lands just to the north of this unit also showed dense patches of medusahead rye on and next to the road that
accesses this unit and Unit 2-4. The 2012 weed surveys recorded medusahead infestations in 35% and
ventenata in 90% of Unit 2-1. Unit 2-4 had the same percentage of the unit, 26%, infested with both
medusahead rye and ventenata.
The Shallow Stony ecological site is characterized in the ESI as “dominated by low sagebrush and Sandberg
bluegrass. A variety of perennial forbs occur throughout the stand. Variability in the thickness of the soil
surface and the amount of coarse fragments affect production and composition on this site. The increased
surface thickness promotes higher production and increases the amount of bluebunch wheatgrass and low
sagebrush. Idaho fescue occurs at the upper end of the precipitation range.”
The Shallow Stony ESI write-ups represented Units 2-2 and 2-5. These areas were rated as late seral with
Good condition. Juniper cover was sparse with a rating of 0 to 5 trees per acre in all size classes. Sandberg’s
bluegrass was the dominant native grass. The invasive, exotic annual grasses medusahead rye, cheatgrass, and
Japanese brome (Bromus japonica) were also present. The write-ups for Units 2-3 and 2-4 both had mid-seral
ratings with Fair conditions. Cheatgrass was the dominant grass species in Unit 2-4. Thurber’s needlegrass,
bottlebrush squirreltail, Idaho fescue, and Sandberg’s bluegrass were the dominant native grasses with
medusahead rye also present. The 2012 weed surveys showed that 57% of Unit 2-5 had infestations of
medusahead rye and 55% had infestations of ventenata.
Units 3-1 and 4-1
These units are in an area that was classified as about 75% Juniper Claypan and about 15% Shallow Stony
ecological sites, as described above. The area just to the east of Unit 4-1 was rated in PNC seral status with an
Excellent condition. In 1998, it had a good mix of native, perennial grasses with only a small amount of
cheatgrass and medusahead. There were 5 to 10 junipers per acre in the 12 to 20 ft. and 20 ft. or taller size
classes, and 10 to 30 junipers per acre in the old growth class. The write-up north of Unit 4-1 and northeast of
Unit 3-1 was also rated in PNC seral status with an Excellent condition. Native perennial grasses dominated
the site and it had high levels of stones, cobbles, and gravel cover components. There were 10 to 30 junipers
per acre in the 12 to 20 ft., 20 ft. or taller, and old growth size classes. The write-up west of the units was
rated as late seral with a Good condition rating. Juniper cover was sparse with a rating of 0 to 5 trees per acre
in all size classes.
Noxious weed surveys in 2012 indicated that 61% of Unit 3-1 had infestations of medusahead and 81% of the
unit had ventenata. In Unit 4-1, fewer acres of weeds were found; 34% of the unit had medusahead and 50%
had ventenata. Observations indicated patchy medusahead rye populations, that when present, form a dense
monoculture of medusahead. Ventenata seemed to be present in lower densities over the entire site, filling in
areas of bare ground in between native bunchgrasses and shrubs. Ventenata was found in monocultures,
however, in areas of dried creek drainages and in depressions over the landscape. This is either a factor of
ventenata ‘filling in’ bare areas of ground, where shrubs and bunchgrasses do not grow naturally, or a factor
of moisture in the spring – ventenata may aggressively form monocultures with more moisture in drainages
and out-compete native vegetation. Very little cheatgrass was observed, and when recorded, it was along
roadsides. The non-native Japanese brome, (Bromus japonica) was observed throughout both units,
concentrating around the south side of almost every juniper tree.
Unit 5-1
This unit is in an area that was classified by the ESI as a mix of about 75% Juniper Claypan and 20% Shallow
Stony ecological sites. The Shallow Stony area was rated as mid-seral with a Poor condition rating because
48% of the total production was comprised of a mix of annual, exotic grasses including medusahead, Japanese
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
16
brome, cheatgrass, and other Bromus species. The Juniper Claypan write-up rated the area as mid-seral status
with Fair condition. Overall production was low for the area with limited amounts of native perennial
grasses. Juniper in the 3 to 12 ft. size range were at 30 to 60 trees per acre. The 2012 weed survey showed that
65% of Unit 5-1 contained infestations of medusahead and 40% contained ventenata. No cheatgrass was
observed beyond the roadside, and Japanese brome was recorded at a lower abundance.
Units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1, 12-1, and 13-1
These units are small riparian areas that were not directly mapped as part of the ESI due to the high level of
variance at riparian sites. Some write-ups were done in riparian areas that gave a general description for a
larger area. The write-up downstream of Units 9-1, 10-1, and 13-1 classified the area as a Pine-MahoganyFescue ecological site and was rated as late seral in Good condition. There was a good mix of shrub species
and pine and juniper in the overstory. Riparian Units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1 and 10-1 are near or adjacent to Antelope
Creek and its tributaries. Riparian Units 11-1 and 12-1 are near or adjacent to Miller Creek (see Figure 5,
Map of Riparian Treatment Units). Refer to the Hydrology/Water Quality and Aquatic Species and Habitat
sections for discussion of riparian resources.
All of the riparian units surveyed for weeds in 2012 had infestations of both medusahead, ranging from 14%
to 95% of the unit, and ventenata, ranging from 21% to 100% of the unit. See Table 5 for 2012 weed survey
results by unit.
Unit 13-1 is the proposed area to be fenced. It is wholly contained within Unit 10-1.
Unit 13-1 has a population of effluent water-starwort, Callitriche trochlearis, an unlisted species in the state
of Oregon. This rare endemic annual forb is currently only known to occur in California, and is currently
being considered for Oregon state listing.
Unit 8-1
This unit is within an area that was classified by the ESI as approximately 70% Juniper Claypan and 20%
Shallow Stony ecological sites. The potential native plant communities for these ecological sites were
described previously. The Juniper Claypan portion was rated as mid-seral and Fair condition. Overall,
vegetative production was low for this ecological site and the annual, exotic grasses medusahead, cheatgrass,
and Japanese brome accounted for about 23% of the total. Junipers in the 12 to 20 ft. size class were in the 10
to 30 trees per acre range. Surveys in 2012 indicated that 35% of the unit had infestations of medusahead and
56% of the unit had infestations of ventenata. Patches of Japanese brome occurred throughout the unit at a
lower rate.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
17
Table 5: Summary of Rangeland Vegetation Conditions and Weed Survey Data by Site
SITE
ID
Site
Acreage
(Actual
GIS
acres)
1-1
12
1-2
57
2-1
31
2-2
576
2-3
580
2-4
391
2-5
300
3-1
1591
4-1
708
5-1
306
8-1
254
6-1R
19
7-1R
37
9-1R
7
10-1R
19
13-1R
14
Summary of Ecological Site
Inventory (ESI) Data, 1997-98
Units 1-1 and 1-2 were rated by the ESI as midseral vegetation communities with low
production. A low level of cheatgrass was
present, but no noxious weeds or other exotic
annual grasses were found during the 2012
weed surveys. The high levels of juniper and
historic grazing levels have likely led to the
current conditions.
Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 were rated by
the ESI as being in mid to late seral status with
Fair to Good vegetation conditions. High levels
of juniper were present in the deeper soil areas
and low levels in the shallower soil areas. The
2012 weed survey levels for ventenata and
medusahead represent a large increase since
the 1998 ESI was completed.
Units 3-1 and 4-1 were rated by the ESI as
being in late to PNC seral status with Good to
Excellent vegetation conditions. Moderate to
high levels of juniper were present in the larger
size classes and the old growth class. The 2012
weed survey showed a large increase in levels
of ventenata and medusahead since the ESI
was completed.
Unit 5-1 was rated by the ESI as being in midseral status with Fair and Poor vegetation
conditions with low production. Junipers in the
3-12 ft. size class were at 30-60 trees/acre. The
2012 weed surveys indicate a large increase in
ventenata and medusahead since the 1998 ESI.
Unit 8-1 was rated by the ESI as being in midseral status with Fair vegetation condition and
low production. The 2012 weed survey showed
an increase in ventenata and medusahead since
the ESI was completed.
These riparian units were not classified by the
ESI except for an area near Units 9-1, 10-1, and
13-1. That site was rated as late seral with good
vegetation conditions. The 2012 weed survey
showed Units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1, and 13-1 as
having varying concentrations of weedy annual
grasses.
Ventenata
Acres of
Infestation, 2012
Medusahead
Acres of
Infestation, 2012
(percent of unit)
(percent of unit)
0
0
0
0
28 (90%)
11 (35%)
421 (73%)
543 (94%)
352 (61%)
278 (48%)
100 (26%)
102 (26%)
165 (55%)
170 (57%)
1,287 (81%)
963 (61%)
356 (50%)
240 (34%)
123 (40%)
198 (65%)
142 (56%)
88 (35%)
19 (100%)
18 (95%)
15 (41%)
21 (57%)
6 (86%)
1 (14%)
14 (74%)
6 (32%)
3 (21%)
6 (43%)
R = Riparian Unit
Infestation= Approximate number of acres in each unit in which this species (ventenata or medusahead) comprises greater than 10
percent vegetative cover
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
18
Figure 6: Ventenata and Medusahead Infestations in Project Area (from 2012 Weed Survey Data)
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
19
Vegetation - Environmental Consequences
Special Status Plant Species
No Action
There are no special status plant species documented in the proposed treatment area. The newly recorded
species for the state of Oregon, the effluent water star-wort Callitriche trochlearis, located in Unit 13-1, has
yet to be added to the list of special status plants. In this case, the species will be treated as a special status
species with a project design feature (PDF) to ensure the population is not damaged in management actions.
The No Action Alternative would continue to allow juniper and noxious weeds to encroach upon habitat that
could contain undiscovered special status plant species.
Proposed Action and Alternative 1
Because there are no known special status plant species documented in the area, no direct effects are
anticipated. Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 1 would result in disturbance of vegetation
and soils and increased potential for the spread of weeds. These effects could adversely affect habitat that
could contain undiscovered special status plant species.
The Callitriche trochlearis in Unit 13-1, will likely benefit from the riparian fencing that is proposed for all
actions. The exclosure will prevent any disturbance caused by cattle utilizing the area as a water source.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Alternatives 2 and 3 would create a minimal amount of disturbance due to proposed hand-cut treatments.
Both alternatives would continue to allow noxious and invasive weeds to encroach upon habitat that could
contain undiscovered special status plant species, similar to the No Action Alternative. Hand-cut treatments
themselves may not affect the rate of spread of noxious and invasive weeds, however, the people walking inbetween the juniper may aid in weed dispersal. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B, which restricts
mechanical and hand cutting treatments during the seed dispersal period for medusahead, would reduce the
rate of spread of weeds due to the reduced amount of ground disturbance and timing of seed dispersal.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of any of the action alternatives in conjunction with the possible future application of
herbicide specific to medusahead (see Table 3: Actions Past, Present, and Future) would have indirect
beneficial effects on special status species by promoting restoration of potential habitat. Under the No Action
Alternative, not treating juniper would reduce the beneficial effects of herbicide application.
Rangeland Vegetation
No Action
Units 1-1 and 1-2
With the amount of junipers present in Units 1-1 and 1-2, there will be a decline in vegetation conditions,
primarily in the mountain sagebrush component, if the juniper canopy cover increases (Miller et al. 2000).
The deeper soils of this ecological site will likely continue to support an understory of native grasses and
forbs, but production levels will remain low. These are the only units in the project area with no recorded
infestations of medusahead or ventenata.
Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, & 8-1 and Riparian Units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1, & 11-1
The current levels of junipers in these units vary between the ecological sites present, with the higher numbers
being in the Juniper Claypan and Juniper Loamy Hills sites and riparian units, and lower numbers in the
Shallow Stony sites. In all of the ecological sites, the levels of juniper exceed the amounts for the historic
climax plant community descriptions. All of the units also had varying levels of the exotic, invasive annual
grasses ventenata, cheatgrass, and medusahead.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
20
The junipers will likely continue to increase in size and numbers throughout these units, but this is dependent
upon the stage of juniper stand development. As the juniper stands reach full development, leader growth and
recruitment of young trees generally declines. The impacts to the understory vegetation as the juniper
increases will vary based upon the site conditions. One study (Miller et al. 2000) showed that an increase in
juniper dominance had little impact on low sagebrush and an inconsistent effect on bitterbrush. The study
also found that herbaceous cover and species diversity showed no difference between early stands and stands
with maximum juniper cover in the low sagebrush association, although it was noted that it was difficult to
determine what level of juniper cover was near maximum in the low sagebrush association. In portions of
units that have mountain big sagebrush, the response to increasing juniper density may be more predictable.
The same study found that when juniper canopy cover increased, mountain big sagebrush canopy declined.
The presence of the exotic, invasive annual grasses, especially ventenata and medusahead, will likely have a
greater influence on the current vegetation communities than the existing juniper. Many recent studies, as
cited below, have shown a direct relationship between an increase in medusahead and a decline in vegetation
productivity and diversity. All of these units have varying levels of medusahead and ventenata, and any
increases in the populations or spatial extent will negatively impact the existing vegetation communities. All
of these units have shown a large increase in medusahead and ventenata between the time the ESI survey was
completed in 1998 and when the weed survey was done in 2012. In the No Action Alternative, the current
trend of increasing spread of noxious and invasive weeds would continue.
Proposed Action
Mechanical shear, pile, and burn units
For the treatment units where mechanical shearing and piling of juniper is proposed (1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, &
8-1), there will be disturbance to the vegetation and soils from heavy machinery. This can result in the
crushing or uprooting of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and small trees especially when the shearing equipment makes
turns while cutting and piling the juniper, and from repeated trips over skid trails and temporary roads.
The environmental impacts to rangeland vegetation from mechanical shearing can be inferred from a
thorough inventory of the vegetation conditions currently present. The composition and speed of plant
community response depends on several integrated factors, including site characteristics, pretreatment
floristics, post treatment management, and weather (Bates et al. 2005). Proposed treatment areas that are in
late or PNC seral status and in Good or Excellent condition would likely have the resiliency to respond
positively over time to the juniper removal by mechanical shearing.
In areas where exotic annual grasses are present, the soil disturbance caused by heavy machinery provides a
substrate that favors the establishment and spread of these species. Past work suggests that weed response
following treatment projects would be site-specific, and would depend heavily on the composition of the
pretreatment plant community (Everett and Ward 1984, Koniak 1985). Areas that have ventenata and
medusahead as pre-treatment components, regardless of the seral stage or condition level, would likely have
an increased amount and distribution of these grasses after this treatment.
As described in the “Affected Environment” section, medusahead exhibits characteristics that allow it to
suppress native perennial species. It germinates in late winter and begins growth before the perennial species,
thus using available moisture in the upper soil layers. Medusahead litter is also high in silica and has a slow
decomposition rate that allows it to build up over time and suppress native plants (Bovey et al. 1961). The
result is often a dense monoculture of medusahead (George 1992). This buildup of litter also increases the
potential fire frequency to the detriment of native perennials (Torell et al. 1961, Young 1992, Milton 2004).
It also decreases biodiversity, reduces livestock forage production, and degrades ecological function of native
plant communities (Davies and Svejcar 2008).
Most of the juniper control research studies have been done on ecological sites with big sagebrush and
associated grasses in the understory. The sites being evaluated for this Proposed Action and alternatives are
predominately low sagebrush and associated bunchgrass dominated sites. Qualitative observations from
recent mechanical juniper cutting on these types of sites have shown variable responses, but there has been a
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
21
large initial increase in cheatgrass on sites where it was a component prior to the treatments. A subsequent
decrease in cheatgrass, as noted in some studies, has been observed on sites where a high level of perennial
grasses was present before treatment. In areas where medusahead was a component before treatment there
have been both monitoring studies and qualitative observations showing an increase in both the amount and
distribution of this grass, especially where mechanical shearing methods were used.
Units 1-1 and 1-2 would likely have improved vegetation conditions after treatment even though they are
currently in mid-seral status and Fair condition. The density of juniper present has likely contributed to the
low vegetation production levels. There was no medusahead recorded or observed in units 1-1 and 1-2 during
the ESI survey, nor during the the 2012 weed surveys.
Mechanical shearing of Units 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, and 8-1 would result in increased density and distribution of the
existing weed infestations, accelerating the downward trend and making any efforts at future control that
much more difficult. Any mechanical disturbance of the existing weed populations would result in negative
consequences to the native vegetation community.
In summary, any mechanical disturbance in areas with these weedy grasses would result in an increase in the
density and distribution of these exotic species. This would accelerate the downward trend and make any
efforts at future control much more difficult. This could result in decreased ecological function of the
vegetation community in these units. Medusahead density has a strong negative correlation to plant species
diversity and richness, most native plant functional groups, and biological soil crusts (Davies 2011).
Effects of Piling and Burning
The juniper in the proposed units would be piled and burned after the shearing operations (or handcutting in
portions of riparian units). The amount of juniper present in the units varies widely. Little research has been
done on the effects to vegetation of juniper pile burning. Juniper piles that have been burned on low
sagebrush ecological sites in the Gerber Block have shown that most of the piles burned hot enough to
eliminate almost all of the existing vegetation beneath them. Observations made during KFRA
Interdisciplinary Team field trips of burn sites several years after burning have shown the growth of only a
few early seral forb species. In the transition zone between the burned and unburned areas, there has also
been a high level of cheatgrass observed in the first few years after the burn. The cheatgrass is evidently
responding to a flush of nutrients from the burn. Where burn areas have been planted with bitterbrush
seedlings, the seedlings have responded well due to the lack of competition.
The environmental conditions present at the time of burning could influence the vegetation response after the
burn. One study by Bates and Svejcar (2009) suggested that to minimize the negative effects of fire to
herbaceous plants under juniper debris, soils and juniper needle litter contacting the ground should be wet and
preferably frozen. Other work by these researchers has shown that burning when soils are dry and ground
litter water content is low will result in a near 100% loss of herbaceous perennials, especially bunchgrasses
(Bates et al. 2007b). These studies involved burning of scattered juniper debris, not large piles like those
being analyzed in this document. Burning of piles would result in higher soil temperatures and associated loss
of perennial species.
If unplanted, the burned areas would revegetate at some point in the future with a vegetation composition
likely composed of species from the surrounding area. Areas with a component of cheatgrass and/or
medusahead and/or ventenata would experience an increase in these species.
Hand cut, lop, and leave juniper units
Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, & 2-5 and portions of the Riparian Units 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, 10-1, & 11-1 would be
hand cut with chainsaws and the branches and boles would be lopped and left on site. This type of treatment
would not involve any vegetation disturbance from heavy machinery and should result in much less physical
damage to vegetation, other than juniper, in these treatment areas.
Chainsaw cutting of juniper has proven successful at increasing understory cover, productivity, forage quality,
and diversity (Vaitkus and Eddleman 1987; Bates et al. 2000; Eddleman 2002). The level and rate of plant
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
22
community response varies based on post treatment weather conditions, management, grazing history, site
potential, seedbanks, and plant composition prior to treatment (Miller et al. 2005). Long-term studies of
vegetation succession after juniper cutting have shown varied responses due to these many environmental and
management variables (Bates et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2007a). All of the studies referenced were done on sites
with big sagebrush species (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata, vaseyana or wyomingensis) and the
associated understories versus the low sagebrush communities present in the proposed treatment units.
Studies done in big sagebrush ecological sites have shown that 1 to 2 perennial grasses per 10 square ft.
(Eddlemann 2002) and 2 to 3 perennial bunchgrasses per square meter (Bates et al. 2005, Bates and Svejcar
2009) was sufficient to permit natural recovery after juniper cutting using chainsaws. Since Units 2-1, 2-3,
and 2-4 are low sagebrush ecological sites with shallow soils, they would likely not meet this criterion over
most of their acreage due to the low production levels. However, the cutting of the juniper would likely result
in an increase in perennial grasses, forbs, and sagebrush. The removal of the juniper in these shallow soils
would provide increased moisture and nutrients for the native perennial species that are present. The invasive
annual grasses would also compete with the native species during the post-treatment recovery.
A long-term study of the effects of debris from chainsaw cut junipers on understory response and succession
was done in a big sagebrush area (Bates et al. 2007a). Juniper densities at the study site were much higher
than the current pre-treatment densities in the proposed units 2-1 through 2-5. One result of the study was
that retaining juniper litter on site did not benefit establishment of perennial grasses when compared to nonlitter areas, other than Bottlebrush squirreltail, which did increase. This was attributed to the wind dispersal of
the squirreltail seeds into the litter areas. It was suggested that leaving cut trees in place may be beneficial for
establishment of perennial grasses when grasses are seeded into these locations. Eddlemann (2002b) reported
success with this method in years with average to above-average winter (November to January) precipitation.
However, another result of the Bates study was that the juniper litter areas did provide favorable sites for the
establishment and development of annual grasses. In that study, the juniper litter and former canopy areas
covered 45% of the area. These areas in Units 2-1 through 2-5 would likely cover less than 25% of the area
following treatment. The non-litter interspace areas in the study showed an increase in perennial grasses.
In summary, Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 and portions of Riparian Units 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, 10-1, & 11-1
would likely have an increase in understory vegetation following chainsaw cutting of junipers. The high level
of weedy grass infestations in all of these units would be detrimental to the recovery of the vegetation
community. In the long term (6+ years) on all of the units, variables like precipitation, grazing management,
juniper re-establishment, wildfires, etc. could also have negative or positive effects on the vegetation
composition.
Alternative 1
Under this alternative, the juniper in Units 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, & 8-1 would be mechanically sheared,
yarded with full-suspension to landings, and utilized. Alternative 1 includes construction of a total of 2.8
miles of temporary roads in Units 3-1, 5-1, and 8-1. The impacts to the vegetation from the mechanical
shearing would be the same as described above under the Proposed Action, but without the pile burning
effects. This would include the crushing and/or uprooting of shrubs, grasses, and forbs and disturbance of the
biotic soil crusts. It would also include the impacts described above where exotic, annual grasses are present.
Alternative 1 includes the use of additional equipment to yard the material, which would increase the level of
surface disturbance. The areas in skid trails, landings, and temporary roads would be subjected to a
proportionately higher level of impact due to repeated travel by the heavy machinery. The construction of the
temporary roads would result in the complete removal of vegetation from the road surface. Natural vegetation
recovery on these areas would take much longer and would be influenced by the surrounding vegetation
conditions, post treatment management, and weather conditions. As noted above, any areas that have
medusahead or ventenata as a component of the plant community would have increased amounts following
yarding treatments. The skid trails, landings, and temporary roads would be susceptible to invasion by
medusahead and ventenata due to the high levels of soil surface disturbance and the low levels of competing
native vegetation found on these areas following treatment.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
23
The Riparian Units 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, 10-1, & 11-1 would have the juniper cut with chainsaws, lopped, and
left on site under Alternative 1. The effects of this treatment are described above for the Proposed Action
under “Hand cut, lop, and leave juniper units.”
In summary, Alternative 1 would result in more soil surface and vegetation disturbance from mechanical
equipment than the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative in Units 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, & 8-1.
This greater level of disturbance would result in a potential longer recovery time and a greater chance of
invasion by exotic vegetation species.
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, all of the units would have the juniper hand cut with chainsaws, lopped, and left on site.
The effects of this treatment are described for the Proposed Action under “Hand cut, lop, and leave juniper
units.” Alternative 2 would likely result in increased understory vegetation. The soil surface area covered by
juniper debris following treatment in all of these units would likely exceed 25%. Some areas within the units
could exceed 40%. Recent aerial photos of the units help confirm this assumption. Based upon the Bates
study above, this amount of litter could have a negative impact on the recovery of the native vegetation. Units
1-1 and 1-2 would have the best chance of recovery in the long term as there were no weedy species found in
these units. The other units would have a much lower chance of vegetation improvement due to the high level
of juniper litter and the moderate to high levels of weedy grass infestations that are present.
In summary, Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5 would likely have an increase in understory vegetation following
chainsaw cutting of junipers. In Units 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 8-1, and the Riparian Units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1,
& 11-1, the amount of juniper debris on the ground following treatment would have a negative impact upon
vegetation recovery in both the short term and long term. The amounts of weedy species present in these units
would also be detrimental to long-term recovery of the native vegetation. Units 1-1 and 1-2 could recover in
the long term as no weedy species were found in these units. In the long term (10+ years) on all of the units,
variables like precipitation, grazing management, juniper reestablishment, wildfires, etc. could affect the
vegetation composition.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would have the juniper hand cut with chainsaws, hand piled, and burned in all of the units. The
effects of these treatments would be the same as those described under the Proposed Action.
One long term study found that the burning of cut western juniper in winter had a long-term positive effect on
the recovery of native perennials when compared to the effect of leaving cut trees unburned and in place
(Bates and Svejcar, 2009). These studies involved burning of scattered juniper debris, not large piles like
those being analyzed in this document. Burning of piles would likely result in higher soil temperatures and
associated loss of perennial species. The burned areas would revegetate at some point in the future with a
vegetation composition likely composed of species from the surrounding area. Areas with a component of
cheatgrass, medusahead, or ventenata would experience an increase in these species.
The piling and burning of the juniper in Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 would likely result in improved
vegetation conditions in areas that have no weedy species. These units would have a relatively low density of
juniper piles to burn compared to the other units.
Units 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 8-1 and the Riparian Units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1, & 11-1 would have higher
densities of juniper piles to burn than Units 2-1 through 2-5. If the piles are relatively small and burned under
more favorable conditions, as suggested by the Bates and Svejcar study cited above, then there should be
lower negative impacts to the existing native vegetation. If large piles of juniper are burned when the ground
is not saturated or frozen, this would likely result in a near 100% loss of herbaceous perennials, especially
bunchgrasses, under the piles. With the large number of piles present in these units, this would likely cause a
negative impact to the vegetation community.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
24
The amounts of weedy species present in Units 3-1 through 11-1 would be detrimental to long-term recovery
of the native vegetation. Units 1-1 and 1-2 could recover in the long term as no weedy species were found in
these units. In the long term (10+ years) on all of the units, variables like precipitation, grazing management,
juniper re-establishment, wildfires, etc. could affect the vegetation composition.
Management Common to All Action Alternatives
The seeding and planting of native grass and shrub species in disturbed areas following mechanical and burn
treatments would slow the spread of invasive species into these areas.
In any of the treated units, allowing firewood cutting within 300 feet of permanent open roads would disturb
native vegetation and increase the potential for noxious weeds and invasive annual plant species to spread
through the off-road driving actions of firewood cutters.
Cumulative Effects
Recent juniper treatment projects within the same watershed as the proposed units have included several
treatment methods: machine cut, pile, and burn; machine cut, pile, and leave; machine cut, pile and yard with
partial suspension; machine cut, pile, and yard with full suspension; hand cut, etc.
In these past treatments, some monitoring studies were established to determine the short and long-term
trends of the vegetation. Most of these studies have not had a long-term (more than 5 years) follow-up
reading of the monitoring plots. Without these quantitative monitoring results, it is difficult to determine the
effects to rangeland vegetation from these past treatments. Qualitative observations have shown varying
levels of native plant community response, which is dependent upon the pretreatment conditions, climate
conditions following treatment, and other variables. Any increases in exotic, invasive annual grasses from
these recent treatments would have a negative impact to vegetation communities in the watershed.
Livestock grazing is currently authorized on all of the proposed treatment units. Current livestock grazing is
monitored and adjusted periodically through allotment evaluations to maintain static or upward trend in
vegetation conditions. All of the proposed treatment units except 8-1, 11-1, and 12-1 are within the Willow
Valley grazing allotment. A Rangeland Health Standards Assessment was completed in 2000 for this
allotment and some reductions were made in livestock levels. These reduced levels should allow for good
recovery of native perennial grasses after treatments. Resting of pastures from livestock grazing after the
treatments could also benefit this recovery. This is addressed in the project design features in Appendix A.
Increased management of existing populations of exotic, invasive grasses (medusahead and possibly
ventenata) within the project area is likely within the next 2 to10 years. This would potentially be through the
use of a combination of possible future treatments involving prescribed burning, herbicides, and seeding of
desirable species. For those treatments to be most effective, juniper would need to be cut first or during the
prescribed burning phase of the treatments. Standing junipers within weedy areas should be left to facilitate
the future treatment of these areas with burning and herbicides. Any proposed juniper treatment methods that
result in increased populations of these grasses would increase the resources needed to manage them in the
future. A primary objective for managing medusahead is controlling its future spread within a management
area (Johnson and Davies, 2012).
Proposed Mitigation Measures
A. Mechanical or pile burning treatments will not be conducted in areas with infestations of
medusahead and ventenata.
B. Mechanical and hand cutting treatments will be restricted from July 1 through October 15 to avoid
the seed dispersal period for medusahead.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure A and/or B would reduce the rate of spread of weeds due to the
reduced amount of ground disturbance and timing of seed dispersal. Increased weed populations have been
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
25
observed post-treatment in mechanically disturbed areas and in burn piles in similar habitats on the KFRA.
Temporary roads and skid trails serve as potential vectors for weed seed as well. A study by Davies (2008)
found that medusahead has a relatively long period of seed dispersal, from July to October. He suggested that
livestock, humans, and vehicles should be kept out of medusahead infested areas during this time period to
limit the spread of medusahead seeds. Efforts to control and revegetate invasive annual grass infestations are
often unsuccessful (Young 1992, Rafferty and Young 2002, Milton 2004, Monaco et al. 2005). The expense
and difficulty in restoring areas invaded by medusahead suggests that more efforts should be directed at
preventing these invasions (Davies and Sheley 2011).
If avoided, and seasonal restrictions are in place, the medusahead and ventenata infested areas would still
continue to experience an increase in the amount and distribution of the grass, but at a much slower rate than
with disturbance. Therefore, an improved vegetative condition in the short-term would be the result of
implementing this mitigation.
Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Affected Environment
This section focuses on wildlife considered special status species that may be affected by management
activities. These will include those species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA - listed, proposed
and candidate species), those species listed under the BLM special status species policy as Bureau Sensitive
and land birds classified as Species of Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS 2008).
Table 5 is a list of terrestrial wildlife species that may be affected and were considered during the analysis for
this EA. For a list of other species and a description of their habitat that may occur in the proposed project
area, refer to the 1994 Klamath Falls Resource Area FEIS (pgs. 3-37 to 3-41). A complete list of BLM
Special Status Species that occur on the Lakeview District, KFRA may be found at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy.
Threatened and Endangered Species listed under the Endangered Species Act
There is no State or Federally listed or proposed terrestrial wildlife species that occurs within the project area
or that would be affected by the proposed project. There is no designated critical habitat within the project
area.
Table 6: Special Status Species in the SW Gerber Analysis Area
Type
Common
Name
Brewer’s
Sparrow
Greater Sage
Grouse
Scientific
Name
Spizella
breweri
Centrocercus
Urophasianus
Federal
Status
FWS BCC
Key Habitat Association
within KFRA
Mountain big sagebrush
BLM Sensitive
ESA
Candidate
Oregon
Vesper
Sparrow
Pallid Bat
Pooecetes
gramineus
affinis
Antrozous
Pallidus
BLM Sensitive
Mammal
Fringed
Myotis
Myotis
Thysanodes
BLM Sensitive
Mammal
Mule Deer
Odocoileus
hemionus
None Species of
Public Interest
Sagebrush steppe - large
areas of sagebrush with
diverse understory of native
grasses and forbs
Grasslands,Sagebrush,
montane meadows, junipersteppe
Roosting – Primarily caves,
rocks but may use large
snags
Roosting – Primarily caves,
rocks but may use large
snags
Herbaceous forage,
vegetation and landforms
that provide hiding and
thermal cover, and access to
sources of water
Bird
Bird
Bird
Mammal
BLM Sensitive
Comments
Documented on KFRA;
Habitat within project area
Historically occurred in
project area – No sightings
in KFRA since 1993
Documented on KFRA;
Habitat within project area
Documented within the RA
but not within the project
area
Documented within the RA
but not within the project
area
Project Area within critical
winter range
FWS BCC – Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Birds of Conservation Concern (2008); BLM Sensitive – Species
considered by the Bureau of Land Management as a sensitive species;ESA Candidate – Species considered under the endangered
species act as candidate species.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
26
Brewer’s Sparrow
The Brewer’s sparrow is considered a bird of conservation concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Its
range is from SW Canada eastward to the west edge of N. Dakota, including the Columbia Basin in eastern
Washington, Southern Idaho, SE Alberta SW Saskatchewan and Montana. Its breeding range extends
southward from southern California, Nevada, northern Arizona and northwest New Mexico (Marshall et al.
2003). The Brewer’s sparrow is typically associated with big sage habitat and nests in canopies of sagebrush
and occasionally other shrubs (Marshall 2003). The project area is primarily low sagebrush habitat with small
scattered patches of big sagebrush habitat. Although not prime habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow due to the
limited amount of big sage habitat and the density of western juniper, the project area does provide some
habitat. Population trends for the Brewers sparrow continue to sharply decline (Altman and Holmes 2000) in
a large part due to fragmentation and loss of sagebrush habitat.
Population estimates for the Brewer’s sparrow were summarized by BLM administrative units by Partners in
Flight (unpublished Casey and Altman 2010) to better assist in management of the species. Partners in Flight
estimates there are 134,257 Brewer’s sparrows within the boundaries of the KFRA, with only 23% of those
on BLM lands. This is a relatively small number in comparison to other BLM resource areas which support
the majority of the Brewer’s sparrow habitat. All 11 of the other resource areas in eastern Oregon each
support approximately one million or more Brewer’s sparrows (unpublished Casey and Altman 2010).
Oregon Vesper Sparrow
The vesper sparrow is classified as a BLM sensitive species. The vesper sparrow has been documented though
point count surveys in the Gerber reservoir area and much of the east side of the Klamath Falls Resource
Area. It breeds from central Canada south throughout most of the U.S. It is found in grass dominated
habitats including but not limited to grasslands, lightly grazed pastures, montane meadows, mountain big
sagebrush and open juniper woodlands (Marshall et al 2003). The vesper sparrow is considered a ground
nester and ground forager (Marshall et al 2003). The population trends in Oregon continue to decline
(unpublished USGS 2011 data) in large part due to the loss of habitat and fragmentation of their habitat.
Greater Sage Grouse
The greater sage grouse was historically found on the KFRA. The sage grouse is associated with a mix of
sagebrush communities. The last known sighting on the KFRA near Round Valley reservoir was in 1993, an
incidental sighting near a historic lek site. There are no known historic lek sites within the project area. The
closest historic lek to the project area is the Bumpheads lek just west of unit 5 -1. The closest population of
sage grouse is to the south on the Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge approximately 9 miles south of the
project area. Periodic ground surveys were conducted on the KFRA in the late 1990s until the mid-2000s at
known lek sites. No sage grouse were detected during those surveys. Aerial surveys were conducted by the
BLM and a separate aerial survey by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in 2008. No sage
grouse were located during either of those survey efforts. The ODFW developed a Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Hagen 2005 and 2011) to focus management objectives across the
state. Under this strategy ODFW working along with private landowners, non-governmental organizations
and federal agencies identified core areas and low density population areas. The KFRA, including this project
area are not within low density population areas or core areas. The project area is classified as “unoccupied
habitat”.
Currently habitat conditions would not support sage grouse populations and no reintroduction is proposed in
the foreseeable future. Hagen 2011 described the possibility of a reintroduction in the conservation
assessment and strategy; “A reintroduction of sage-grouse to Klamath Falls region may have potential both
from the stand point of habitat and population restoration. Such a project would need careful consideration
and habitat evaluation to judge the likelihood of success. Additionally, sage-grouse and sagebrush
management in California should be considered when evaluating the potential translocation to this region.”
Since no sage grouse exist within the project area and have not been documented in the project area for 20
years the effects to sage grouse will not be analyzed further.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
27
Bats
Bat surveys have been conducted in the project area from 2006 – 2010 as part of larger survey and monitoring
effort known as the Oregon Bat Grid. Two sample units were located within the project area. The pallid bat
and fringed myotis were not detected during these surveys. This is not surprising due to the lack of quality
roosting habitat within the project area. The majority of the project area does not have caves, rocky outcrops
and large snags with the exception of the riparian areas along Antelope Creek and Miller Creek Canyon.
There is potential for use in those areas due to some suitable roosting habitat for both the pallid and fringed
myotis. Several non-special status bats have been detected within the project area including the silver-haired
bat, little brown bat, Yuma bat, western long-eared bat, California bat, western small-footed bat and longlegged bat.
Mule Deer
Basic mule deer habitat requirements include an abundance of herbaceous forage, vegetation and landforms
that provide hiding and thermal cover, and access to sources of water. Mule deer generally summer at higher
elevations and migrate to lower woodlands or shrub lands in winter to find food, avoid predators, and seek
cover from harsh weather. The project area is all within critical deer winter range habitat (USDI BLM 1995).
The Interstate mule deer herd is a migratory herd that uses the project area primarily during the winter months
as they are pushed off their summer range habitat from accumulations of snow which limits food availability.
During winters with heavy snow falls the deer often continue south into California and winter in areas with
less snow cover and greater food availability. The area is important to wintering deer because of the lower
snow accumulation and this provides accessibility to forage, primarily shrubs (e.g. sagebrush, curl leaf
mahogany and bitterbrush) and forbs. Leckenby and Adams (1986) reported mule deer heavily used stands of
western juniper during severe winter conditions. They found that weather conditions were less severe in
western juniper woodlands with 30 percent cover of trees at least 15 feet tall compared to adjacent shrub
communities. Leckenby et al. (1982) concluded that dense stands of trees or shrubs over 5 feet tall provided
optimal thermal cover. However, these stands provide minimal food resources. Therefore, a mix of both
foraging and cover habitat is important for winter range habitat. Currently quality foraging habitat is one of
the limiting factors for achieving ODFW management objectives for the Interstate herd. One of BLM’s
management objectives is to assist ODFW in meeting their wildlife management objectives on public domain
lands. The project area is within the Interstate Hunt unit and ODFW sets population management objectives
for individual units. The ODFW population management objective is 14,000 mule deer. Currently the
population estimates are 40% of the management objective or approximately 5,600 mule deer (pers comm
Tom Collom ODFW 2012).
Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Environmental Consequences
Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no terrestrial threatened or endangered listed, proposed, candidate species or designated critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act (as amended USDI FWS 1973) that occur within the project area or
that would be affected from project activities. Therefore, the BLM made a “No Effect” determination for all
terrestrial listed or proposed species and for designated critical habitat.
Special Status Species
Bats
The No Action Alternative and all four action alternatives would have no effect on the pallid and fringed
myotis roosting habitat structures. Their roosting structures are caves, rocky outcrops and large snags and no
treatments are planned for those types of structure. The no action and all action alternatives would not affect
foraging habitat for either species. There is potential for disturbance of individuals from proposed hand
cutting units along Miller Creek and Antelope Creek if adjacent to roost sites (i.e. rocky outcrops, caves or
large snags). This disturbance would be short lived and would not affect bat populations locally. The
proposed mechanical units are not adjacent to any known key habitat structures for the pallid or fringed
myotis bats and therefore would have no disturbance effect to bats. Overall the No Action and all action
alternatives would have no measurable impacts to special status bat species or their habitat.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
28
No Action Alternative
Brewer’s and Oregon Vesper sparrow
The No Action Alternative will not have any direct effects on the Brewer’s or Oregon vesper sparrow. Both
species occur at low densities within the project area based on current habitat conditions and the amount of
open grasslands and mountain big sage habitat. The increase in juniper during the past 100 years has greatly
altered many wildlife habitats (Miller et al. 2005). As western juniper increases into the shrub steppe habitat
those species associated with shrub steppe habitat decrease. Noson et al (2006) reported Brewer’s sparrows
and vesper sparrows showed a strong negative correlation to increases in western juniper density and to area
occupied by western juniper. Brewer’s sparrows are sensitive to sagebrush loss, declining with the loss of
shrubs and shifting their diet from insects to seeds with changes in food availability. Because they return to
the same breeding territories each year, there can be a time-lag in their response to major habitat changes
(Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, Paige and Ritter 1999). Brewer’s sparrows used transitional communities in
Phase I (low density of small encroaching juniper) and Phase II (moderate density of encroaching juniper)
juniper stands that contained adequate levels of sagebrush cover (estimated to be more than or equal to 10
percent). See Appendix B for Juniper succession phase descriptions.
Currently the Brewer’s sparrow and Oregon vesper sparrow have downward population trends within their
range due to fragmentation and reduction of available, grasslands, open woodland and shrub steppe habitat.
The No Action Alternative will continue this trend locally by the continuation of the juniper expansion and
loss of shrub steppe habitat. The latest weeds surveys in the project area show an expansion of exotic invasive
annual grasses throughout much of the project area. The continuation of this expansion will alter native
vegetation patterns and will reduce habitat quality for song birds (Paige, C. and S.A. Ritter 1999).
Mule Deer
The No Action Alternative will not have any direct effects on the mule deer. The No Action Alternative will
maintain current levels of forage and cover in the short-term (less than 10 years). However, there is a
continued downward trend in habitat conditions, especially foraging habitat, with the continued encroachment
of western juniper and continued expansion of invasive weeds. The rapid increase in juniper during the past
100 years has greatly altered mule deer habitat by reducing sagebrush, bitterbrush and mountain mahogany
within critical winter range. The No Action Alternative will continue this trend of reduction in available
winter foraging habitat within the project area for the Interstate herd over the long-term. Thermal and hiding
cover will continue to increase under the No Action Alternative.
All Action Alternatives
Brewer’s Sparrow, Oregon Vesper Sparrow and Mule Deer
The impacts to the Brewer’s and vesper sparrow from the proposed project are directly related to the response
of the vegetation post-treatment. For the Brewer’s sparrow and the vesper sparrow, the response of the shrub
steppe and grassland communities to the proposed treatment will dictate the response of individuals and the
local population. Both of these species are well distributed in sagebrush and grassland communities across the
northwest, and the effect from the proposed project would be immeasurable on the overall population.
The nests for the Brewer’s sparrow are typically in sagebrush while the vesper sparrow is a ground nester
(Marshall et al. 2003). The use of an excavator-type machine for the cutting of juniper during the nesting
season has the potential to run over or crush nesting habitat and therefore, the potential to remove individuals
from the local population. Use of this machinery outside of the nesting season (April to June) would remove
that risk, but would continue to have indirect impacts by removing potential nesting habitat by uprooting or
crushing nest structures. The use of chainsaws for the cutting of juniper during the nesting season has the
potential to disturb nesting birds and therefore, the potential to remove individuals from the population.
As western juniper increases into the shrub steppe habitat, those species associated with shrub steppe habitat
decrease. Noson (2000) reported Brewer’s sparrows and vesper sparrows showed a strong negative
correlation to increases in western juniper density and to area occupied by western juniper. Brewer’s sparrows
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
29
are sensitive to sagebrush loss, declining with the loss of shrubs, and shifting their diet from insects to seeds
with changes in food availability.
The proposed project area is winter range and therefore, mule deer become more concentrated during the
winter months. Activities from the proposed project can disturb deer, particularly during the winter months.
However, due to the large size of their winter range, compared to the relatively small treatment units and the
mobility of the mule deer, it is reasonable to assume that the deer would move from the disturbance, so it
would not be considered detrimental.
The response of mule deer foraging habitat from the proposed treatment is limited by the response of the
vegetation post-treatment. Changes on the landscape in the past century within the project area have resulted
in a reduction of forage for mule deer. This is due in part to western junipers encroaching into shrub-steppe
habitat crowding out nutritious plants, such as bitterbrush, sagebrush and other forage. In addition, exotic
invasive grasses such as cheat grass, ventenata, and medusahead rye have replaced bunchgrasses, native
annual grasses, forbs, sagebrush, and bitterbrush.
Under all alternatives, Units 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, and the riparian units are most likely to have a
positive affect to breeding habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow, vesper sparrow nesting habitat, and mule deer
foraging habitat in the short and long term from cutting juniper. These units are predominately low sage brush
with a mix of bitterbrush and patches of big sage habitat. These units are rated as fair to excellent condition in
their rangeland condition and therefore, are expected to respond favorably to the proposed treatment. The
removal of juniper would allow the shrub steppe community to expand and re-establish in areas currently
occupied by young western juniper. The vegetation responses to the proposed treatments may take years or
even decades to see the full extent, but the removal of the young juniper would set the shrub steppe
community on a positive trajectory.
The 2012 weed surveys indicate an increase in invasive grass species in Units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 in
the past 15 years. The increase of invasive species such as medusahead and ventenata can negate the positive
habitat effects of removing western juniper. Areas that are or become infested with medusahead and ventenata
reduce the available foraging habitat for the mule deer, and nesting habitat for both sparrow species. Adding
the proposed mitigation of seasonal restrictions within hand cutting units would not increase the rate of spread
of medusahead seed. This would be favorable to the mule deer and both sparrow species. Based on the current
rangeland conditions, these units would provide an increase in foraging habitat and nesting habitat in the short
term and long term.
In Units 3-1, 4-1, 5-1 and 8-1, based on the current rangeland conditions, the mechanically cutting and
removing of juniper would provide short-term benefit, and to some extent, some long-term benefit to nesting
habitat and mule deer foraging habitat by removing juniper with mechanical methods. The removal of young
juniper would provide open space and reduced competition for the shrub-steppe community to respond.
However, based on the current amount of exotic annual grasses, those benefits would diminish over time due
to the increase in invasive annual grasses over time. The proposed temporary road building in Alternative 1
would reduce shrubs and grasses and increase the likelihood of exotic weeds increasing within the unit. This
would reduce some of the beneficial effects of cutting and removing the juniper at the site. The placement of
roads, although temporary, would fragment the habitat in the short-term, and depending on what vegetation
returns (native or exotic), may result in a long-term fragmentation.
In all proposed treatment units, the greatest beneficial effect in the long term to nesting habitat for the
Brewer’s and vesper sparrow, and foraging habitat for the mule deer, would occur where there was an
increase in the native shrub-steppe plant community and no increase in the rate of spread exotic annual
grasses. Mechanical and hand cutting treatments in non-infested areas, and hand cutting with the juniper left
on site in areas of lower density juniper (less than 25% ground cover when cut), would provide the greatest
beneficial effect. As described in the vegetation section, areas with higher densities of juniper would create
excess ground cover that would suppress the native vegetation, and would increase exotic annual grasses. The
combination of mechanical or hand cutting young juniper where there was no infestation, and hand treatments
in areas that have some infestations, would allow an increase in shrubs and grasses and minimize the rate of
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
30
spread of the exotic annual grasses within the units. Adding the proposed mitigation of seasonal restrictions
for treatment would further minimize the rate of spread of medusahead seed.
In all units proposed for mechanically cutting, the burning of piles would potentially remove some shrub
component and provide open space for both native plants and exotic weeds to grow. The current conditions of
the rangelands and the amount of native versus exotic species would dictate the vegetative response. For all
units, the proposed planting within the burn pile areas of bitterbrush seedlings would benefit mule deer,
Brewer’s sparrow, and vesper sparrow habitat. Past bitterbrush planting within burn piles has been successful
in re-establishing bitterbrush within a 50 to 70% survival rate after two years.
The enclosure proposed in unit 13-1 will improve nesting and foraging habitat for the Brewer’s and vesper
sparrow within the closure by removing grazing by cattle and increasing native riparian and upland
vegetation. Firewood cutting proposed along roads will have no measurable effect on local songbird
populations or mule deer foraging habitat.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative or any of the action alternatives, when added to the
other foreseeable projects, will not have any measurable cumulative effect on the overall populations of mule
deer, Brewer’s and vesper sparrow. The mule deer, Brewer’s and vesper sparrow are all wide ranging species
that cover multiple states within northwest America in sagebrush steppe habitat.
The Ruby Pipeline removed sagebrush habitat and therefore reduced habitat for all of the species addressed.
This impact had some adverse effects to available habitat in the short-term by removing the sagebrush habitat
for the local populations. The pipeline was seeded with grasses and shrubs and therefore may provide habitat
in the long-term depending on the planting response.
Grazing occurs within all proposed units. Those units that will have an increase in native vegetation will
cumulatively provide more habitat for wildlife than currently exists. Those units that show a downward trend
when coupled with continued grazing will reduce habitat for local populations.
The impact from exotic invasive annual grasses is a serious threat to the local populations of wildlife. Overall,
past juniper management projects have increased forage for mule deer and have provided habitat for the
vesper and Brewer’s sparrow. However, some past juniper management projects that were conducted in areas
of poor rangeland condition have increased invasive annual grasses, changing vegetation patterns to the point
of reducing the availability of native shrubs, grasses and forbs. As exotic invasive grasses continue to
increase, habitat for mule deer, Brewer’s and vesper sparrow will decrease, therefore reducing the ability to
support local populations at the current levels.
Past bitterbrush planting has contributed to an increase in forage for mule deer. The continued planting of
native shrubs and grasses will benefit wildlife habitat.
Weed treatments (herbicide application in combination with prescribed fire) that may be proposed in the
future would benefit local wildlife populations based upon the treatment success in removing the exotic
grasses. Weed treatments would be most beneficial in areas where exotic weeds have not dominated the
native vegetation.
Soils - Affected Environment
The proposed project lies approximately 30 miles east of Klamath Falls, in the upland area known as the
“Gerber Block.” This large plateau is derived primarily from basalt and tuff deposits, and consists of nearly
level tablelands to steep slopes. A minor component of the landscape has very steep slopes along stream
corridors and rim side slopes. Elevations in the project area range from about 4,200 to slightly over 5,000
feet. Annual precipitation measures between 14 to 30 inches, and occurs mostly as snow. Soil temperatures
reflect the cold wet winters and warm dry summers of the region.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
31
Soils are generally fine and medium textured, with abundant surface rock fragments. They contain a high
content of shrink/swell minerals. Also known as expanding clays, these fine-textured soils are characterized
by low infiltration and slow permeability rates. Their high clay content restricts water movement into and
through the soil profile, creating a high potential for runoff when thoroughly wet. Furthermore, many of the
soils contain clay pans, hardpans, or shallow bedrock layers. These impermeable layers or “horizons” impede
the downward movement of water through the soil and frequently result in seasonally flooded conditions.
The 2001 Interim Soil Survey Report of the Gerber Block identified map unit 350B as the dominant soil type
within the project area. Four additional soil types of minor extent were delineated on rim escarpments and in
riparian corridors. Fragile soils, defined as sites that are extremely steep, prone to mass movement, or have
high water tables, were identified in riparian treatment unit 12-1, and correspond to soil map unit 505D. Table
7 displays the soil map units and characteristics relevant to project analysis. A soil map is available in the
project record.
Table 7: Soils of the SW Gerber Habitat Restoration Units
Map
unit
Soil(s)
Slopes
Surface textures
Permeability
Runoff
Potential
Soil
Depth
350B
WoolencanyonNotchcorral-Wonser
complex
Widmer-Lorella
complex
Drakce-Rock outcrop
complex
Menbo-Drakce-Rock
outcrop complex
Menbo very stony loam
0-8%
Slow
High
12-25”
2-10%
Very stony clay
loam to extremely
cobbly loam
Stony loam
Slow
10-31”
15-50%
Very stony loam
Slow
High to
very high
Very high
35-65%
Very stony loam
Slow
Very high
20-50”
15-40%
Very stony loam
Slow
Very high
20-40”
370B
410D
505D
550C
Acres in
Project
Units
(approx.)
4,370
(88%)
460
(10%)
40
(<1%)
25
(<1%)
35
(<1%)
40-50”
Seventeen units were identified for juniper thinning, wildlife enhancement, or riparian restoration projects.
Units at the south end of the project area are composed primarily of the Woolencanyon-Notchcorral-Wonser
soils of map unit 350B. These fine-textured soils are shallow to moderately deep over a cemented hardpan.
Soils in treatment units 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, the extreme western fringes of 2-3 and 2-4, and 8-1 are in soil map unit
370B. They are similar to soils found in 350B except they tend to have less surface rocks and are very
shallow to moderately deep over bedrock. The very steep rocky soils of map units 410D, 505D, and 550C are
located in the riparian corridors of treatment units 6-1, 7-1, and 9-1 through 12-1.
Each treatment unit was evaluated by KFRA staff in 2010 to confirm the accuracy of the soil mapping,
evaluate soil existing conditions, and assess the potential impacts of the project on the soil resource. Analysis
methods included field reconnaissance, photo interpretation, and literature research. With the exception of a
few minor deviations noncritical to management, field analysis verified the mapping to be accurate. Results
of field evaluations concluded that the soils in map units 350B and 370B exhibited more similarities than
differences, and could be expected to respond similarly to management activities.
Evidence of low site productivity was apparent throughout many treatment units. Exposed mineral soils,
pedestals around grasses and shrubs, and reduced organic surface horizons were documented in areas devoid
of vegetation, organic debris, or soil biotic crusts. These conditions are indicative of erosion processes, and
may have resulted from historic grazing practices and/or other activities that removed the organic-rich topsoil.
Naturally occurring soil conditions such as low infiltration rates, slow permeability, and high runoff potential,
coupled with former management activities may have contributed to surface organic layer reduction and lack
of soil biotic crusts.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
32
With the exception of cattle “loafing areas” around water sources, compaction and post-holing (deep hoof
prints) were not widespread within the proposed treatment units. This could be due to the high shrink-swell
characteristics of the soils. Deep, wide surface cracks were documented throughout numerous units, a
reflection of the “self-plowing” capability of these expanding clay soils. The Gerber-Willow Valley
Watershed Analysis of 2003 inferred that soils in the analysis area are not prone to forming deep persistent
compacted layers. When compaction does occur, the soils are apt to recover quickly. Additionally, annual
freeze-thaw cycles and the high volume of surface rocks may deter surface compaction as well as post-hole
development.
Currently there are no completed studies of soil compaction or areal disturbance monitoring proximate to the
proposed project area. The Kilgore Juniper Fuels Reduction Treatment Project was selected in the Willow
Valley watershed in 2001 to collect baseline, pre-treatment soil data. However, the post-treatment soil
sampling was not completed. In 2004, a soil disturbance analysis was performed on the Gerber Chip-Yarding
Operation. Based on the GIS analysis of bare ground resulting from skid trails, landings, and temporary road
construction, the total area of disturbance ranged from 6% to 8% (KFRA staff, 2004). It is not known if these
numbers represent the typical range of residual soil disturbance following mechanical juniper treatments.
Formal research or comprehensive soil monitoring studies assessing long-term juniper treatment effects have
not been completed as of the present date (Miller et al. 2005).
Several proposed treatment units showed signs of wildfire damage from previous decades. Although the soils
in these former wildfire areas do not exhibit hydrophobic characteristics, the sites still appear to be in the
early stages of recovery. Fire continues to have a noticeable effect on soils within the rings of old burn piles.
Where left untreated (not revegetated with native plant species), the charred surface soils have produced a
dense cover of invasive weeds in many situations.
The existing soil conditions within the analysis area are a reflection of both natural-occurring events and past
management activities. Natural disturbances, such as wildfires and storm events continue to influence soil
building processes. Residual effects from historical ground-disturbing management activities have resulted in
reduced site productivity, which persists throughout the project area (GWV Watershed Analysis, page 110).
Regulatory Framework and Scoping Issues
The KFRA ROD/RMP (1995) establishes the framework for analyzing the effects of the Proposed Action and
alternatives. The ROD identifies objectives to improve and maintain soil productivity. To meet those
objectives, best management practices (BMPs) have been established limiting detrimental soil conditions to
no more than 20 percent of the total acreage within an activity area. “Detrimental soil conditions” are defined
in terms of:
•
•
•
Detrimental Compaction: An increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent or more over the undisturbed
level, and/or a reduction in the macropore space of 50 percent or more.
Creation of adverse cover conditions: To prevent erosion, guidelines exist for retention of minimum
effective ground cover (KFRA ROD, Table D-2).
Nutrient Levels: To sustain soil nutrients and productivity, the ROD directs maintaining prescribed
amounts of small woody material on site.
The ROD does not define the following detrimental soil conditions. For this report, Region 6 Forest Service
thresholds are referenced:
• Soil Displacement: The loss of 50 percent of the A horizon (surface layer) from an area of 500 ft2.
• Rutting and Puddling: Formation of ruts at least 6 inches deep.
Soils - Environmental Consequences
Research studies of the long-term effects of juniper cutting have attained various results. Pierson and others
demonstrated that juniper removal opened the stand for sagebrush and forage grasses by reducing competition
and improving the habitat. These measures directly influenced soil productivity as well. They concluded that
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
33
greater shrub and grass density contributed to soil nutrient availability, reduced runoff potential, increased
infiltration rates, and improved soil productivity (Pierson et al. 2007).
Analysis conducted by Miller, however, concluded that restoration success is contingent upon several factors.
Miller noted that (1) site selection; (2) methods used to control juniper; and (3) follow-up management are
key components that will largely influence success or failure in rehabilitation efforts. Site potential (soils and
plant community) is one of several indicators of the level and speed of plant community response to juniper
removal (Miller et al. 2005).
In the following discussion, the potential soil impacts from juniper removal were analyzed relative to four
action alternatives. Management activities proposed under each alternative were assessed for their potential
effects on soil productivity. Indicators used to assess soil condition and productivity were the potential
number of acres that could be disturbed, and the likelihood of the activities to cause a reduction or
displacement of topsoil, affect the retention of surface organic matter, and produce fire damage to soil surface
horizons.
No Action
The effects on the soil resource if no action occurs would be two-fold. If ground-disturbing or pile burning
activities do not take place, no additional direct impacts will occur that could potentially lead to detrimental
soil conditions. Although activities proposed in and adjacent to the analysis area and analyzed in other NEPA
documents would still occur, the present environmental conditions and trends would continue.
Soil and site productivity in the project area have been slowly trending upward due to improved grazing
management (GWV Watershed Analysis 2003). The changes in grazing strategies have allowed the soils to
begin the lengthy recovery process towards improved productivity. If no soil disturbing treatments are
implemented and all other factors remain the same, the slow upward trend in soil productivity can be expected
to continue at the present rate.
Conversely, the soil “recovery” process may be offset by the continued juniper encroachment allowed under
the No Action Alternative. As juniper dominates a site, there is a decline in the shrub and herbaceous layer.
Studies suggest that where juniper has invaded, the degree the herb layer is depleted depends upon the depth
to the soil restrictive layer. Within the project area, approximately 70 percent of the soils are characterized by
a shallow restrictive layer. As the density of desirable grasses and shrubs is reduced, the amount of bare
ground increases. A greater potential exists for runoff and erosion, which may contribute to sediment yield,
nutrient loss, and reduced productivity (Miller et al. 2005).
Juniper expansion is also known to affect the distribution of soil organic matter, carbon, and nutrients. Studies
indicate that a higher concentration of soil nutrients accumulate in litter and soils beneath juniper canopies
compared to the interspace soils. However, the benefits to site productivity are not realized unless the trees are
removed (Miller et al. 2005). Sites where juniper was cut showed an increase in shrub and herbaceous cover,
less surface runoff, greater soil organic matter content, increased infiltration rates, and higher soil
productivity.
In summary, the No Action Alternative would not result in additional soil compaction, rutting, displacement,
and burn damage - all immediate effects of ground-disturbing activities. The soil resource can be expected to
exhibit the on-going site improvements from reduced grazing pressures, but a future downward trend in
productivity may occur as a consequence of continued juniper and weed invasion.
Proposed Action
Under implementation of the Proposed Action, soils could be impacted during the mechanical process of
juniper cutting, burning of slash piles, and by the decrease in thermal cover provided by the juniper.
Implementation is expected to result in moderate localized short-term effects on soil productivity, with
anticipated adverse impacts occurring within 5 years of project implementation. The potential effects on the
soil resource resulting from the juniper treatments include compaction, displacement, puddling, and erosion.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
34
Juniper cutting by ground-based equipment would result in some degree of soil disturbance. The level and
extent of disturbance in a given area would depend on the type of equipment, treatment methods, and
treatment layout. The degree of disturbance could also vary depending on soil conditions, such as moisture
content, texture, organic matter content, and whether the ground is frozen. To mitigate resource damage,
BMPs have been incorporated into the project design (see Appendix A).
Soil disturbance may occur at various stages of the treatment activities. Topsoil displacement may occur
during the mechanical shearing process. Displacement typically results from small radius turns made by
equipment and vehicles. When the displaced topsoil is transported offsite by water or wind the process is
referred to as erosion. Puddling occurs during the thaw portion of the freeze/thaw cycle, when the soil flows
as a saturated paste. Once juniper is cut and the thermal cover reduced, freeze-thaw cycles would become
more intense. This could increase the potential for puddling, whereby the saturated soil paste “flows” down
slope along interspaces between shrubs and grasses, resulting in erosion (Dorr, email transmission, 2003).
Compaction and rutting are expected to be less of a concern due to the presence of shallow rocky soils that
dominate the project area. Again, management practices that preclude operating when soils are moist or wet
are operational specifications that have been incorporated into the project design.
In the mechanically cut units, the slash will be piled and burned. Depending on the size, intensity, and
duration, burning slash piles could damage the soil. Piled slash burns hotter than broadcast burning. Soils
below the burned piles can incur loss of organic matter, changes to physical properties such as structure and
water-repellency, and exhibit increased erosion rates. To alleviate potential detrimental effects, burned areas
should remain small and interspersed throughout the units. Burning should only occur when the soil surface is
very moist or frozen. The threshold for detrimentally burned conditions occurs when the mineral soil (below
the duff or litter layer) is oxidized to a red color; the next half-inch is blackened due to charring of organic
matter.
The proposal for Units 2-1 through 2-5 and the riparian zones is to hand cut, lop, and leave the juniper in
place. The action can be expected to cause minimal ground disturbance, and not result in measurable soil
displacement or compaction. Slash retention would prevent puddling and erosion, and contribute to soil
nutrients. The proposal in the riparian zones is to scatter or burn the slash. In these steep rocky corridors,
retaining the slash onsite would be more beneficial for erosion deterrence and soil nutrient cycling.
The Proposed Action also includes planting bitterbrush in some of the burned areas. Increasing the shrub
component for wildlife habitat improvement would also directly benefit the soil resource. Shrubs enhance soil
productivity by providing nutrient input. Bitterbrush roots fix nitrogen, which contributes to nutrient cycling
in the soil. Deep-rooted shrubs play a role in ameliorating compaction and impeding surface runoff. To
promote nutrient cycling and reduce the potential for erosion an herbaceous layer should be established as
soon as possible in the space left by the treated juniper stands.
A 15-acre livestock exclosure to reduce grazing along Antelope Creek above Willow Valley Reservoir is
proposed under all action alternatives. Cattle tend to congregate in the riparian areas, where water and feed
are more accessible. Excluding cattle from the riparian area along Antelope Creek would shield soils, plants,
and streambanks from potential grazing impacts such as post-holing, trampling, and erosion.
Firewood cutting within 300 feet of permanent open roads is also proposed under all action alternatives. In
any units where firewood cutting is authorized, off-road driving would cause disturbance to soils and native
vegetation, increasing the potential for noxious weeds and invasive annual plant species to spread.
Alternative 1
Similar to the Proposed Action, implementation of Alternative 1 involves juniper removal by both hand and
mechanical methods. In Alternative 1, however, the mechanically sheared juniper would not be piled and
burned. Instead, ground-based equipment would yard the fully-suspended cut juniper to landings to be
utilized. Short-term minor adverse effects are anticipated with implementation of this alternative. Relative to
the other alternatives, there would be a greater degree of soil disturbance under Alternative 1, with the
impacts concentrated primarily on the skid trails, landings, and temporary roads. Factoring in the
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
35
construction of about three miles of temporary roads, the amount of disturbed ground is expected to be about
10 to 15 percent of the project area.
The degree of soil displacement and erosion potential that is likely to occur with implementation of this
alternative would be greater than that of the other action alternatives. The BMPs listed in Appendix A are
designed to limit ground disturbance and improve or maintain soil productivity.
Under Alternative 1, burning of juniper slash piles would occur primarily in the riparian hand thin units, with
a minor amount of the non-utilized juniper burned on the landings. The potential impacts associated with
burned soil (water-repellency, loss of native bunchgrasses, weed encroachment) would be less than the
Proposed Action, although not completely eliminated.
An issue identified during the public scoping process was “the use of heavy equipment on fragile,
unproductive rangeland soils.” The soils of map unit 505D are steep fragile soils within the riparian corridor
of treatment unit 12-1. To minimize resource impacts within this and all riparian units, the operation of heavy
equipment would not occur in these areas. Treatments within the riparian units include hand thinning,
lopping, and scattering or burning of juniper slash.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 proposes cutting juniper on 5,000 acres using chainsaws. The cut juniper would be limbed,
lopped, and left on site. Implementation of this alternative is expected to result in no measurable detrimental
effects on the soil resource. It is anticipated that rutting, puddling, erosion, and nutrient loss would not occur
as a result of these activities. Soil displacement may occur in the immediate vicinity of the cut trees, but the
impacts would be low and inconsequential.
With the exception of the riparian units, Alternative 2 does not include pile burning of the cut juniper. The
potential impacts associated with burned soil (water-repellency, loss of native bunchgrasses, weed
encroachment) would not occur. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the least amount of
disturbed soil, greatest retention of ground cover, and afford the most nutrient cycling of the three action
alternatives. Compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 2 would have the least degree of adverse
impact on soils in the project area.
Alternative 3
This alternative proposes only hand cutting, piling, and burning juniper throughout all the treatment units.
Adverse effects due to implementation of Alternative 3 are expected to be concentrated primarily in the
vicinity of and below the burn piles, and would have a minor to moderate impact on soil productivity. Piling
and burning of all cut juniper biomass would result in numerous burn piles scattered across the landscape.
Depending on the size, intensity, and duration, burning slash piles could damage the soil. Piled slash burns
hotter than underburning. Soils below the burned piles can incur loss of organic matter, changes to physical
properties such as structure and water-repellency, and exhibit increased erosion rates. To alleviate potential
detrimental effects, burned areas should remain small and interspersed throughout the units. Burning should
only occur when the soil surface is very moist or frozen. The threshold for detrimentally burned conditions
occurs when the mineral soil (below the duff or litter layer) is oxidized to a red color; the next half-inch is
blackened due to charring of organic matter.
The amount and extent of burn piles proposed under this alternative would have more of an effect on the soil
resource than that of Alternative 2. Compared to the Proposed Action, the anticipated impacts would be less.
Cumulative Effects
Former management treatments, human activities, and naturally occurring events have resulted in various
degrees of soil disturbance within the Willow Valley watershed. Past, present, and future activities in the
project area that have impacted the soil resource include active grazing permits, road construction and
maintenance, vegetation and fuels treatments, and pipeline construction. Areas of dispersed recreation and
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
36
woodcutting are present within and in close proximity to the project area. Wildfires have occurred and are
expected to continue throughout the watershed.
It is recognized that former management treatments, human activities, and naturally occurring events have
resulted in various degrees of soil disturbance within the project area boundaries. As a consequence, soil
productivity has been impacted to various degrees. Intense grazing pressures prior to passage of the Taylor
Grazing Act (1934) appear to have had the greatest effect on soil and site productivity. Historical uncontrolled
grazing likely exacerbated the low productivity status of the thin clayey soils typical of the area (GerberWillow Valley WA, 2003; pp. 142-143, 193, 196). Changes from past management strategies have brought
about modest improvements in soil conditions and site productivity. Implementation of future management
activities should consider soil and site productivity in light of this current upward trend.
Roads - Affected Environment
Except for Willow Valley Road, the roads in the analysis area are under a seasonal closure from November 1st
through April 15th each year. The roads within this closure are natural surface roads that receive periodic
maintenance. Drainage structures are maintained as needed. Surface maintenance is conducted to provide a
reasonable level of riding comfort.
Roads - Environmental Consequences
No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, roads will continue to receive periodic maintenance as needed.
Proposed Action
Implementation of the Proposed Action will create additional traffic on existing roads in the analysis area by
vehicles transporting shearing equipment which could increase the need for drainage and/or surface
maintenance. If operations are performed outside of road closure periods, additional road surfacing (gravel)
may be necessary.
Alternative 1
Implementation of Alternative 1 will create additional traffic on existing roads in the analysis area by vehicles
transporting shearing and yarding equipment which could increase the need for drainage and/or surface
maintenance. If operations are performed outside of road closure periods, additional road surfacing (gravel)
may be necessary. Secondary roads used for hauling wood products (logs or biomass) may need some
improvements, such as spot rocking, to facilitate passage by log or chip trucks.
Alternative 1 would require construction of five temporary spur roads to access landings in order to haul the
juniper from treatment sites. Figure 2 shows the location of the proposed road segments, totaling
approximately 2.8 miles. Short, temporary spur roads would decrease the amount of ground skidding
activities. All temporary roads would be obliterated after use, which means they would be blocked, seeded,
and rendered impassable upon project completion.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
These alternatives will be similar to “No Action” and require no temporary spurs.
Cumulative Effects
Roads outside the seasonal road closure receive a higher degree of maintenance due to the necessity to be all
weather roads. These roads are in fairly good shape and will be inspected periodically.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
37
Hydrology/Water Quality - Affected Environment
The analysis area is mostly within the Upper Lost River 5th Field Watershed and Gerber Reservoir (Refer to
Table 8 for a description of 6th field watersheds within the analysis area.) The climate of this area is
characterized as a relatively dry area with cool temperatures and snowfall in the winter and hot and dry
conditions in the summer. The hydrology of these watersheds is driven by snowmelt and the year-round
surface water source is provided by springs and man-made impoundments.
Streams flow through rocky canyons and narrow or wide wet meadows. The perennial streams on public land
in the project area are Antelope Creek, and Miller Creek, and the East Branch of the Lost River. The rest of
the streams are intermittent or ephemeral in duration. There are several perennial springs in the project area as
well. Specific information regarding the number of springs, miles of perennial and intermittent streams, and
proper functioning condition surveys is discussed in the Riparian Resources section below.
Vegetation strongly influences evaporation, snow accumulation, and melt dynamics. Vegetative communities
adjacent to streams in many riparian areas have been affected by post settlement juniper encroachment as a
result of past livestock grazing and fire suppression, and climatic factors (GWV Watershed Analysis, pages
25-49). These overstocked conditions can result in reduced infiltration rates, increased overland flow, surface
rill erosion, as well as reduced water yield. Limited monitoring to date has indicated infiltration rates still
remain relatively high due to soil characteristics (GWV Watershed Analysis, page 27).
Road density in the project area is approximately one mile per square mile. Road densities by watershed are
listed in Table 9. Some roads are natural surface roads and not maintained on an annual basis. There are
primitive roads in the project area, some of which have indicators of erosion from rutting and subsurface
drainage capture. Detailed information regarding the hydrology of the project area is in the GWV Watershed
Analysis (pages 25 to 31).
Table 8: 6th Field Watersheds within the SW Gerber Analysis Area
Watershed
Name
Subwatershed Name
Watershed
Acres
Ephemeral
Stream Length
(miles)
All
BLM
Owner
-ship
Intermittent
Stream Length
(miles)
All
BLM
Owner
-ship
Perennial
Stream Length
(miles)
All
BLM
Owner
-ship
Total Stream Length
(Miles)
BLM
All
Ownership
Rock Creek
- Lost River
Antelope
Creek
27,206
26.0
26.1
43.3
51.9
1.8
1.8
71.1
79.8
Rock Creek
- Lost River
Clear Lake
ReservoirLost River
17,237
1.0
2.0
1.0
7.3
0.6
6.8
2.6
16.1
Rock Creek
- Lost River
East Branch
Lost River
16,667
18.5
22.0
16.8
23.9
10.8
14.1
46.1
60.0
44,443
45.6
50.2
61.1
83.1
13.1
22.6
119.8
155.9
Subwatershed Total
Gerber
Reservoir Miller
Creek
Miller Creek
26,354
2.2
2.8
23.4
51.6
2.9
5.9
28.5
60.3
Langell
Valley Lost River
Woolen
Canyon-Lost
River
31,733
2.5
2.5
9.8
17.5
0.1
1.9
12.4
21.9
102,530
50.2
55.5
94.3
152.2
16.1
30.5
160.7
238.1
Grand Total
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
38
Table 9: Road Densities by Watershed within the SW Gerber Analysis Area
Watershed
Rock Creek - Lost
River
Rock Creek - Lost
River
Rock Creek - Lost
River
Watershed total
Gerber Reservoir Miller Creek
Langell Valley - Lost
River
Grand Total
Watershed
Acres
Subwatershed Name
Road Length
(miles)
Road Density
(miles/square mile)
BLM
All
Ownership
BLM
All
Ownership
Antelope Creek
27,206
38.2
39.9
0.9
0.9
Clear Lake ReservoirLost River
17,237
2.6
10.1
0.1
0.4
East Branch Lost River
16,667
27.7
36.0
1.1
1.4
44,443
68.4
86.0
0.7
0.9
Miller Creek
26,354
29.2
51.7
0.7
1.3
Woolen Canyon-Lost
River
31,733
19.8
43.7
0.4
0.9
102,530
117.4
181.4
0.6
1.0
Table 10: Miles of Road on BLM Land within the Analysis Area by Subwatershed
Subwatershed
Antelope Creek
E. Branch Lost River
Rock Creek
Miller Creek
Woolen Canyon
Total
*Data from 2002 BLM/USFS Road Inventory Data
Road miles within Riparian Reserves
4.41
3.87
1.47
3.26
3.67
16.68
Riparian Resources
Lentic Riparian Resources
BLM-administered land in the project area has springs, wet meadows, and riparian areas associated with
naturally occurring lentic riparian areas, or still-water habitats. There are several small reservoirs in the
analysis area. Some occur in areas that once functioned as wetlands and playas, but most occur in areas that
were generally upland in nature. These small reservoirs have a localized effect on watershed function, tending
to “...dampen, rather than eliminate flood peaks… Some reservoirs may be capable of capturing smaller
flood peaks, such as those caused by high intensity precipitation events or melt of short-lived snowpacks.”
(GWV Watershed Analysis, page 30). There are nine springs within the Antelope Creek subwatershed on
public land, within the analysis area. Of those springs, the major ones are Bug Spring, Jennette Spring and
Alkali Spring in the Antelope Creek watershed. Proper functioning condition (PFC) (Table 11) surveys have
not yet been completed for these riparian areas. Informal surveys suggest that they are generally Properly
Functioning. Some areas are bisected by, or are downslope from roads, which may affect flow routing.
Lotic Riparian Resources
Lotic riparian areas are a category of riparian-wetland habitat associated with running water, such as streams
and flowing springs. There are approximately 5.4 miles of perennial streams in the analysis area, which are
associated with springs and/or wet meadows that provide year-round discharge. The total area of Riparian
Reserves for lotic riparian areas is approximately 318 acres. Perennial streams include Antelope Creek and
Rock Creek. Ephemeral and intermittent streams are more common in the analysis area (approximately 30
miles) and are found where surface and subsurface flow collects from a sufficiently large drainage area.
Vegetation communities with riparian characteristics are found along portions of the perennial and
intermittent streams in the area. Wet meadows and deciduous plant communities occur adjacent to streams in
sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, and 20 of the Rock Creek subwatershed and in sections 1, 2, 3, 6, 25, 34, and 35 of
the Antelope Creek subwatershed. (Refer to Figure 5 in Chapter 2 for riparian treatment areas.)
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
39
For a further description of lotic riparian resources in the analysis area, refer to the Gerber Willow-Valley
Watershed Analysis. Some of these riparian areas have been affected detrimentally by past management
activities including exclusion of fire, logging activity, road construction, and historic grazing practices.
Ongoing effects include compaction and loss of site potential, loss of riparian vegetation and stream shading,
and loss of vertical and lateral streambank stability. Between 1994 and 1997, PFC surveys were completed on
three perennial streams within the analysis area. (See Table 11). Restoration opportunities could have a strong
beneficial effect on streams that are currently Functional At-Risk.
Table 11: Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Ratings on Public Land in Analysis Area
Name
E. Branch Lost
Antelope Creek
Miller Creek
Holbrook Spring
Total
Total Stream
Miles
PFC
Miles
%
FAR-N*
Miles
%
NF**
Miles
%
6.1
3.9
64%
0.6
10%
1.6
26%
6.3
0.4
12.8
0
3.9
30.5%
6.3
0
6.9
100%
53.9
0.4
2.0
100%
15.6%
*FAR-N = Functional at Risk – No Apparent Trend - at least one riparian attribute/process causes high probability of
degradation with relatively high flow event. **NF = Non-functional – riparian conditions clearly inadequate to ensure the
values of properly functioning streams.
The livestock exclosure in Unit 10-1 that is proposed in all action alternatives would encompass the 0.6 miles
of Antelope Creek that was determined to be Functional at Risk when surveyed in 1996. Although changes in
grazing practices have been implemented since the survey, this section of stream has not shown measurable
improvement. The proposed exclosure would be adjacent to the previously constructed exclosure
encompassing the section of the stream rated as Non-functional.
Hydrology/Water Quality - Environmental Consequences
No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, juniper density in the Southwest Gerber project area may continue to
expand in range and density in some of the proposed units. As juniper stands transition from Phase II to
Phase III (see Appendix B for Juniper succession phase descriptions), canopy interception would increase,
ground cover would decrease and bare soil would become susceptible to erosion and loss of groundwater
infiltration capacity (Pierson et al 2007, Peterson et al 2009). These changes would have the potential to
negatively impact water quality, as well as the timing and quantity of water capture and release.
Not implementing the proposed livestock exclosure would cause the area to remain in Functional at Risk
(FAR) condition and the current condition of heavier than desired forage use would not improve. This could
translate to further degradation of water quality over time if the trend remains static.
Effects Common to All Management Actions
There have been two reviews of juniper management that include discussions on the effects of juniper range
expansion on hydrologic processes in southern Oregon. The first was a product of the Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) scientific assessment titled Western Juniper Woodlands (of
the Pacific Northwest) Science Assessment (Eddleman et al. 1994). Their findings are summarized below and
are applicable to the proposed project area:
•
•
•
•
•
Juniper density is currently greater than in the past.
While juniper woodland studies are incomplete, especially when tying different soil types to ground
cover conditions under juniper canopies, shrub and forb species that are present in communities
without juniper are absent on sites with a closing juniper canopy.
Plant species numbers, density, and production decline and distribution patterns change as juniper
canopy closes.
In excess of 12% of annual precipitation can be intercepted by juniper canopy.
On some juniper sites, overland flow increases, resulting in water and sediment loss. Current
information is based on the study of small plots and expanding findings to watershed level is risky.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
40
•
•
•
•
Work to date has been based on summer effects with little done in fall, winter and spring.
Removal of juniper overstory usually leads to an immediate and substantial increase in understory
production.
On some nutrient-poor sites it may be necessary to retain foliage and limbs to restore site
productivity.
Considering the number of variables involved that influence site response to juniper management,
including soil, climate, current understory, current canopy closure, and site condition, there is no
model available to predict a juniper site’s response to treatment.
The second document is Biology, Ecology and Management of Western Juniper (Miller et al. 2005). The
summary of findings of the report follows:
“As the tree layer increases in dominance, the shrub and herb layer decline. The degree that the herb layer is
depleted is dependent upon soil depth to a restrictive layer. The minimum time for the tree overstory to begin
suppressing the understory is 45-50 years, and to approach stand closure 70-90 years on cool wet sites and
120-170 on dry warm sites…. Changes in hydrologic processes and water balance as tree abundance and
dominance increase are not well understood. Evidence suggests that juniper can impact infiltration rates,
sediment loss, and soil water storage and depletion rates. Accelerated soil water depletion rates in western
juniper-dominated stands can decrease the length of the growing season by as much as 4-6 weeks. However,
the impacts of western juniper on the water balance at the watershed or basin level have not been determined,
nor have the effects of woodlands on subsurface flow into streams and springs…..Western juniper has
increased in density and distribution since the late 1800’s and if left unchecked can have measurable impact
on soil resources, plant community structure and composition, water and nutrient cycles, and wildlife
habitat.”
Knowledge gaps include: 1) the effects of juniper on subsurface water flow and soil moisture storage, 2) how
juniper expansion effects soil nutrients and development, and 3) relationships between juniper expansion, site
potential, current condition, hydrology, nutrients, erosion, and stream and spring flows.
A recently completed analysis of juniper cover relationship to water infiltration in the Steens Mountains area
concluded that there was a strong negative correlation between percent bare ground and infiltration; bare
ground was highest in low shrub-high juniper cover plots for east, west and south aspect plots. North facing
plots all had high ground shrub cover (Petersen et al. 2009). Where juniper cover on these aspects shifts
beyond cover thresholds, groundwater infiltration processes are likely to be negatively affected by juniper
expansion.
A third document relevant to water resources is a critical review of the potential to increase water yields
(increase annual streamflow volume) through juniper removal in the Klamath Basin (Kuhn 2007). Research
published to date indicates that increasing water yields by juniper removal is only feasible where annual
precipitation is greater than 17.7 inches (45 centimeters) (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; Hibbert 1983; Wilcox
2002). Only about 5% of the project area receives over 18 inches of precipitation on average annually.
Additionally, because canopy cover from juniper is relatively small as a percentage of the watersheds and the
treatment area, it is unlikely that juniper expansion is currently having a substantial impact to water yield in
the project watersheds. Impacts to stream flow at smaller scales, including springs and seeps with nearsurface groundwater connections could be impacted by current juniper expansion. No site specific
information is available to accurately determine these impacts. These impacts would depend on site specific
variables such as existing juniper canopy closure, local geologic controls, and soil type and local
groundwater/surface water interactions.
The literature reports that increasing juniper cover results in interception of as much as 42% of precipitation
depending on the duration and yield of the storm. (Interception is a term meaning that the precipitation hits
the plant surface and evaporates back into the air before it can drip to the soil surface and soak into the
ground). Miller et al. (1986) reported that as juniper trees increased in size and density, transpiration and
interception took most of the water received. Eddleman et al. (1994) reported from research by Couturier
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
41
and Pioly (1973) interception by mixed prairie grasses to be 14 to 22 %, and McMillan and Burgy (1960)
found dry grass had more interception effect than green grass. While all vegetation will intercept some
precipitation, juniper has a greater effect. Also, depending on the water year and crown density, 2 to 5.6
inches of available moisture can be lost to transpiration of ground moisture by juniper.
The shift to juniper dominance reduces the biomass and productivity of understory vegetation, as well as soil
surface cover (Vaitkus and Eddleman 1987). This increased bare ground may reduce soil surface infiltration
rates, which in turn would increase overland flow and reduce soil water storage. Ultimately, this could affect
groundwater aquifer recharge rates. However, no site specific information is available on groundwater
recharge processes. Pierson et al. (2007) found that even at lower rainfall rates, juniper-dominated hillslopes
produced significantly more soil surface runoff and erosion than hillslopes with juniper removed in southeast
Oregon. The following section discusses the effects of juniper removal on hydrology regardless of the
methods used. All action alternatives cover approximately the same number of acres in the same locations
(see Table 12). A summary of the current juniper science is included in the various discussions of the
environmental effects of the No Action Alternative. Miller et al. (2005) summarized the water flow response
issue as being dependent on the amount and timing of precipitation, geology, soil characteristics, watershed
size, and extent of juniper expansion and density in the watershed.
Table 12 summarizes the acres proposed for treatment relative to project area and watershed area for each of
the 6th field watersheds included in the project area.
Table 12: Acres of Proposed Treatments Relative to Project Area and Size of 6th Field Watershed
Alternative/
Phase
All Action
Alts
Total
Watershed
Acres
Antelope Creek
Acres
% in
watershed
53
0.19
27,260
Clear Lake
Reservoir
Acres % in
watershed
59
0.35
16,667
East Branch Lost
River
Acres % in
watershed
4,084
23.69
17,237
Miller Creek
Acres
% in
watershed
216
0.88
Woolen CanyonLost River
Acres % in
watershed
549
26,411
1.73
31,803
The effect of juniper water consumption on spring and stream flow may be affected three ways. First, juniper
trees remove most of the available precipitation on normal years, preventing infiltration and subsequent
discharge in springs and streams. Second, the deep tap root of juniper can keep pulling water from
subsurface layers even after the surface has dried to the point moisture is no longer available to shrubs and
grasses. Pulling from deeper strata may pump water preventing accumulation of water in subsurface layers
from year to year. Third, juniper stands tend to occur in the lower elevations of most watersheds and may be
able to use water coming from the higher, more productive part of the watershed. In the lower watershed,
juniper may capture the water that is moving down thru the system. Flow could be reduced or eliminated
across broad upland landscapes that could have been available to streams and springs (Eddleman and Miller
1992).
Water quality as affected by shade, sedimentation and water availability from a watershed scale is dependent
on watershed and riparian health and stream channel conditions. Watershed health is discussed in several
other areas of this analysis, as it relates to infiltration, erosion, and ground cover. As cited in the literature
reviews in the No Action Alternative, research has indicated there is an increased sediment yield from juniper
dominated sites. For riparian juniper treatments, other more desirable riparian plants would be favored by
juniper removal and would better withstand disturbance events such as floods. In cases of heavy juniper
cover, even sedges and rushes may be replaced with juniper cover as shown in riparian monitoring studies
conducted in the Gerber Block, Klamath Falls Resource Area.
Using a modified universal soil loss equation model, Renard (1987) developed an estimate of improved
infiltration rates under juniper canopy based on additional litter occurring under juniper. He also reported that
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
42
runoff would occur between the trees where little cover remains. However, juniper litter is hydrophobic when
dry which limits its value in infiltration (Eddleman 1994).
The available research demonstrates that juniper can impact infiltration rates and erosion along with soil water
storage and depletion (Miller et al. 2005, Petersen et al. 2009). Pierson et al. (2007), reported that juniper
dominated hillsides produced runoff from thunderstorm events every two years and that 50-year events
resulted in sheet and rill erosion producing 2,756 lb./acre of sediment. On adjacent sites that had been
previously treated to remove juniper sites the 50-year storm produced no sediment yield. The correlation
between vegetation cover and soil erosion is strong and is also well documented in the literature (Miller et al.
2005; Eddelman et al. 1994). There is also an immediate and substantial increase of understory cover with
removal of juniper overstory (Miller et al. 2005; Eddleman et al. 1994). There is more evaporation, runoff
and sediment production and lower infiltration resulting from the larger unvegetated interspaces in juniper
dominated sites (Miller et al. 1986). However, if juniper removal results in increases in annual weed cover
versus native bunchgrasses or shrubs, the resulting hydrologic effect would tend to be negative. For example,
the annual grass ventenata “…causes soil to be prone to erosion due to its shallow rooting depth [and] limits
the function of waterways…” (Washington State University Extension 2008).
While the science of juniper management has not demonstrated the impact of increased juniper cover on flow
regimes, there are numerous reported cases of stream and spring flow improvement after juniper management
(Stabler 1985). The ability of juniper to transpire water can remove 2 inches of soil moisture in a dry year or
5.6 inches in a wet year, shortening the understory growing season by as much as 6 weeks (Miller et al. 2005).
Juniper can intercept as much as 12 to 42 % of storm precipitation with as much as 74% being intercepted
directly under the juniper canopy (Eddleman et al. 1994; Eddleman 1986; Larson, 1993).
The relative differences in hydrologic response between action alternatives will largely depend upon the rate
of shrub and herbaceous cover recovery for sites with high bare ground cover. For sites with relatively high
ground cover in the current condition, no immediate hydrologic response would be expected. However, these
sites would be protected from conversion to bare ground cover over the next 100 years as juniper stands
would not transition to the next juniper cover phase, thus maintaining high rates of infiltration capacity.
Short-term hydrologic responses would only be expected where juniper cover is currently high and tree
removal results in improved grass and shrub cover (high tree stem density and relatively large tree size).
Large proportions of the proposed units have relatively low tree density and are dominated by weeds and low
sage and therefore, little hydrologic response at the project or watershed scale would be expected from juniper
removal.
Implementation of proposed Mitigation Measure A for vegetation (no mechanical or burning treatments
where there are annual invasive grass infestations), would ensure that hydrologic functions would not be
worsened by disturbance and the resulting increase in the rate of weed spread.
Effects by Alternative
Vegetative and soil recovery rates are dependent upon the level of ground disturbance. Alternative 2 would
have the least amount of soil disturbance and the fastest hydrologic recovery period because no juniper
utilization or burning is proposed. Alternative 1 would have the highest level of disturbance and could be
expected to have the slowest recovery and response rate, since actions include 3,000 acres of mechanical
harvest, utilization by removal of juniper trees using ground based equipment, landings and temporary roads,
and burning of some residual piles. In 10 to 15 percent of the project area where construction of three miles of
temporary roads, skid trails, and landing areas is proposed, those areas would remain hydrologically
unrecovered until the vegetative communities become re-established. Alternative 1 differs from the Proposed
Action in that 3,000 acres would be treated with ground-based removal. As a result, ground cover recovery is
expected to be slower under Alternative 1, though less pile burning is proposed, and perhaps less existing
ground cover would be burned under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 3, except that cut
material would be left in place in Alternative 2, but in Alternative 3 the cut material would be burned in piles.
See discussion of fire below.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
43
Manual juniper treatments common to all alternatives primarily consist of upland vegetation treatments
which are adjacent to streams and riparian areas. Treatment of these areas is expected to have similar
positive benefits to hydrologic processes and vegetation as the upland areas.
Implementation of the proposed livestock exclosure is expected to aid in the transition of a portion of
Antelope Creek from a Functional at Risk (FAR) condition to proper functioning condition. This is expected
to improve water quality and riparian conditions over time. Because the area is FAR, it would be expected to
recover within just a few years once grazing pressure is decreased.
Effects of pile burning
(Proposed Action, Alternatives 1 and 3)
The effects of proposed burning activities are dependent upon the severity of impact to the soil, the extent and
distribution of the severity, and the resulting rate of vegetation recovery following. Most studies have shown
an increase in runoff and erosion rates the first year following fire (prescribed or wild), and returning to prefire rates within 5 years (Wright and Bailey 1982). There were no studies available in the literature that
explicitly studied the watershed effects of pile burning relative to broadcast or other burning methods.
Roundy et al. (1978) studied the impact of prescribed fire on hill slope hydrology of a piñon-juniper
woodland on loamy soils in eastern Nevada. They found that fire had the greatest impact on areas directly
below the juniper and sagebrush canopies with high surface litter accumulations. Water repellency under
unburned trees in the juniper duff was greater than where the duff layer had burned. Across the site, fire had
little effect on infiltration rates, but did significantly increase soil erosion. Pierson et al. (2003) summarized
results of studies on the impact of fire within coarse-textured sagebrush-dominated systems and concluded
that the greatest impact of the fire was on overland flow dynamics and rill erosion. Fire induced significant
water repellency, particularly in areas dominated by shrubs with large accumulations of litter (Pierson et al.
2002).
However, such systems were also found to have a high degree of natural water repellency when extremely dry
(Pierson et al. 2001). The result is that burned or unburned woodlands will rapidly generate runoff under
intense rainfall in the absence of vegetation in the tree canopy interspace. The immediate effect of fire is the
reduction of ground surface barriers, which include shrub, herbaceous vegetation, and litter. The water then
concentrates and increases in velocity resulting in greater erosive energy (Pierson et al. 2003). Water moves
more rapidly down slope and ultimately into stream channels, impairing water quality and potentially causing
downstream flood damage. An important component in evaluating the impacts of fire on the hydrology of a
site is the vegetation response following fire, especially recovery of vegetation structure and surface litter.
The BMPs that are aimed at minimizing burn intensity and maintaining some litter cover will minimize the
negative hydrologic and water quality impacts of prescribed fire and fire treatment of residual juniper fuels.
From the above citations, less sediment would be expected to enter the streams as herbaceous and shrubby
ground cover increases. The effects of burning on the development of hydrophobic soil would be greatest
under the Proposed Action due to the high intensity expected for machine piled juniper. Under Alternative 3,
burn intensity may be lower but the aerial extent of burned area could be higher due to the abundance and
distribution of smaller hand piles. Under all alternatives that include burning residual piles, planting and
seeding of herbaceous plants and shrubs may speed up hydrologic recovery thus lowering the risk for erosion
and detrimental water quality impacts. Detrimental effects of burning can be further reduced by ensuring wet
and cold soil conditions exist at the time of burning.
All alternatives are similar with respect to effects of removal of juniper cover and related beneficial effects
discussed above. The amount of area proposed for yarding relative to the watersheds is described in Table 12.
Effects of Yarding Juniper (Alternative 1)
Under this alternative the juniper in Units 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, & 8-1 would be mechanically sheared,
yarded with full suspension to landings, and utilized. This would include construction of 2.8 miles of
temporary roads.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
44
Perennial shrubs and grasses have the capacity to induce higher rates of water infiltration and reduce erosion
potential relative to areas with dense juniper or annual grass and forbs. Management actions that increase the
amount of bare soil or induce the spread and colonization of annual plants such as invasive grasses, reduce
hydrologic functions such as infiltration and groundwater recharge (Miller et al. 2005). Disturbed areas with
little or no grass and shrub cover are especially vulnerable to compaction and erosion. Areas with increased
runoff due to compaction and poor soil cover could lead to localized erosion and increases in peak flows in
localized portions of the stream network. The BMPs for juniper woodland management should reduce or
eliminate the risks of increasing erosion and disturbance related impacts. Applicable BMPs include limiting
skidding operations to slopes less than 30% and operating when soils are dry, frozen, or covered with snow.
The direct effects of yarding on hydrologic function include the potential to increase surface runoff and
erosion due to compaction and disturbance, especially if rutting and compaction result in the formation of new
surface drainage networks within the skid trail network and temporary road construction. Minimizing the
aerial extent of the skid trail network will reduce the likelihood of flow routing during intense precipitation
events.
Under Alternative 1, full suspension yarding is proposed for this project. If the disturbance and removal
results in spread and colonization of invasive grasses and forbs, this will further increase erosion potential due
to the weaker shallower root systems of annual grass versus perennial grasses (Adams et al 1999; Brown et al
1998; Goldman 1986) Washington State University Extension 2008). If the spread and colonization of annual
plants is persistent, this would likely cause long-term impacts to hydrologic function due to reduced
infiltration and increased erosion potential.
Aquatic Species and Habitat – Affected Environment
The analysis area contains four fish-bearing streams and two fish-bearing impoundments which are near or
adjacent to any proposed treatments. Low to moderate gradients, low summer base flows, and high peak
flows during snowmelt and rain on snow events characterize these stream environments for aquatic species.
These streams are best described as “interrupted perennial,” that is, some sections of the streams run
subsurface during dry periods. The impoundments are regulated by dams mainly for irrigation and are subject
to extreme drawdown during dry years.
Surveys conducted by Department of Interior personnel have documented a variety of aquatic species
including shortnose sucker, Klamath largescale sucker, redband trout, Klamath speckled dace, tui chub, blue
chub, lamprey, sculpin (Table 13 ), and a suite of non-native fish (Table 14) in these waterbodies (BLM,
2009, USGS, 2003).
Table 13: Native Fish Species Potentially Affected by the Proposed Action in the Analysis Area
Common Name
Shortnose Sucker
Klamath
Largescale Sucker
Redband Trout
Klamath Speckled
Dace
Scientific Name
Chasmistes
brevirostris
Catostomus
snyderi
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Rhynichthys
osculus
klamathensis
Gila bicolor
Gila coerulea
Lampetra sp.
Cottus sp.
BLM Status
Federally
Endangered*
None
None
Documented
Miller Creek, East Branch Lost River, Lost River (Malone
Reservoir)
Miller Creek, East Branch Lost River, Lost River (Malone
Reservoir)
Miller Creek
None
Miller Creek, Antelope Creek, East Branch Lost River,
Tui Chub
None
Miller Creek
Blue Chub
None
Lost River (Malone Reservoir)
Lamprey
None
Miller Creek
Sculpin
None
Miller Creek, Lost River (Malone Reservoir)
*Federally Endangered or Threatened – Those species listed under the Endangered Species Act as Endangered or Threatened
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
45
Table 14: Non-native Fish Species Potentially Affected by the Proposed Action in the Analysis Area
Common Name
Largemouth bass
Yellow Perch
Bluegill sunfish
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
sunfish
White crappie
Black Crappie
Sacramento Perch
Lahontan cutthroat
trout
Black bullhead
Brown bullhead
Fathead Minnow
Scientific Name
Micropterus
salmoides
Perca flavescens
Lepomis
macrochirus
Lepomis cyanellus
Status
Gamefish
Documented
Willow Valley Reservoir, East Branch Lost River, Lost River
(Malone Reservoir)
Willow Valley Reservoir, East Branch Lost River
Willow Valley Reservoir, East Branch Lost River, Lost River
(Malone Reservoir)
Lost River (Malone Reservoir)
Lepomis gibbosus
Gamefish
East Branch Lost River, Lost River (Malone Reservoir)
Pomoxis annularis
Gamefish
Miller Creek, Willow Valley Reservoir, Lost River (Malone
Reservoir)
Gamefish
Miller Creek
Gamefish
East Branch Lost River, Lost River (Malone Reservoir)
Gamefish
Antelope Creek, Willow Valley Reservoir
Gamefish
Lost River (Malone Reservoir)
Gamefish
Miller Creek, Lost River (Malone Reservoir)
Invasive
Miller Creek, East Branch Lost River, Lost River (Malone
Reservoir)
Pomoxis
nigromaculatus
Archoplites
interruptus
Onchyrhynchus
clarki henshawi
Ameiurus melas
Ameiurus
nebulosus
Pimephales
promelas
Gamefish
Gamefish
Gamefish
Miller Creek
Miller Creek can be described as having low to moderate gradient, confined in steeper canyon, rocky
substrate with little gravel due to reservoir controlled flows. Miller Creek is the outlet from Gerber Reservoir
and its flows are subject to the storage and release of water for irrigation purposes. Therefore, unlike the
other streams in this region, this stream typically has its high flows in the summer and is cut off in the fall,
winter and spring except for dam leakage and some ground water accretion within the canyon area. The
outlet at Gerber dam is opened in the spring (approx. April 15) to provide irrigation water to the Langell
Valley Irrigation District lands. The outlet is shut off on or about October 1st. Toward the lower end of the
creek, the flow is diverted into irrigation canals. Only in periods of spring runoff, when Gerber Reservoir is
full, does contiguous flow of Miller Creek reach the Lost River. Because of low winter flow, complete
freezing or ice related anoxia during cold spells has been a problem for fish in Miller Creek (Bill Tinniswood,
ODFW, pers comm. 2008). Shortnose sucker, Klamath largescale sucker, redband trout, sculpin, Klamath
speckled dace, lamprey, tui chub, and a suite of non-native fish species have been documented in Miller
Creek (see Table 14).
Miller Creek is currently considered occupied by shortnose sucker, which is federally listed as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed units adjacent to Miller Creek will be discussed further
in the Aquatic Species Environmental Consequences and ESA Consultation sections.
Antelope Creek
Antelope Creek drains a rocky plateau during spring runoff but perennial flow is limited to a 2 mile section
fed by Duncan Springs. That perennial segment lies within a rim rock canyon and generally has good cover
for aquatic species provided by boulders, shrubs and trees. This stream flows into Willow Valley Reservoir
where its waters are stored for irrigation purposes. Klamath speckled dace have been documented throughout
this stream and all the species found in Willow Valley Reservoir have been documented in lower Antelope
Creek.
Willow Valley Reservoir
Willow Valley Reservoir was formed by the construction of a dam on the East Branch of the Lost River also
known as Antelope Creek upstream in about 1920 to provide storage for agriculture irrigation (ODFW 1997).
At elevation 4526, Willow Valley Reservoir has a surface area of 588 acres; depth averages 12 feet with a
maximum of 25 feet. The reservoir is classified as eutrophic with high levels of phosphorus. Water
transparency is low because of algae and suspended sediments and therefore low light penetration retards
growth of aquatic vegetation. Flooded juniper trees and rocks provide the primary cover elements for aquatic
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
46
species. Irrigation and maintenance can virtually dry up the reservoir leaving only the small inflow from
Antelope Creek to provide refugial habitat for aquatic species.
Willow Valley Reservoir is managed by ODFW as a warm water fishery and has a variety of introduced
gamefish species including; stocked Lahontan cutthroat trout, largemouth bass, yellow perch, bluegill sunfish,
brown bullhead and white crappie.
East Branch Lost River
The East Branch of the Lost River flows from Willow Valley Reservoir five miles to its confluence with the
Lost River (Malone Reservoir). The condition of the stream channel between the Willow Valley and Malone
Reservoir has been influenced by regulated irrigation flows, and the Willow Valley Diversion Dam.
Fluctuating water levels due to irrigation releases may limit its value as fish habitat. However, the BLM has
completed significant riparian health treatments on much of this stream. Shortnose sucker, Klamath
largescale sucker, Klamath speckled dace and most of the non-native species found in Willow Valley
Reservoir and Malone Reservoir have been documented in this stream (USFWS, 2011, BLM, 2009, USGS,
2003).
East Branch Lost River is currently considered occupied by shortnose sucker, which is federally listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed units adjacent to this stream will be
discussed further in the Aquatic Species Environmental Consequences and ESA Consultation sections.
Willow Valley Diversion Canal
This canal diverts a significant amount of water seasonally from the East Branch Lost River to Threemile
Reservoir, a privately owned impoundment. It is considered interrupted perennial and is fish bearing. During
recent survey efforts performed by BLM and ODFW biologists, yellow perch and fathead minnow where
documented (BLM, 2009).
Malone Reservoir
The Lost River adjacent to the analysis area is backed up by Malone Dam creating Malone Reservoir. This
dam regulates water flow down the Lost River for irrigation purposes. The reservoir is subject to significant
drawdown, especially during dry years. These fluctuating water levels due to irrigation releases may limit its
value as fish habitat. Shortnose and Klamath largescale suckers may still reside in the reservoir, as well as a
suite of native and non-native fish species (see Tables 13 and 14).
Malone Reservoir is currently considered occupied by shortnose sucker, which is federally listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed units adjacent to this reservoir will be
discussed further in the Aquatic Species Environmental Consequences and ESA Consultation sections.
Aquatic Species and Habitat – Environmental Consequences
Aquatic species and habitat in the planning area would be affected to the extent that hydrologic/water quality
regimes of streams/impoundments are altered by increased sedimentation due to ground disturbance and road
use (see Hydrology section). If ground disturbances (soil compaction, displacement, vegetation removal, loss
of duff/organic layer, and increased road use) act in combination to increase the magnitude of peak runoff
events, negative effects on aquatic species from streambank erosion, higher than normal nutrient
concentration, and sedimentation would be expected.
The proposed project would maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native
plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Implementation of any of these alternatives
with the application of appropriate BMPs and PDFs are expected to minimize short-term impacts to aquatic
resources and Riparian Reserves (See Appendix A). In the long term, restored or continued riparian health
would be anticipated to maintain, protect, and restore aquatic resources and riparian areas.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
47
No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no ground disturbing effects of sedimentation or increase in
road related sediment inputs due to increased levels of road use and maintenance. The effects of the No
Action Alternative on water quality and therefore, aquatic species, are described in the Hydrology section.
Riparian units would remain encroached by juniper and would not progress toward the desired vegetation
species complexity or structure.
Proposed Action and All Action Alternatives
Miller Creek – Units 12-1 and 11-1
Riparian treatment units 12-1 (45 acres) and 11-1 (20 acres) are the only units near or adjacent to Miller Creek
and would be treated by hand under all the alternatives. The variation between alternatives is whether the
material would be lopped/scattered or piled and burned. Within each of these units, there are variable
amounts and densities of junipers that need to be cut and/or removed in order to accomplish the objectives of
the riparian health treatments. Initial estimates indicate that approximately 21.3 acres of unit 12-1 and 8.5
acres of unit 11-1 would need to be piled/burned. The remainder of the unit acres would be lopped and
scattered.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, all the junipers in units 12-1 and 11-1 would be lopped and scattered. Lopping
and scattering all of the juniper biomass in dense areas would create a layer of material over much of the
ground creating a potentially significant fuel/fire hazard. The fine fuel would remain an ignition hazard for 1
to 3 years, whereas the heavy fuel would persist as a potential hazard for several decades. Heavy fuel loading
could contribute to conditions prone to catastrophic wildfire. Effects of severe wildfire on aquatic species
would include increased potential for sediment delivery to waterways, negatively affecting water quality. In
addition, riparian vegetation could be completely consumed by wildfire, impacting structure, complexity, and
diversity critical to health of aquatic habitat. If severe wildfire did not occur, there would be no foreseeable
significant detrimental effects from lopped and scattered material on aquatic species or their habitat. Piling
and burning all of the juniper material would alleviate the fuel problem, yet would not be financially or
logistically feasible in areas of the units that have sparse junipers or have steep topography.
Even with PDFs (see Appendix A) in place and pile burning occurring in winter, a small amount of sediment
could enter the streams before riparian vegetation can re-establish the variably scorched soil area under the
pile. Effects to ESA listed fish would be minimal and short term in duration. The long-term result of riparian
thinning and pile burning would likely be beneficial to native fish, riparian and aquatic habitat. For more
information regarding treatment impacts to hydrology and therefore, aquatic species habitat, see the
Hydrology section.
ESA consultation for the Miller Creek riparian units will be covered under the Aquatic Restoration
Programmatic Biological Opinion (ARBO). Additional Project Design Criteria (PDCs) and Conservation
Measures (CMs) will also be implemented under the ARBO (see Endangered Species Act Consultation
Section in Chapter 4).
Antelope Creek and Tributaries – Units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1 and 10-1
Riparian treatment units 6-1 (20 acres), 7-1 (40 acres), 9-1 (10 acres) and 10-1 (20 acres) are four of the units
near or adjacent to Antelope Creek and two unnamed intermittent tributaries. The juniper treatments will be
completed by hand under all the alternatives. Like Miller Creek above, the variation between alternatives is
whether the material will be lopped/scattered or piled and burned. Within each of these units there are
variable amounts and densities of junipers that need to be cut and/or removed in order to accomplish the
objectives of the riparian health treatments. Initial estimates indicate that approximately 7.9 acres of unit 6-1,
20.1 acres of unit 7-1, 4.5 acres of 9-1, and 8.6 acres of unit 10-1 will need to be piled/burned. The remainder
of the unit acres will be lopped and scattered. The same impacts as described for the Miller Creek hand
riparian units will apply to these four units. In addition, the same PDFs will be applied to the Antelope Creek
and tributaries riparian units (see Miller Creek section above).
After hand-cutting of juniper, a fenced riparian livestock exclosure would be constructed to reduce grazing
impacts along the intermittent section of Antelope Creek above Duncan Springs. This exclosure would
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
48
exclude approximately 15 acres of riparian habitat from annual grazing within the Willow Valley Allotment.
This livestock exclosure in Unit 10-1 that is proposed in all action alternatives would encompass the 0.6 miles
of Antelope Creek that was determined to be Functional at Risk when surveyed in 1996. Although changes in
grazing practices have been implemented since the survey, this section of stream has not shown measurable
improvement. The proposed exclosure would be adjacent to the previously constructed exclosure
encompassing the section of the stream rated as Non-functional. Exclusion of grazing pressure would allow
this stream reach to recover providing higher quality habitat for aquatic species in the future.
Antelope Creek and Tributaries – Units 3-1 and 5-1
The proposed juniper treatment units 3-1 (1600 acres) and 5-1 (320 acres) are two units that are near or
adjacent to Antelope Creek and one unnamed tributary. Unit 3-1 borders Antelope Creek for approximately
.6 miles and one intermittent unnamed tributary for approximately .45 miles. Unit 5-1 borders Antelope
Creek for approximately 1.85 miles. Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, both units are proposed to
be treated mechanically and therefore, a 240 foot riparian reserve buffer will be established for Antelope
Creek. A 120 foot riparian reserve buffer will be established for the unnamed tributary. Under Alternatives 2
and 3, the units are proposed to be treated by hand and the same riparian buffers will be used since these
treatments do not include any riparian work. Due to the implementation of riparian reserve buffers, there are
no foreseeable beneficial or detrimental effects from these treatments on aquatic species or their habitat.
Willow Valley Reservoir – Unit 3-1
The proposed juniper treatment unit 3-1 encompasses approximately 1600 acres east of Willow Valley
Reservoir. The western boundary of the unit borders the reservoir for approximately 2.1 miles. Under the
Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the unit is proposed to be treated mechanically and therefore, a 240 foot
riparian reserve will be established from the full pool reservoir edge. Under alternatives 2 and 3, the unit is
proposed to be treated by hand and therefore, PDFs will be followed that state that no piles shall be
constructed within the reservoir or directly adjacent to the reservoir full pool line and no vehicle use or
refueling within 100 feet of the reservoir full pool line.
There are no ESA or special status aquatic species present in Willow Valley Reservoir. Implementation of
the riparian reserve and/or PDFs will ensure that impacts to the reservoir and aquatic species from the
proposed treatment will be insignificant.
East Branch Lost River and Willow Valley Diversion Canal – Unit 2-2 and 2-5
The proposed juniper treatment units 2-2 (600 acres) and 2-5 (300 acres) are the only units near or adjacent to
East Branch Lost River (EBLR) and Willow Valley Diversion Canal (WVDC) and will be completed by hand
under all the alternatives. Both waterways are perennial fish-bearing and will have a 240 foot riparian reserve
established from the bankfull edge of the stream channel or the area extending to the top of the inner gorge,
whichever is greater.
Unit 2-2 will be entirely outside of the riparian buffer for both waterways. The boundary of unit 2-5 will not
exceed the designated riparian buffer of EBLR and therefore there will be no impacts to ESA species or
habitat. The EBLR will not be discussed further in this analysis. The 2-5 boundary will, however, enter the
riparian buffer of the WVDC in two areas and the same PDFs and impacts as Miller Creek riparian hand
treatment units will apply (see Miller Creek – Units 12-1 and 11-1 above). The impacts of the treatments on
these two units would be the same as the previously discussed units. For a description of impacts, see above.
Malone Reservoir – Unit 1-2
The proposed juniper treatment Units 1-2 (60 acres) is the only unit near or adjacent to Malone Reservoir
(Lost River). The reservoir is perennial fish-bearing and will have a 240-foot Riparian Reserve established
from the full pool edge of the reservoir or the area extending to the top of the inner gorge, whichever is
greater. The boundary of unit 1-2 will not exceed the designated riparian buffer of Malone reservoir and
therefore there will be no impacts to ESA species or habitat. This reservoir will not be discussed further in
this analysis.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
49
Cumulative Effects
The BLM implemented several riparian thinning and fencing projects on Miller and Antelope Creek in the
past. The goal of the completed riparian thinning projects was to remove encroaching conifers in order to
promote growth of desired riparian vegetation. The goal of the riparian fencing projects was to enable better
regulation of seasonal grazing in the riparian pastures to reduce grazing impacts to riparian vegetation and the
streams. The BLM has documented positive effects from these projects on Miller and Antelope Creeks and it
is likely that these efforts have had a beneficial cumulative effect to native aquatic species.
In the foreseeable future, it is likely that maintenance of existing and/or installation of new riparian fences
will occur. Projects of this nature would be expected to have positive cumulative impacts to habitat for
aquatic species by further increasing riparian health and habitat complexity for fish and other aquatic species.
For cumulative impacts regarding the proposed projects and water quality, see the Hydrology section.
Livestock Grazing Management – Affected Environment
All of the proposed units except 8-1, 11-1, and 12-1 are within the Willow Valley Allotment. This livestock
grazing allotment is managed as a four-pasture rest rotation system. There is also a riparian pasture that
receives use every fourth year. The allotment and pasture boundaries are shown in Figure 6.
Units 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5
These units are all within the Willow Valley Chaining pasture of the Willow Valley Allotment. The livestock
use period for this pasture is typically from mid-April through the end of May with occasional use in June.
Authorized livestock use levels with the four-pasture rest rotation system range from 364 to 454 AUMs. This
pasture is rested from livestock grazing every fourth year.
Units 2-2, 5-1, 7-1, 10-1, and 13-1
These units are all within the Woolen Canyon pasture of the Willow Valley Allotment. The livestock use
period for this pasture is typically from mid-April to mid-May or mid-May to the end of June. Authorized
livestock use levels with the four-pasture rest rotation system range from 261 to 364 AUMs. This pasture is
rested from livestock grazing every fourth year. Unit 10-1 is a riparian unit located along Antelope Creek.
The proposed livestock exclosure on Antelope Creek is within the Woolen Canyon pasture of the Willow
Valley allotment.
Units 3-1, 4-1, 6-1, and 9-1
These units are all within the Notch Corral pasture of the Willow Valley allotment. The livestock use period
for this pasture is typically from mid-April to early June or mid-May to the end of June. Authorized livestock
use levels with the four-pasture rest rotation system range from 491 to 597 AUMs. This pasture is rested
from livestock grazing every fourth year. A Rangeland Health Standards Assessment (RHSA) was completed
for the Willow Valley Allotment in 2000. Results showed that the allotment was not meeting all of the
Standards. Standard 1 Watershed Function – Uplands and Standard 3 Ecological Processes were met on the
majority of the allotment. Areas of the Willow Valley Chaining and Woolen Canyon pastures were cited as
having “vegetation conditions that are in the low to mid-seral state and production levels that are much lower
than average. These areas have high levels of introduced species like cheatgrass, medusahead, and various
weedy forbs”. Due to these reasons, the AUM allocation was reduced in the Woolen Canyon pasture. The
new livestock use levels were implemented starting with the 2001 grazing season. A portion of Antelope
Creek, just to the north of Unit 10-1, was also fenced to exclude livestock based upon the findings of the
RHSA.
Unit 8-1
Unit 8-1 is in the Bumpheads Allotment. This allotment has two pastures that are managed on an alternating
use period system. Every year, the first pasture to be utilized by livestock alternates between the two
pastures. The allotment and pasture boundaries are also shown in Figure 6. This unit is within the North
pasture which is used by livestock from mid-April through May or from late May through the end of June.
Annual authorized livestock use for the North pasture is approximately 210 AUMs. A Rangeland Health
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
50
Standards Assessment was completed for the Bumpheads Allotment in 2003 as part of the Gerber – Willow
Valley Watershed Analysis. Standard 2 – Watershed Function – Riparian/Wetland Areas and Standard 4 –
Water Quality were considered not met. This determination was based upon conditions in Antelope Creek
which is in the eastern portion of the allotment and not associated with Unit 8-1.
Units 11-1 and 12-1
Units 11-1 and 12-1 are riparian units located along Miller Creek. Unit 11-1 is located just outside of the
Adobe Pasture of the Horsefly Allotment and is inaccessible to BLM authorized livestock use. Unit 12-1 is
within a steep canyon that forms the boundary between the Horsefly and Pankey Basin Allotments. Due to
the steep topography, this unit is not utilized by livestock.
Livestock Grazing Management - Environmental Consequences
No Action
The No Action alternative would have minimal to no effect on livestock grazing management in the short
term (less than 10 years) in all of the proposed units. In the long term (10+ years) there may be some
decrease in the amount of palatable forage for livestock. This could occur if an increase in the number and
spatial extent of junipers resulted in a decline in understory herbaceous production. All of the proposed
treatment units also have a component of exotic, invasive annual grasses. With no action, these grasses will
likely increase in density and area through their physiological ability to outcompete native grasses. This
would negatively impact palatable forage species for livestock.
Proposed Action and All Action Alternatives
Under all of the action alternatives, any increase in palatable livestock forage from the proposed treatments
would be beneficial to livestock grazing in the project area in both the short and long term. If the treatments
result in an increase in weedy annual grasses as discussed under the Rangeland Vegetation section, this would
be detrimental to livestock grazing. An increase in these weedy species would result in a short-term and longterm decrease in palatable forage species, primarily native perennial grasses, due to the competitive nature of
the weedy species. The proposed livestock exclosure on Antelope Creek is within the Woolen Canyon pasture
of the Willow Valley allotment. The exclosure would be within Unit 10-1. The exclosure would be
approximately 15 acres in size and would result in a minor decrease in available forage for livestock.
Cumulative Effects
There have been several recent juniper management projects within the Willow Valley Allotment. Table 3:
Actions Past, Present, and Future (found in Chapter 2), shows the date and acreage of these projects.
Monitoring studies were not established at these project sites. Qualitative observations have shown increased
production in both native and introduced grass species following treatments in the short term (1 to 5 years).
Any increase in native perennial grass species would be a positive impact to livestock grazing. Any increase
in introduced species, especially medusahead, could result in long-term (6+ years) decreases to the native
grass species.
Increased management of existing populations of exotic, invasive grasses (medusahead and possibly
ventenata) within the project area is likely within the next 2-10 years. This would potentially be conducted
through the use of a combination of treatments involving prescribed burning, herbicides, and seeding of
desirable native species. Any juniper treatment methods that result in increased populations of these grasses
would increase the resources needed to manage them. A primary objective for managing medusahead is
controlling its future spread within a management area (Johnson and Davies, 2012). Any increases in native
perennial grasses from these treatments would benefit livestock grazing.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
51
Figure 7: Allotment and Pasture Boundaries in the Analysis Area
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
52
Cultural Resources – Affected Environment
Native American use of the area spans many millennia. The region was most likely used by the Modoc or
Klamath peoples. On a map showing the Modoc territory, Ray (1963) shows the Modoc encompassing the
project area. Ray (1963) notes that the Modoc territory was divided into three geographic areas that were
named after those who lived in those areas. Of these three areas, the Kokiwas (people of the far out country)
lived within the project area.
Historic contact between the Native American tribes and Euro-Americans began around the 1820s and
culminated with the Klamath Lake Treaty of 1864 in which the lands around the project area were ceded to
the United States by the Klamath Tribes (Minor et al. 1979). The Klamath Tribes consists of the closely
related Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin peoples.
Euro-American exploration within the analysis area began in 1843 when a band of “free trappers,” led by Old
Bill Williams, explored the Lost River region. Euro-American settlement did not occur until 1875.
Homesteaders pursued sheep and cattle ranching. The Gerber family was the first to establish a ranch at the
northern end of the Gerber Block in 1880, hence the name of the area. The Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) improved the landscape within the analysis area for grazing in the 1930s. The CCC built roads, spring
developments, stock ponds, corrals and even a telephone line. In 1935, the Gerber block became the first
grazing district in Oregon and the United States (Bonanza Grazing District No.1) under the 1933 Taylor
Grazing Act. In 1946, the General Land Office was merged with the Grazing Service to create the Bureau of
Land Management (Beckham 2000). The BLM has managed the area ever since.
Additional information about cultural resources in the analysis area may be found in various overviews of the
history and prehistory of the region (Anderson 1994, Beckham 2000, Follansbee and Pollack 1978, Minor
1979, Ray 1963, and Spier 1930).
Cultural resources would be inventoried before any treatment implementation. All sites will be avoided by
activities.
Cultural Resources – Environmental Consequences
No Action
No sites would be impacted by activities, however, the potential for fuel loads would stay the same and
increase over time, creating an environment that would be more prone to catastrophic wildfire and potentially
impact sites in an adverse means.
Proposed Action and All Action Alternatives
Sites would be identified and avoided by activities, fuel loads would also be decreased around sites, which
would diminish the possibility of wildfires affecting sites. Under Alternative 2, where juniper would be
scattered, there is a potential (if the scatters are left near a cultural site) to increase the threat of wildfire
adjacent to these sites during the first 3 to 5 years post-implementation, when branches still have needles
present. No scattering of juniper would occur within a cultural site, so ultimately, the larger risk of wildfire
activities at sites within the project area would be reduced.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects from any alternative are expected to be negligible, except in the event of a catastrophic
wildfire due to existing fuel loads, or if avoidance flagging is not followed during project implementation.
Recreation Resources - Affected Environment
The analysis area provides opportunities for dispersed recreation such as hunting, fishing, off-highway vehicle
driving, camping, sightseeing, watchable wildlife viewing and mountain biking. The only recreation facility
with some level of development is Willow Valley Reservoir (a developed day use area with boat ramp and
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
53
parking area). The analysis area currently receives light dispersed recreation use during spring, summer and
fall. Roads are seasonally closed or impassable due to muddy road conditions in the winter months. For
additional information about recreation resources in the analysis area, reference the Gerber-Willow Valley
Watershed Analysis.
Recreation Resources - Environmental Consequences
No Action
No changes are expected to recreation resources if the No Action Alternative is selected.
Proposed Action and all Action Alternatives
Only temporary, minimal disturbances to recreation visitors would occur during juniper disposal activities.
Short-term disturbances to recreationists from noise, dust, and smoke associated with juniper treatment
activities in the project area could be expected. A potential positive recreation benefit of juniper disposal
activities could occur through the increased availability of firewood after commercial operations have
concluded. A potential negative effect to the juniper disposal activities and the offering of firewood would be
additional off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (off existing roads), primarily from those gathering firewood. This
negative effect is most likely to occur where units are more easily accessed by the public, including those near
recreation sites/areas and along major roads. Design and management of firewood cutting areas may
minimize the amount of off road driving.
Cumulative Effects
The proposed project should have no measurable cumulative impacts on recreation resources.
Wilderness Characteristics - Affected Environment
There are no designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas within the Project Area. The BLM
recently reviewed and updated its inventory of wilderness characteristics on BLM-administered lands within
the Project Area in November 2009 (BLM 2009). Pursuant to 40 CFR Sect. 1502.21, the BLM hereby
incorporates this wilderness inventory update by reference. This inventory update has been posted on the
Lakeview District website at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php and is also publicly
available in hard copy at the BLM Klamath Falls Field Office or upon request.
There were three wilderness character inventory units within the SW Gerber Project Area. One of these three
units, the Langell Valley Unit, did not meet the size criteria (larger than 5,000 acres). Neither of the two units
that met the size criteria, Bumpheads and Willow Valley Reservoir, met the naturalness criteria. The
interdisciplinary (ID) team that completed the wilderness character evaluation determined that the two units
did not meet the naturalness criteria because the total amount of human-caused disturbance, when considered
cumulatively, detract from the overall natural quality of the area. The ID team also found that the Bumpheads
and Willow Valley Reservoir units had a clear lack of outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and
unconfined recreation.
Wilderness Characteristics - Environmental Consequences
As explained in the inventory update, the BLM determined that wilderness characteristics are not present
within the Project Area (BLM 2009). For this reason, wilderness characteristics will not be addressed further
in this EA.
Fire and Hazardous Fuels – Affected Environment
Historically, fire in the project area fell into Fire Regime Class III with fire return intervals of 35 to 100 plus
years, and fires were mostly of mixed severity. The existing fuels within the project area that would
contribute to fire spread can be described as a mix of GR1 (short, sparse, dry climate grass) and GS2
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
54
(moderate load, dry climate grass-shrub) (Scott and Burgan 2005). Rate of fire spread under 80th percentile
weather conditions during fire season (eye level winds 8 MPH, fine dead fuel moisture 3%, minimum relative
humidity 10%) is modeled to be 36 chains per hour with flame lengths over 6 feet. The spotting distance
from a torching juniper could be over 0.9 miles. Western juniper by itself would have a lower rate of spread
than the grass fuel models; however, the presence of juniper increases a wildfire’s resistance to suppression
due to potential for torching and spotting. Embers from a torching tree could cause new spot fires in a
receptive fuel bed (grasses) that would have a higher rate of spread under 80th percentile weather conditions.
Most fires that occur in this area are caused by lightning, and high wind gusts during these storms contribute
to high rates of fire spread.
Fire and Hazardous Fuels - Environmental Consequences
The fire behavior for the No Action and Action Alternatives was modeled in BehavePlus5 using 80th
percentile weather conditions (8 mile per hour eye level winds, minimum relative humidity of 10%, 1 hour
fuel moisture 3%, live woody fuel moisture 63% and live herbaceous fuel moisture 41%) obtained from the
Gerber remote area weather station located approximately 10 miles north of the project area. The weather
observation records were obtained from 1969-2011 for the months of June 1st through September 31st
(typical fire season months for this area) and outputs were obtained using FireFamily Plus version 4.0.
No Action
As the western juniper density increases, the fuel type will trend toward a GR1 (short, sparse, dry climate
grass) fuel model. This fuel model has a moderate rate of spread of approximately 46 chains per hour under
80th percentile weather conditions. The spotting distance may increase over time (5 to 15 years) to over 1
mile, which will increase the resistance to control.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would mechanically shear, pile and burn juniper on nearly 3,000 acres (treatment units
1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1 and 8-1) and plant 1,000 to 1,500 acres of bitterbrush. Over time (5 to 10 years), as the
planted bitterbrush grows, the area planted would change to a fuel model with more GS2 (moderate load, dry
climate grass-shrub) components than the current conditions. The rate of spread for this fuel model would
increase to approximately 55 chains per hour with flame lengths over six feet. However, due to the reduction
in juniper, fire behavior such as spotting and torching would be reduced.
Close to 2,000 acres (treatment units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5) would be treated by hand cutting, lopping and
leaving juniper scattered throughout the units. Due to the sparse concentration of juniper in these units, the
cut juniper on the ground would not significantly add to the current fire behavior, especially approximately 3
to 5 years after the juniper is cut and the needles fall from the branches and boles of the trees. The
concentrations of slash across the units would be scattered and discontinuous rather than a continuous fuel
bed. The fuel model for this treatment can be described as a combination of SB2 (moderate load activity fuel)
and GR1 (short, sparse dry climate grass) with rates of spread of approximately 39 chains per hour and flame
lengths of approximately 11 feet. Because the juniper in these units would be cut and scattered, the potential
for spotting and torching would be reduced.
Under the Proposed Action, 155 acres (treatment units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 and 12-1) of juniper hand
thinning and lopping and scattering or burning would occur in riparian areas. In the areas where thinning,
lopping and scattering would be conducted, the concentrations of slash across the units would be scattered
and discontinuous rather than a continuous fuel bed. The fuel model for this treatment can be described as a
combination of SB2 (moderate load activity fuel or low load blowdown) and GR1 (short, sparse dry climate
grass) with rates of spread of approximately 39 chains per hour and flame lengths of approximately 11 feet.
Because the juniper in these units would be cut and scattered, the potential for spotting and torching would be
reduced. If the slash were burned rather than scattered, the fuel model that would best describe these units
would be a mix of GR1 and GS1 with a potential rate of spread of approximately 36 chains per hour with
flame lengths of over 6 feet.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
55
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, approximately 3,000 acres would be treated by mechanical shearing, yarding with full
suspension, and the juniper would be utilized as biomass (units 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, and 8-1). Due to the
removal of juniper, the future potential for spotting and torching would be reduced. The expected fuel model
can be described as a mix of GR1 and GS1 with flame lengths over 6 feet and a rate of spread over 36 chains
per hour.
Approximately 2,000 acres (treatment units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5) would be treated in the same manner as
the Proposed Action with similar projected fire behavior. Under this alternative, 155 acres (treatment units 61, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 and 12-1) would be treated the same as described in the Proposed Action and the
expected fire behavior would remain the same.
Alternative 2
The treatments in Alternative 2 include hand cutting, lopping, and leaving juniper on approximately 5,000
acres. On 2,000 of these acres (treatment units 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5), the concentration of juniper is
sparse, so the cut juniper on the ground would not significantly add to the current fire behavior, especially
after approximately 3 to 5 years after the juniper is cut and the needles fall from the branches and boles of the
trees. The concentrations of slash across the units would be scattered and discontinuous rather than a
continuous fuel bed. The fuel model for this treatment can be described as a combination of SB2 (moderate
load activity fuel or low load blowdown) and GR1 (short, sparse dry climate grass) with rates of spread of
approximately 39 chains per hour and flame lengths of approximately 11 feet. Because the juniper in these
units would be cut and scattered, the potential for spotting and torching would be reduced. The remaining
3,000 acres (treatment units 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1 and 8-1) would have a higher loading of juniper and after
these acres were hand cut, lopped, and left, the fuel model that would best describe these acres would be a
SB2 (moderate load activity fuel) which would have a rate of spread of approximately 47 chains per hour with
11 foot flame lengths.
Under this alternative, 155 acres (treatment units 6-1, 7-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 and 12-1) would be treated the
same as described in the Proposed Action and the expected fire behavior would remain the same.
Alternative 3
Under this alternative, the juniper in the 5,080 treated acres (units 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 4-1, 51, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1, and 12-1) would be hand thinned, hand piled, and piles would be burned.
After the piles were burned, the fuel model that would best describe these units would be a mix of GR1 and
GS1 with a potential rate of spread of approximately 36 chains per hour with flame lengths of over 6 feet.
Cumulative Effects
Past fuels treatments and currently proposed fuels treatments on lands adjacent to the project, in addition to
this project, contribute favorably to reducing fuels in much of the southern end of the Gerber Block and
reducing potential fire behavior.
Air Quality – Affected Environment
Air quality is a sensitive issue in the Upper Klamath Basin primarily because of the recent designation of part
of the county as nonattainment for PM2.5. PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5) are fine particles in the ambient air
that are 2.5 micrometres or less in size. This area of nonattainment is located approximately 30 miles west of
the analysis area. Potential air quality consequences are important for the preservation of high quality visual
values for the region. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established by the 1970 Clean
Air Act and subsequent amendments to protect the public health and welfare from adverse effects associated
with the presence of pollutants in the ambient air. In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA)
revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 downward from 65 to 35 μg/m3. If the particulate matter for NAAQS
is exceeded, the EPA is required to designate the area as a “nonattainment” area. Air pollutants are emitted
from a variety of sources in the Klamath Basin including woodstoves, open burning, industrial plants, and
internal combustion engines. Woodstoves contribute greatly to particulate matter during the winter.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
56
Agricultural and forestry burning operations are significant sources in the spring and fall. With the emphasis
on reducing risk of wildfire, fuels reduction projects using prescribed fire are also common source of
pollutants that can contribute to reduced air quality. This area is a Class II airshed, with the closest Class I
airshed, Gearhart Wilderness, located 30 miles to the northeast. To comply with air quality standards and
minimize impacts to either the non-attainment area of Klamath Falls or the Class I airshed, the KFRA reports
to the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) an estimate of the tonnage it expects to consume for each
proposed project. Burn days are selected in coordination with the ODF Smoke Management to minimize
impacts to these smoke sensitive areas.
Air Quality – Environmental Consequences
No Action
This alternative would not directly produce any PM2.5 from smoke, however, the potential for subsequent
wildfires that would produce significant quantities of PM2.5 would continue to increase as surface and ladder
fuels accumulate. A single 2,000 acre wildfire would result in a total of approximately 464 tons of PM2.5
(0.232 tons/acres times 2,000 acres) based on modeling from FOFEM smoke module, which would occur
under unknown dispersal conditions, and quite likely affect one or more smoke sensitive receptors.
Assumptions of the model for a wildfire include a Western Juniper fuel model with the wildfire occurring
during the summer under very dry conditions and within the same burning period.
Proposed Action
This alternative would produce a total of approximately 150 tons of PM2.5 (0.048 tons/acre times 3,130
acres), all of which would occur during time periods selected for ideal dispersal of smoke away from smoke
sensitive receptor areas. Consequently, no impact to Klamath Falls or the Gearhart wilderness is expected.
There will be some residual smoke, particularly in the evening following burning that will remain within and
near the project area, potentially impacting nearby residents for several hours. Due to the smoke dispersal
conditions that are selected for burning and the topography of the analysis area, it is unlikely that the NAAQS
would be exceeded in these residential areas. The potential for subsequent wildfires that would produce
significant quantities of PM2.5 would be greatly reduced after treatments are completed. Assumptions of the
model for pile burning include a Western Juniper pile burn under moderate conditions in the fall. Burning
would most likely occur over several burning periods under ideal smoke dispersal conditions.
Alternative 1
Piles that would be burned under Alternative 1 would be located at landings and would consist of slash left
over from chipping and biomass operations. This alternative would produce an estimated total of
approximately 9.8 tons of PM2.5 (0.41 tons/pile, approximately 2 piles at each landing and approximately 12
landings), all of which would occur during time periods selected for ideal dispersal of smoke away from
smoke sensitive receptor areas. Consequently, no impact to Klamath Falls or the Gearhart wilderness is
expected. There will be some residual smoke, particularly in the evening following burning that will remain
within and near the project area, potentially impacting nearby residents for several hours. Due to the smoke
dispersal conditions that are selected for burning and the topography of the analysis area, it is unlikely that the
NAAQS would be exceeded in these residential areas. The potential for subsequent wildfires that would
produce significant quantities of PM2.5 would be greatly reduced after treatments are completed.
Assumptions of the model for pile burning include a Western Juniper pile burn under moderate conditions in
the fall. Burning would most likely occur over several burning periods under ideal smoke dispersal
conditions.
Alternative 2
This alternative does not include pile burning so it would not produce any PM2.5 from smoke.
Alternative 3
This alternative would produce a total of approximately 244 tons of PM2.5 (0.048 tons/acre times 5,080
acres), all of which would occur during time periods selected for ideal dispersal of smoke away from smoke
sensitive receptor areas. Consequently, no impact to Klamath Falls or the Gearhart wilderness is expected.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
57
There will be some residual smoke, particularly in the evening following burning that will remain within and
near the project area, potentially impacting nearby residents for several hours. Due to the smoke dispersal
conditions that are selected for burning and the topography of the analysis area, it is unlikely that the NAAQS
would be exceeded in these residential areas. The potential for subsequent wildfires that would produce
significant quantities of PM2.5 would be greatly reduced after treatments are completed. Assumptions of the
model for pile burning include a Western Juniper pile burn under moderate conditions in the fall. Burning
would most likely occur over several burning periods under ideal smoke dispursal conditions.
Cumulative Effects
It is anticipated that regional emissions would remain at the current level, and that these actions would have a
short-term additive effect, lasting for several days at a time. It is likely that other prescribed burning in the
region would occur concurrently, which is mitigated through the smoke management process described in the
Affected Environment section above.
Visual Resources - Affected Environment
The BLM has a basic stewardship responsibility to identify and protect visual values on public lands. This is
accomplished through the Visual Resource Management (VRM) program. Through this program, all BLM
lands are inventoried and managed in specific VRM classes. BLM lands within the analysis area contain a
variety of land forms and scenic/aesthetic qualities. The analysis area contains two Visual Resource
Management Classes. All of the lands in the immediate vicinity of the Willow Valley Road and Reservoir are
within VRM Class III. The remaining lands within the analysis area are under VRM Class IV management.
The management direction for each class is described below:
VRM Class III: Lands are to be managed for moderate levels of change to the characteristic landscape.
Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer.
VRM Class IV: Lands are to be managed for moderate levels of change to the characteristic landscape.
Management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every
attempt should be made to minimize the effect of these activities through careful location, minimal
disturbance, and repeating the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape.
Visual Resources - Environmental Consequences
No Action
No changes are expected to visual resources if the no action alternative was selected.
Proposed Action and all Action Alternatives
Proposed treatment activities would have little to no negative impacts to visual resources. Mitigation and
Project Design Features related to visual resources described in Appendix A of this document would avoid or
reduce overall impacts.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of any of the action alternatives would have no cumulative effect on visual resources in
addition to the individual alternatives.
Socioeconomics – Affected Environment
Grazing/Ranching
All of the units are within approved and active allotments with approved grazing permits or leases. Grazing in
the area is a long time and traditional occupation and provides positive socioeconomic benefits for the
ranching industry and local communities.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
58
Western Juniper Products Demand
The primary treatment actions proposed in this EA involve some form of control or removal of western
juniper trees from the landscape. Western juniper in the proposed project area has historically been utilized
for fence posts and firewood. Many of the existing fence lines in the area have posts, stays and rock jacks
constructed from juniper. Demand for juniper firewood continues to be high as indicated by the response to
recent juniper firewood areas near Bonanza and Bly Mountain.
New economic opportunity and demand has developed locally and regionally for western juniper. A number
of local forest products manufacturing facilities have begun using western juniper in their production lines. A
local hardboard and particleboard plant that historically utilized primarily pine chips has started using other
species including western juniper. Biomass plants in Oregon and California are utilizing western juniper hog
fuel for generation of electricity. With the increasing demand and use of western juniper come additional
opportunities for employment. Additional job opportunities include; logging operations (skidding, processing,
and hauling), manufacturing facilities, and secondary employment (equipment sales, repairs, fuel suppliers,
retailers, etc.). For forest residue that is being used to fuel biomass plants, approximately 4.9 jobs are created
for each megawatt hour that is produced (Mason, 2008. It is estimated that 8,000 Bone Dry Tons (BDT) of
fuel can generate one megawatt of electricity to power 750-1,000 homes (Mason, 2008. Over the past several
seasons on KFRA, juniper yarding and utilization projects have employed approximately four to eight
workers during the summer months (skidder, delimber, loader operator, three truck drivers and foreman). This
does not include the manufacturing industry or secondary employment opportunities. In addition, at the local
REACH mill where western juniper is processed for multiple products, a number of job opportunities are
made available for disabled individuals assisting on the production lines.
Two processing facilities have been proposed in the Klamath Basin, including a biomass fueled electricity
generating plant in Klamath Falls and a specialty sign board plant in Chiloquin, that would utilize forest and
woodland products including juniper. Construction of a biomass fueled power plant was initiated in
Lakeview, Oregon, but is currently on hold.
The value of juniper depends upon market prices for value-added products and electricity. Currently, the end
value of western juniper is variable depending upon the distance from processing facilities and the specific
product. The value may or may not cover the costs of cutting, yarding, processing, and hauling to a
manufacturing or biomass facility. Juniper clean chipping, firewood and sawlog operations on KFRA lands
commonly produce revenue for the BLM while biomass operations do not. In the recent past, BLM has
typically paid contractors more to yard cut juniper to a landing for processing as biomass than it costs to pile
and burn it. However, demand is changing and it is anticipated that construction of a biomass plant in
Klamath Falls would increase the value of juniper biomass in the Klamath Basin.
Socioeconomics – Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
This alternative would not cut any juniper. No employment opportunities or benefits to local wood products
industries would be related to this alternative. No juniper would be made available to the public for firewood.
The BLM grazing allotments in the treatment area would continue to provide economic benefits to the
ranchers that are authorized to use them for livestock grazing. The existing and projected future levels of
juniper and exotic weedy grasses would have a negative impact on the levels of livestock forage species.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would allow for firewood utilization in all of the units within 300 feet of open roads
where ecologically appropriate. Utilizing this juniper would benefit that portion of the public which uses
wood for heat and potentially a limited number of commercial firewood operators. The remaining
approximately 5,000 acres of juniper (not easily accessible from roads) designated for cutting would be
lopped and scattered or burned. Other than firewood within 300 feet of roads, none of the approximately
5,000 acres of cut juniper would be utilized for firewood, chips, biomass, lumber or other products under this
alternative. Any direct or secondary employment opportunities related to utilizing juniper would not be
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
59
realized. Local wood processing facilities that use juniper would not be benefited by juniper supplied from
this project.
There would be some employment opportunities associated with cutting and piling juniper expected with this
alternative but they would be lower than those expected under Alternative 1 because there would be no
industrial utilization of the cut material. Equipment operators would be needed to cut and pile juniper on
approximately 3,000 acres. Hand crews would also be employed to conduct manual cutting operations on
approximately 2,000 acres. Burning some of the cut material could provide some short term employment
because KFRA often uses contractors to assist with BLM managed pile burning operations.
Any decreases in livestock forage species due to increased competition from exotic vegetation species
resulting from the treatments could result in reductions to the number of livestock authorized to graze on
BLM grazing allotments. This would result in negative economic benefits to the ranchers and the
communities where they live.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would allow for utilization of approximately 3,000 acres of cut juniper for firewood, clean
chips, biomass, lumber and other products. This would require construction of 2.8 miles of temporary road
within Units 3-1, 5-1, and 8-1. Utilizing juniper near roads for firewood would benefit that portion of the
public which uses wood for heat and potentially a limited number of commercial firewood operators.
Approximately 2,000 acres of cut juniper would be lopped and scattered or burned. Utilizing a portion of the
cut juniper would increase employment opportunity overall; however, the full suspension yarding method
proposed could limit the range of contractors to whom the yarding portion of the work would be available.
Typically, smaller logging operations or commercial firewood cutters would not have the proper equipment to
fully suspend the material to the landing. This would limit the potential contractor pool to only those in
possession of, or with access to, the full suspension equipment. Fully suspending the material is harder on the
equipment and the potential for more breakdowns and need for repair is greater.
Alternative 1 would make available for utilization biomass material that typically is not processed for lumber
or clean chips and would provide the greatest opportunity for increasing/maintaining local and regional
employment associated with harvesting and processing forest/woodland products.
If juniper is utilized for energy production, additional employment could result in three to seven jobs per
8,000 tons of biomass removed. Utilizing the material for hardboard or sawlogs would likely generate
similar employment opportunities. Up to 20,000 tons of juniper biomass could be utilized from the 3,000
acres of utilization proposed in Alternative 1. This could result in the creation or maintenance of 20 to 25
jobs in the energy and forestry industries.
Any decreases in livestock forage species due to increased competition from exotic vegetation species
resulting from the treatments could result in reductions to the number of livestock authorized to graze on
BLM grazing allotments. This would result in negative economic benefits to the ranchers and the
communities where they live.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would cut juniper by hand on approximately 5,000 acres. The juniper would be left in place or
lopped and scattered except firewood gathering would be allowed within 300 feet of existing roads (no
temporary road would be constructed in units 3-1, 5-1, and 8-1). Utilizing juniper near roads for firewood
would benefit that portion of the public which uses wood for heat and potentially a limited number of
commercial firewood operators.
Some employment opportunities would be expected under this alternative from hand cutting and lopping and
scattering but they would be much lower than those expected under Alternative 1 because there would be no
industrial utilization of the cut juniper.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
60
Any decreases in livestock forage species due to increased competition from exotic vegetation species
resulting from the treatments could result in reductions to the number of livestock authorized to graze on
BLM grazing allotments. This would result in negative economic benefits to the ranchers and the
communities where they live.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would cut juniper by hand, pile by hand and burn piles on approximately 5,000 acres. Firewood
gathering would be allowed within 300 feet of existing roads. Utilizing juniper near roads for firewood would
benefit that portion of the public which uses wood for heat and potentially a limited number of commercial
firewood operators.
Some employment opportunities would be expected under this alternative from hand cutting, piling and
burning but they would be much lower than those expected under Alternative 1 because there would be no
industrial utilization of the cut juniper.
Any decreases in livestock forage species due to increased competition from exotic vegetation species
resulting from the treatments could result in reductions to the number of livestock authorized to graze on
BLM grazing allotments. This would result in negative economic benefits to the ranchers and the
communities where they live.
Cumulative Effects
Cost of Juniper Disposal
Presently the KFRA is paying approximately two to four times more to yard biomass material than to pile and
burn it in place. The additional costs per acre to yard the material versus burning it could result in fewer
overall acres being treated with juniper cutting prescriptions based upon a steady funding scenario. As the
local and surrounding infrastructure becomes more stable and the demand for western juniper continues to
rise, it is possible that the need to subsidize the cutting and yarding operations would be reduced or
eliminated. If values of juniper for lumber and biomass remain similar to present, Alternative 1 would have a
higher cost to implement than the other action alternatives. Without considerations for generation of energy
from biomass or additional employment opportunities, Alternative 1 would be the most expensive alternative
to implement.
Long Term Supply of Western Juniper for Commercial Use
Processing facilities are dependent upon a stable, sustainable, and reliable supply of raw materials including
juniper from federal juniper woodlands. Federal lands including the proposed project area, are capable of
supplying some of these raw materials.
Under all action alternatives, the long term (more than 20 years) strategy for managing western juniper in the
KFRA is to remove encroaching western juniper and maintain a composition of vegetation that is reflective of
pre-settlement cover levels. Once the initial treatment of the encroaching western juniper is completed,
follow-up maintenance treatments are anticipated when regenerating juniper is relatively young and of a
noncommercial size. As a result, the KFRA does not expect a long term sustainable commercial supply of
western juniper (beyond 20 years) to be available from KFRA lands. In contrast, because the KFRA has
approximately 20,000 to 30,000 acres of western juniper remaining and potentially available for treatment, a
short term supply (less than 20 years) of juniper should be available from KFRA lands for commercial use.
There are many thousands of acres of western juniper on private lands in the Klamath Basin and surrounding
area. The supply of western juniper on both private and public lands should result in positive socioeconomic
benefits, at least in the short term, as long as demand continues or develops for its commercial use; whether
for biomass, chips, lumber or other products.
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Affected Environment
Climate change is a phenomenon that has been occurring on earth for approximately the past four billion
years. The climate has cooled and warmed as evidenced by ice ages, warm periods, changing sea levels and
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
61
distribution of vegetation and human populations. Currently, there is general consensus that the climate is
warming and has been generally warming with various warmer and colder periods for approximately the past
10,000 to 15,000 years (Singer, F. S. and Avery, D. T. 2008). Greenhouse gases (GHG), in particular carbon
dioxide, may be contributing to the warming. Uncertainty about the nature, effects and magnitude of the
greenhouse gases and global climate change interrelationships is evident in a wide range of conclusions and
recommendations in the literature reviewed.
The Proposed Project Area is a very small part of a global carbon cycle. The spatial scale for analysis of
carbon, greenhouse gasses and climate change is global, not local, regional, national or continental because
climate change is inherently a global issue and carbon cycling is only an issue as it relates to contributing to
greenhouse gasses as they potentially contribute to climate change. The U.S. Geological Survey, in a May 14,
2008 memorandum to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, summarized the latest science on greenhouse gases
and concluded that it is currently beyond the scope of existing science to identify a specific source of
greenhouse gas emissions or carbon sequestration and designate it as the cause of specific climate impacts at a
specific location (USGS 2008).
Climate change may affect the condition of local forests and woodlands through changes in temperature and
precipitation patterns. Vegetation ranges may change in both elevation and associations between plants. These
changes are difficult to predict and current climate and vegetation models vary widely as to what changes are
predicted. For example, in a recent collaborative report from The Climate Leadership Initiative, the global and
regional climate models used predicted both decreases and increases in precipitation in the Klamath River
Basin (Barr, B. R. et al., 2010).
In general, as plants grow they accumulate carbon from the atmosphere (CO2). The carbon is stored in all
vegetative parts including leaves, roots and stems or tree boles. The faster the vegetation grows, the faster it
removes carbon from the atmosphere. The carbon remains stored or sequestered until the plant dies and
decomposes or it is consumed by fire releasing carbon back into the atmosphere. Some important parts of any
analysis of carbon sequestration, GHG emissions and vegetation management is that results depend greatly on
the vegetation type, location on the planet, the origin and type of the soils, and past management. Juniper
woodlands are not directly comparable to temperate forests in the Pacific North West as these forests are not
directly comparable to tropical forests on the equator in terms of GHG sequestration and emissions (Sierra
Pacific Industries THP, CEQA Analysis, 2007).
Local Climate
The area of the proposed project is located in south east Oregon approximately 100 miles east of the Cascade
Mountain Range. The area can generally be described as high desert with elevations ranging from 4,000 to
5,000 feet. The area is in the transient snow zone, meaning snow typically does not accumulate for long
periods of time but can be expected for some time period during the winter. Winter conditions vary from year
to year but typically include snow accumulations of zero to three feet with snow persisting through mid-April
in most years. In the early 1990’s, record snow falls in the Klamath Basin resulted in accumulations in the
proposed project area of between two and four feet. In the relatively low snow year of 2009-2010, snow
accumulations in the proposed project area were between zero and and one foot. Summers are typically hot
and dry with little precipitation on average years from June through October.
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be expected to have little effect on the current levels of carbon and/or
greenhouse gasses released from the proposed project area. The juniper woodlands and rangeland vegetation
in the area would continue to sequester carbon. Currently, it is not possible to measure the changes of carbon
sequestration or greenhouse gas emissions associated with the growth, mortality and decay of juniper
woodlands and rangelands in the proposed project area.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
62
A potential dramatic impact would be the occurrence of a large wildfire in the area. If the juniper woodlands
and rangelands were to burn under extreme burning conditions, one could expect direct mortality to all or
most of the vegetation in the proposed project area. Large amounts of CO2 would be released directly by the
process of combustion and over a longer period of time by decomposition of fire killed trees and other
vegetation. However, such releases would be expected to be temporary as the rangeland vegetation would be
expected to regenerate and return to growing and sequestering carbon.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would include cutting and burning of approximately 5,000 acres of juniper woodlands.
Approximately 2,000 acres of juniper would be felled by hand and lopped and scattered. Approximately
3,000 acres of juniper would be cut by machine, piled in small piles, dried and burned. All of these activities
would release carbon into the atmosphere through a variety of mechanisms including burning of fossil fuels
by heavy equipment, vehicles and power tools, harvest (removal) of growing trees, decomposition of slash
and forest products, and burning of slash and forest residue.
Cutting of Growing Trees
As soon as juniper trees are cut they would cease to sequester carbon. Carbon stored in the tree boles, limbs
and foliage would remain sequestered until the trees decompose or burn. In addition, burning the
approximately 3,000 acres of piled juniper would accelerate carbon emissions compared to natural mortality
and decay processes. Burning slash piles would contribute CO2 directly to the atmosphere. Woodland/forest
residue including limbs, leaves, needles, cull logs, etc., would also begin to decompose and release carbon.
After cutting (whether by hand or mechanically) other vegetation would be expected to take the place of cut
juniper. Brush species including sage brush and bitter brush, grasses and forbs would increase as more light,
water and nutrients are made available through removal of juniper. This other vegetation would begin to
accumulate and store carbon.
Harvest of Growing Trees
Like trees cut, trees that are harvested (utilized) would cease to sequester carbon. Wood products and slash
created by the harvest would begin to decompose. However, many of the products will retain carbon in fairly
stable materials such as lumber, chipboard and post and poles. Overall, these more stable and protected
materials would be expected to retain the majority of their sequestered carbon for up to 100 years (Sierra
Pacific Industries THP, CEQA Analysis, 2007). Other products, such as chips, biomass, paper and firewood
would be expected to break down or be burned and release carbon fairly quickly. Woodland/forest residue
including limbs, leaves, needles, cull logs, etc., would also begin to decompose and release carbon.
Material Utilized
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would only remove firewood from cut areas within 300 feet of existing roads. The
BLM estimates that between 150 and 200 acres of firewood would be removed under this alternative. Using
an average estimate of approximately seven tons per acre in juniper boles there would be approximately 1,400
tons of juniper removed and utilized as firewood under this alternative.
Alternative 1
This alternative would yard and utilize approximately 3,000 acres of juniper for lumber, chips, firewood, and
biomass. In addition, an estimated 50 acres of juniper within 300 feet of existing roads would be utilized as
firewood. Again, using an average estimate of seven tons per acre in juniper boles, there would be
approximately 21,350 tons of juniper removed and utilized under Alternative 1.
Alternative 2
Like the Proposed Action, this alternative would only remove firewood from cut areas within 300 feet of
existing roads. The BLM estimates that between 150 and 200 acres of firewood would be removed under this
alternative. Using an average estimate of approximately seven tons per acre in juniper boles there would be
approximately 1,400 tons of juniper removed and utilized as firewood under this alternative.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
63
Alternative 3
Like the Proposed Action, this alternative would only remove firewood from cut areas within 300 feet of
existing roads. The BLM estimates that between 150 and 200 acres of firewood would be removed under this
alternative. Using an average estimate of approximately seven tons per acre in juniper boles there would be
approximately 1,400 tons of juniper removed and utilized as firewood under this alternative.
Fossil Fuel Use
The equipment such as mechanical harvesters, skidders, processors, light trucks, and chainsaws used for
cutting and piling juniper and prescribed fire operations all use fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuel results in
direct emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
All figures within this section are approximations calculated using estimates to be used only to compare the
relative impact of the alternatives. All estimates were calculated based on the maximum acreage available for
each treatment. It is unlikely that every acre will be treated based on accessibility and availability of funds.
The following assumptions are made in assessing impact on greenhouse gases and carbon storage:
1 Gallon of Diesel = 22.2 lbs/gal of carbon dioxide omissions (ESA website)
14,500 lbs/acre of carbon dioxide omission from pile burning
Table 15: Approximate Gallons of Fuel Used by Alternative
Proposed Action
Treatment
Hand cutting and lopping
Machine cutting and piling
Pile Burning
Fuel Totals
Acres
2,000
3,000
3,000
Hand cutting and lopping
Machine cutting, piling and yarding
Tons of material processed
Tons of material hauled
Burning of residual material
Fuel Totals
2,000
3,000
20,000
20,000
Hand cutting and lopping
5,000
Saw Fuel/Oil
500
500
Alternative 1
500
Vehicle Fuel
1,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
500
Alternative 2
1,500
1,000
1,000
Diesel Fuel
Torch Fuel
15,000
200
200
15,000
1,000
20,000
10,000
30,000
3,000
60,000
3,000
Alternative 3
Hand cut, hand pile, and burn
5,000
1500
1000
200
No Action
No Treatment
0
0
0
0
0
Cumulative Effects
The action alternatives would have direct impacts related to cutting of growing trees and release of
greenhouse gases through burning and utilization of the cut juniper and use of fossil fuels. However,
woodland products from the Alternative 1 are also likely to be utilized as biomass to produce energy requiring
less use of fossil fuels for energy production and overall reduced emissions of PM10, CO, NMOC, CH4,
NOx, Sox. It is currently beyond the scope of existing science to identify a specific source of greenhouse gas
emissions or sequestration and designate it as the cause of specific climate impacts at a specific location. The
incremental increase in carbon emissions as greenhouse gasses that could be attributable to the Proposed
Action or other action alternatives is of such small magnitude that it is unlikely to be detectable at global,
continental or regional scales or to affect the results of any models now being used to predict climate change.
The effects of all proposed actions authorized under the KFRA RMP are analyzed in the FEIS (at 4-7 to 4-10
and in Appendix T). The analysis concludes that the effect on global climate would be slight and
unmeasurable. Even though an analysis of potential future harvesting, fuels treatments, recreation and road
actions beyond those in this EA are not analyzed in detail, it is reasonable to assume that any impacts will be
within the range of those analyzed for the entire RMP.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
64
CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation
The shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) was listed as endangered in 1988 under the ESA (USDI FWS,
1988). This species inhabits lakes and streams in the Klamath Basin and were once abundant in the Lost River
watershed, Upper Klamath Lake, and its tributaries. Gerber Reservoir and its watershed were identified as
Unit 2 in the Proposed Critical Habitat determination rule for shortnose suckers. This is the only major
habitat area inhabited by shortnose suckers, but not Lost River suckers (USDI FWS, 2011). The Oregon
portion of Proposed Critical Habitat Unit 2 includes the waters of Gerber Reservoir below the full pool
reservoir line, and a large portion of the Dry Prairie, Ben Hall, Barnes, Barnes Valley, Pitchlog and Long
Branch Creeks (within bankfull of designated stream segments) (USDI FWS, 2011). Miller Creek is not part
of the Proposed Critical Habitat Unit 2, but is currently considered occupied by the shortnose sucker.
On December 11, 2011, BLM met with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding aquatic
threatened or endangered species. Both agencies agreed that the Miller Creek riparian treatments proposed as
part of the SW Gerber project meet criteria, and were designed to meet conservation measures (CMs) and
project design criteria (PDCs) for coverage under the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO). The
complete list of CMs and PDCs is filed in the SW Gerber EA project record. This project is applicable to
Category 12, Riparian Juniper Treatment (non-commercial) and Category 13, Riparian Vegetation Treatment
(controlled burning) (USDI FWS, 2007).
Hand piles would not be placed in or directly adjacent to wet or dry stream channels, and will typically be
burned in the winter when snow prevents unwanted consumption of nearby riparian vegetation. All
applicable general and activity-specific CMs and PDCs will be implemented as outlined in the ARBO.
Overall, the proposed project is anticipated to have long-term beneficial effects to riparian and aquatic habitat
for the endangered shortnose sucker in Miller Creek.
Since the BLM has determined that this project meets the criteria for actions covered in the ARBO, a
determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” was made for the shortnose sucker
(Chasmistes brevirostris). Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation was completed with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for the proposed SW Gerber Project. No other listed species or designated critical habitat
occurs within the project area or would be affected from the proposed project. Therefore, a “No Effect”
determination was made for all other listed species and designated critical habitat.
Tribal Consultation
Tribal consultation is on-going with The Klamath Tribes. No objections have arisen, as long as sites are
avoided by impacts.
CHAPTER 5 – LIST OF PREPARERS
Brooke Brown
Shane Durant
Dana Eckard
Johanna Fickenscher
Cindy Foster
Andy Hamilton
Steve Hayner
Don Hoffheins
Terry Austin, Kathy Lindsey
Brian McCarty
Rob Roninger
Grant Weidenbach
Julia Zoppetti
Archaeologist
Forester
Rangeland Management Specialist
Botanist - Noxious Weeds, and Special Status Plants
Soil Scientist
Hydrologist
Wildlife Biologist
Planner
Writer-Editor
Engineer
Fish Biologist
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Fuels Management Specialist
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
65
CHAPTER 6 - BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, T. E., C. Vaughn, and P. B. Sands 1999. Geographic races may exist among perennial grasses.
California Agriculture 53(2):33-38. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v053n02p33. March-April, 1999.
Altman B. and A. Holmes 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of eastern
Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.The Plains, VA: American Bird
Conservancy.
Anderson, Merle. Interview with William D. Yehle. Bureau of Land Management. Brookings, Oregon.
December 20, 1994. (m/s on-file Klamath Falls Resource Area, Klamath Falls, OR.)
Azuma, D L.; B.A. Hiserote; P.A.Dunham, 2005. The western juniper resource of eastern Oregon, 1999.
Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-249. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 18 p.
Barr, B. R., et. Al. 2010. Preparing for Climate Change in the Klamath Basin. National Center for
Conservation Science and Policy the Climate Leadership. 48 pages. (The Climate Leadership Initiative is a
research collaborative between The Resource Innovation Group, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and the University of
Oregon’s Institute for a Sustainable Environment).
Bates, J.D., Miller, R.F., Svejcar, T.J., 2000. Understory dynamics in cut and uncut western juniper
woodlands. J. Range Manage. 53, 119–126.
Bates, J.D., Miller, R.F., Svejcar, T.J. 2005. Long-term successional trends following western juniper cutting.
Range. Ecol. Manage. 58, 533-541.
Bates, J.D., R.F. Miller, and T.J. Svejcar. 2007a. Long-term spatial dynamics in a cut western juniper
woodland. Western North American Naturalist
67:549–561.
Bates, J.D., R. Miller, T. Svejcar, K. Davies, F. Pierson,S. Hardegree. 2007b. Western juniper control studies:
EOARC research report [online]. Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Station Report, Burns. 57 pp.
Bates, J.D., Svejcar, T.J. 2009. Herbaceous succession after burning of cut western juniper trees. West. N.
Am. Nat. 69, 9-25.
Beckham, Stephen Dow. 2000. The Gerber Block: Historical Developments on the Public Rangelands in
Klamath County, Oregon. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Bovey, R.W., D. LeTourneau., L.C. Erickson. 1961. The chemical composition of medusahead and downy
brome. Weeds 9:307-311.
Burkhardt, J.W., and E.W. Tisdale. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology 76: 472–
484.
Casey, D and B.Altman 2010. Unpublished report. Population Sizes and Response to Management for Three
Priority Bird Species in Sagebrush Habitats of Eastern Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy.
Corvallis, OR.
Collom, T. 2012 Personal Communication on current population and trends of the Interstate mule deer herd.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
66
Connelly J.W. M.A. Schroeder, AR. Sands, and C. E. Braun 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse
populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4): 967–985.
Dorr, James. Soil Scientist, Fremont-Winema National Forest. 2003. Email communication to C. Leet (on file
at KFRA BLM office).
Davies, K. W. 2008. Medusahead dispersal and establishment in sagebrush steppe plant communities.
Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:110–115.
Davies, K.W., 2011. Plant community diversity and native plant abundance decline with increasing
abundance of an exotic annual grass. Oecologia 167, 481-491.
Davies, K. W., Svejcar, T. J. 2008. Comparison of medusahead invaded and non-invaded Wyoming big
sagebrush steppe in southeastern Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:623–629.
Davies, K.W., Sheley, R. L., 2011. Promoting native vegetation and diversity in exotic annual grass
infestations. Restoration Ecology 19, 159-165.
Eddleman, L.E. 1986. Establishment and stand development of western juniper in central Oregon. In:
Proceedings of the western juniper ecology and management workshop: Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 255–259.
Eddleman, L. 2002. Establishment and development of broadcast seeded grasses under western juniper slash.
Pages 36–42 in Range Field Day Progress Report. Range Science Series Report #5, Department of Rangeland
Resources, Oregon State University and Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Corvallis.
Everett, R.L., Ward, K. 1984. Early plant succession on pinyon-juniper controlled burns. Northwest Sci. 58,
57-68.
Follansbee, Julia A. and Nancy L. Pollock. 1978. Cultural Resources Overview: Jackson-Klamath
Planning Unit. Cultural Resources Consultant. Report prepared for the United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Foster, Cindy. Soil Scientist, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Site visit, June-August 2010.
Gedney, D.R., D.L. Azuma, C.L. Bolsinger, and N. McKay. 1999. Western juniper in eastern Oregon. U.S.
Forest Service General Technical Report NW-GTR-464.
George, M. R. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead. University of California Range Science
Report 23:1–3.
Goldman S.J., Jackson K., Bursztynsky T.A. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. 1986. New
York:McGraw-Hill Book Co. 364p.
Johnson, D.D., Davies, K.W. 2012. Medusahead Management in Sagebrush–Steppe Rangelands: Prevention,
Control, and Revegetation. Rangelands: February 2012, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 32-38.
Hagen, C. A. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain
and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
Hagen et al 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 2011. Salem, OR.
Knapp, P.A.; Soule, P.T. 1998. Recent Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) expansion on a protected site
in central Oregon. Global Change Biology. 4: 347–357.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
67
Koniak, S. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. Great Basin
Nat. 45, 556-566.
Krueger, William C.; Sanderson, M. A.; et al. Environmental Impacts of Livestock on U. S. Grazing Lands.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Issue Paper Number 22. 2002.
Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras (eds.). 2003. Birds of Oregon – A general reference.
Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
Mason, Tad.; March 2008, Biomass Symposium, Medford, Oregon.
Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1995. Historic Expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in Southeast
Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist. Vol. 55, No. 1, pages 37-45.
Miller, R.F., Svejcar, T.J., Rose, J.A. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community composition and
structure. J. Range Manage. 53, 574-585.
Miller, Richard F., J.D. Bates, and T.J. Svejcar., F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, Ecology,
and Management of Western Juniper. Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical
Bulletin 152, June 2005. Corvallis. 77 p.
Milton, S. 2004. Grasses as invasive alien plants in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100:69–
75.
Minor, Rick, Stephen Dow Beckham and Kathryn Anne Toepel, 1979. Cultural Resource Overview of the
BLM Lakeview District, South-Central Oregon: Archaeology, Ethnography, History. University of Oregon
Anthropological Papers No. 16., reprint by Coyote Press.
Monaco, T. A., Osmond, T. M., Dewey, S. A. 2005. Medusahead control with fall and
spring-applied herbicides in northern Utah foothills. Weed Technology 19:653–658.
Noson. A.C, R. A. Schmitz1, and R. F. Miller. 2006. Influence of fire and Juniper Encroachment on Birds in
High Elevation Sagebrush Steppe. Western North American Naturalist 66(3), pp. 343–353.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon, Kathryn
Kostow, editor. Portland, Oregon.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Klamath River Basin, Oregon Fish Management Plan.
Klamath District Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities.
Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, ID.
Pierson, F.B., J.D. Bates, and T.J. Svejcar. 2007. Long-term erosion changes in runoff and erosion after
cutting western juniper In Press, Range Ecology and Management.
Rafferty, D. L., Young, J. A. 2002. Cheatgrass competition and establishment of desert needlegrass seedlings.
Journal of Range Management 55:70–72.
Ray, Vern F. 1963. Primitive Pragmatists: The Modoc Indians of Northern California. University of
Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Scott, Joe H. and Burgan, Robert H. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for
Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. USDA Forest
Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ft. Collins, CO. 72 p.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
68
Sierra Pacific Industries. 2007. Ed Murphy Presentation on THP, CEQA Analysis and Carbon Sequestration
at BLM Purchaser Meeting. November 17, 2009. Eugene, OR, USA.
Singer, Fred S. and Avery, Dennis T. 2008. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. Rowan and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania, 278 pages.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil Survey Manual, USDA Handbook No. 18.US Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Soil Survey Staff. 2002. Ecological Sites for the Gerber Block. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area. Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Spier, Leslie. 1930. Klamath Ethnography. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 30. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Tinniswood, William, 2008, Fish Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Klamath Falls,
Oregon. Personal communication.
Torell, P. J., L. C. Erickson, R. H. Haas. 1961. The medusahead problem in Idaho. Weeds 9:124–131.
Vaitkus, M., and L.E. Eddleman. 1987. Composition and productivity of a western juniper understory
and its response to canopy removal. Pages 456–460 in R.L. Everett, editor, Proceedings: Pinyon-Juniper
Conference. General Technical Report INT-215, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,
Ogden, UT. 581 pp.
Wiens, J. A. and J. T. Rotenberry. 1985. Response of breeding passerine birds to rangeland alteration in a
North American shrub steppe locality. Journal of Applied Ecology 22: 655-668.
Washington State University Extension. 2008. Ventenata. Publication Number EB2038E
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/EB2038E/eb2038E.pdf
Young, J.A.; Evans, R.A. 1984. Stem flow on western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) trees. Weed Science.
32: 320–327.
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum
[SIMK.] Melderis). Great Basin Naturalist 52:245–252.
USDA NRCS GLTI. 1997. National Range and Pasture Handbook
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Rangeland Soil Quality-Water Erosion. Soil Quality
Information Sheet-Rangeland Sheet 9.
USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Klamath Falls Resource Area. 2009. Unpublished
Survey Data
USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District. 2003. Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Assessment
USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence, USDA Forest Service,
USDI Bureau of Land Management, and the Coquille Indian Tribe for Programmatic Aquatic Habitat
Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington that Affect ESA-listed Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species and
their Critical Habitats, June 14, 2007 [8330.F0055(07)].
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011, 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0097; 4500030114]
RIN 1018–AX41 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lost
River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
69
USDI USGS 2011. Breeding Bird Survey Data population estimates for the vesper and brewer sparrow.
Website - http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/trend/tf10.html
USDI United States Geological Survey Biological Resource Division. 2003. Preliminary data on Gerber fish
sampling. Klamath Field Office. Klamath Falls, Oregon.
USGS (US Geological Survey). 2008. The Challenges of Linking Carbon Emissions, Atmospheric Gas
Concentrations, Global Warming, and Consequential Impacts. Memorandum from Mark D. Myers, Director,
US Geological Survey to Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. May 14, 2008.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
70
Appendix A - Summary of Best Management Practices and
Project Design Features
Appendix D of the RMP (pages D1-D46) describes the best management practices (BMPs) that are “designed
to achieve the objectives of maintaining or improving water quality and soil productivity and the protection of
riparian-wetland areas.” Best management practices are defined as methods, measures, or practices selected
on the basis of site-specific conditions to ensure that water quality will be maintained at its highest practicable
level (D-1, Appendix D, RMP). In addition to BMPs that focus on water quality and soil production, the
interdisciplinary team also develops project design features (PDFs) with the objective of meeting other
resource goals. For instance, the PDFs listed below under Wildlife and Vegetation are designed to meet
resource objectives associated with these resources and not necessarily water quality. This is a list of the
BMPs and PDFs that the interdisciplinary team found to be most pertinent for the proposed project. All of
Appendix D in the RMP, as well as the Annual Program Monitoring Reports, are used when developing the
final operational specifications for a treatment.
Roads
In 2011, the Klamath Falls Resource Area RMP (1995) was updated to improve BMPs to reduce sediment
delivery from BLM roads in Oregon as per Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2011-074. The BMPs in this
list, R 001 through R 101, will be applied during the SW Gerber project implementation. The complete list
can be viewed on the BLM website at:
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/files/BMPPlanMaintMemo1995_120109.pdf
Post-treatment actions for access roads
• Install drainage dips, or water bars, in accordance with RMP BMPs to reduce surface run-off.
• Seeding or other methods of soil stabilization are to be applied to any exposed soil surfaces prior to
the wet season to reduce surface erosion.
• Surfacing roads in accordance with RMP BMPs (Roads C-1-8) is recommended for all naturally
surfaced roads not proposed for decommissioning or closure.
• Design blockages (close or decommission) temporary spur roads upon completion of treatments to
minimize non-authorized use of roads and trails within treatment areas.
Soil Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Limit detrimental soil conditions to less than 20 percent of the total acreage within the activity area.
Use current soil quality indicators to monitor soil impacts. If the 20 percent standard is exceeded,
treatment such as ripping, backblading, or seeding will be required
To protect riparian areas, soil resources, and water quality while limiting erosion and sedimentation to
nearby streams and drainages, do not allow logging operations during the wet season (typically
October 15 to May 15) unless frozen ground or sufficient snow is present. Snow depths in excess of
twenty (20) inches are normally considered sufficient, but suitable snow depths may vary as approved
by authorized personnel.
Limit mechanical cutting and yarding operations to periods when the soil moistures is below 20
percent at a six inch depth, unless waived by a soil or watershed specialist.
Avoid small-radius turns when operating heavy equipment over bare ground.
Residual slash would be placed upon skid trails upon completion of yarding.
Decommission landings after operations are complete. Rip landings (no deeper than 10 inches), lop
and scatter slash or wood chips over the surface, and seed or plant with native vegetation.
Avoid placement of skid trails in areas with potential to collect and divert surface runoff, such as the
bottom of draws and ephemeral drainages.
Retain and establish adequate vegetative cover in accordance with RMP BMPs to reduce erosion.
Retain enough small woody (dead and down) material to sustain soil nutrients. See RMP BMPs for
specifications.
Perform cool burns when the soil is wet or frozen, and juniper litter is dry.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
71
Hydrology & Riparian Reserve Treatments
•
•
•
Wherever possible, hand piles shall be placed away from all leave trees within riparian treatment
units.
Hand piles must be placed at least 3 feet away from any stream channel.
Refueling will not be conducted within 50 feet of any stream channel.
Table A-1: Riparian reserve types and widths from the KFRA RMP
Riparian Reserve Type
Fish-bearing streams
Perennial non-fish-bearing
streams and Intermittent
(seasonal) non-fish-bearing
streams and Constructed
ponds and reservoirs and
Wetlands greater than one
acre
Wetlands less than one acre
and
Unstable or potentially
unstable areas
Lakes and natural ponds
Springs
Reserve Width (for each side of streams/wetlands)
At a minimum, the reserve width will include:
▪ Slope distance equal to the height of two site potential trees (240 feet); or,
▪ The stream channel and the area extending to the top of the inner gorge; or,
▪ The area extending to the outer edges of riparian vegetation; or,
▪ The 100-year floodplain; or,
▪ The extent of unstable or potentially unstable areas, whichever is greatest.
At a minimum, the reserve width will include:
▪ Slope distance equal to the height of one site potential tree (120 feet); or,
▪ The stream channel (or waterbody/wetland) and the area extending to the top of
the inner gorge; or,
▪ The area extending to the outer edges of riparian vegetation; or,
▪ The 100-year floodplain (for streams) or the extent of seasonally saturated soil (for
waterbodies and wetlands); or,
▪ The extent of unstable or potentially unstable areas, whichever is greatest.
At a minimum, the reserve width will include:
▪ The wetland and the extent of seasonally saturated soil; or,
▪ The area extending to the outer edges of riparian vegetation; or,
▪ The extent of stable or potentially unstable areas, whichever is greatest.
At a minimum, the reserve width will include:
▪ Slope distance equal to the height of two site potential trees (240 feet); and,
▪ The body of water or wetland and the area to the edges of riparian vegetation;
▪ The extent of seasonally saturated soil;
▪ The extent of unstable or potentially unstable areas; whichever is greatest.
Reserve widths vary according to the size of the associated wetland (see above).
*A site-potential tree is defined as the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years old or more) for a given site
class. For the Southwest Gerber Analysis Area, a site potential tree height was determined to be 120 ft.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction
•
•
•
To protect Riparian Reserves and stream channels and to prevent soil damage due to high burn
intensity, minimize the number and size of hand piles within designated Riparian Reserves and burn
piles when soil and duff moisture are high.
No machine cutting, piling or burning of machine piles in Riparian Reserves.
Avoid piling concentrations of large logs or stumps, leave coarse woody debris (CWD) within the
high water mark of the stream.
Wildlife Terrestrial Species
•
•
Seasonal restrictions will be required where the following wildlife species are actively nesting: golden
and bald eagle, osprey, and special status species. Seasonal restrictions for specific species can be
found on pages 231-240 of the KFRA FEIS.
Protect nesting areas as described on page 38 of the KFRA RMP.
Special Status Plants
•
•
•
Buffer Callitriche trochlearis 30 meters from any ground disturbing activities.
Population will be flagged with buffer to avoid walking or driving in the buffer area.
Avoid spraying of pesticides within buffer area and near water that could seep into the population.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
72
Noxious Weeds/Invasive Species
•
•
•
•
•
Grazing allotment pastures that are treated with mechanical equipment will be rested from livestock
grazing for a minimum of 1 year following cutting to allow for vegetation recovery.
Yarding trails and landing areas will be seeded with perennial grasses.
Cleaning of all equipment and vehicles will be required prior to moving on-site to prevent spread of
noxious weeds. If the job site includes a weed infestation, cleaning of all logging and construction
equipment and vehicles will be required prior to leaving the job site. Removal of all dirt, grease, and
plant parts that may carry weed seeds or vegetative parts may be accomplished by using a pressure
hose to clean the equipment.
Conduct monitoring activities related to proposed treatments as described in the Klamath Falls ROD.
Avoid noxious weed/invasive species infestations in areas designated for firewood cutting to prevent
spread.
Cultural Resources
•
•
Follow procedures for cultural protection and management outlined in the KFRA ROD/RMP (page
43), and protect identified sites by buffering.
In accordance with guidelines and directives in the Klamath Falls Resource Area RMP, BLM
regulations, and the National Historic Preservation Act, areas not included in previous archaeological
surveys will be surveyed before any ground-disturbing action is undertaken.
Visual Resources
•
•
Work with the Visual Resource Specialist to design cutting treatments along roadways and other
visually sensitive areas, to blend and harmonize the juniper treatments with the surrounding landscape
and to avoid creating strong visual contrasts between the treated unit and untreated areas.
All treatments will meet appropriate Visual Class objectives as specified in the KFRA ROD/RMP
(page 44).
Recreation Resources
• Ensure that the contractor signs haul routes to alert recreationists to truck traffic in the area.
• Ensure that dust abatement and frequent grading occurs on haul routes, especially near more popular
recreation areas.
Protection of Range Improvements (Fences)
•
•
•
•
During manual tree felling operations, trees will be directionally cut to fall away from fences. This
includes allotment and pasture fences and exclosure fences around springs, water developments, and
study sites. If trees do damage fence components, including wires, posts, stays, clips, rock cribs,
gates, or brace structures, these will be repaired immediately.
During mechanical tree cutting operations, trees will be directionally cut to fall away from fences.
Cut trees will not be piled on or next to fence lines. Machinery will not physically contact fence
components. If fences must be crossed to access cutting units, this should be done by cutting the
wires between two posts and rolling the wire back. If livestock are present in the cutting areas these
wires shall be temporarily reattached at the end of each days operation. At the completion of cutting
operations, the wires will be detached from the two posts, the wires will then be stretched and spliced
together and then reattached to the posts.
During mechanical yarding operations machinery will not physically contact fence components. If
fences must be crossed to access yarding units, this should be done by cutting the wires between two
posts and rolling the wire back. If livestock are present in the cutting areas these wires shall be
temporarily reattached at the end of each days operation. At the completion of yarding operations,
the wires will be detached from the two posts, the wires will then be stretched and spliced together
and then reattached to the posts.
During prescribed burning operations, slash will not be piled on or next to fence lines. If fences have
wood posts, all necessary measures will be taken to avoid burning the posts including not piling slash
near posts and pulling any concentrations of flammable material away from the posts prior to ignition.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
73
•
If any wood posts are burned, they will be immediately replaced with steel posts and the fence wires
will be attached to the new post. If prescribed burning operations damages fence wires, these will be
replaced.
During all juniper treatments, living junipers or juniper stumps that are being used as fence posts will
not be cut down or “topped.”
Appendix B – Definition of “Old” Juniper
and Juniper Woodland Succession Phases
Old Juniper refers to juniper that likely originated in the “presettlement” period, before 1870. It is assumed
that these trees are growing on sites that they are adapted to, since they began growing there under “natural
conditions” when natural processes (including lightning fires) determined vegetation patterns. Older junipers
are usually found in rocky areas where vegetation is sparse and natural fire frequency is low. Some typical
characteristics of older juniper are the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crown is flat, rounded, broad at top, or irregular (as opposed to the more pointed tops of younger
trees)
Spike top
Numerous dead branches
Branches covered with a coarse, bright yellow-green lichen (Letharia, or wolf lichen)
Large diameter lower branches
Large diameter trunk relative to height
Trunk has spirally-twisted bark, deep furrows
Hollow trunk
It is rare for an older juniper to have all of the above features, but more commonly will have at least three or
four. Also, older juniper is not always the largest trees; on drier, rocky sites, they can be short, stubby, gnarly
trees. In addition, junipers with cavities and or wood rat middens (adjacent to or in tree) shall be retained.
Juniper Woodland Succession Phases
Miller, et al. (2005) separated woodland succession into three transitional phases as follows:
Phase I – Trees are present (less than10% of maximum potential), but shrubs and herbaceous plants are the
dominant vegetation that influences hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles. The shrub layer is intact.
Phase II – Trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbaceous plants with all layers influencing ecological
processes on the site. The shrub layer is nearly intact to significantly thinning.
Phase III – Trees are the dominant vegetation (greater than 30% of maximum potential) and primary plant
layer influencing the ecological processes on site. The shrub layer is at least 75% dead.
All of these phases of juniper woodland succession are represented within the SW Gerber EA proposed
treatment areas.
DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2010-001-EA (Southwest Gerber Habitat Restoration EA)
74