Steens Mountain Comprehensive Recreation Plan Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact

USDI, Bureau of Land Management Andrews Resource Area, Burns District

DECISION RECORD

Comprehensive Recreation Plan Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-B060-2009-0058-EA

Background

Compliance

The attached Environmental Assessment (EA), Steens Mountain Comprehensive Recreation Plan OR-B060-2009-0058, is tiered to the Andrews Management Unit (AMU)/Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (2004 PRMP/FEIS) and relevant information contained therein was incorporated by reference in the EA. The Proposed Action, No Action, and other alternatives were designed to conform to the following documents, which direct and provide the framework for management of BLM lands within Burns District:

 Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Plan, Appendix P, CMPA Resource Management Plan (RMP) (August 2005) 6330 - Management of Wilderness Study Areas (July 2012)  Wilderness Act of 1964  BLM Manual 6340 - Management of Wilderness (2012)  BLM Manual 6400 - Wild and Scenic Rivers (July 2012)  Steens Mountain Transportation Plan (TP), Appendix M, CMPA RMP/Record of Decision (ROD) (August 2005)  Steens Mountain Travel Management Plan (TMP) (November 2007)  Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (16 USC 460nnn note.)  Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems Management Guidelines (2001)  Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (Hagen 2011)  BLM National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (2004)  National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 1970)  Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701, 1976)

 2007 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Record of Decision (ROD)  2010 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon ROD  Burns District Noxious Weed Management Plan (EA-OR-020-98-05)  Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)(2008 2011)  Riddle Brothers Historic District Cultural Resources Management Plan EA (OR- 020-5-019, January 1995)  Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Rights-of-Way (43 CFR 2800)  BLM Acquisition Handbook (H-2100)

In addition, the Proposed Action, No Action and alternative actions are in conformance with the CMPA and AMU RMPs/RODs, dated August 2005, because the actions are clearly consistent with the RMP objectives, goals, and decision(s) as stated below:

Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives of this Comprehensive Recreation Plan (CRP) reflect what is stated in the CMPA RMP (2005) and are as follows:

a. Recreation

Goal - To provide developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities, while protecting resources, to manage the increasing demand for resource- dependent recreation activities.

Objective 1: Establish and manage recreation areas where the presence of high quality natural resources and the current or potential demand warrants intensive management practices to protect areas for their scientific, educational, or recreational values while accommodating anticipated increases in use for recreation activities in specific areas.

Objective 2: Manage recreation facilities to protect natural resources and to meet user needs.

Objective 3: Manage the portion of the CMPA, outside of the intensive use areas and developed recreation sites, for dispersed recreation.

Objective 4: Manage visitor use in the CMPA to protect natural resources and provide a variety of recreation opportunities.

Objective 5: Provide informational and educational opportunities to public land visitors.

Objective 6: Manage commercial, competitive, educational, and organized group recreation activities.

Objective 7: Manage Back Country Byways to protect the recognized values.

Objective 8: Manage the Oregon High Desert National Recreation Trail to protect the recognized values and setting (RMP-66).

b. Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV)

Goal - Manage motorized (OHV) and mechanized (nonmotorized) vehicle use to protect resource values, promote public safety, provide OHV and mechanized vehicle use opportunities where appropriate and allowable, and minimize conflicts among various users.

Objective: Manage OHV and mechanized vehicle use in conformance with OHV designations (RMP-64). c. Wilderness

Goal 1 - Maintain or improve wilderness values and special features of Steens Mountain Wilderness under a principle of nondegradation and in a manner that will leave these values unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, while providing opportunities for public use, enjoyment, and understanding.

Objective: Manage public visitation in the wilderness to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, primitive and unconfined recreation, naturalness, and other features including ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic and historic (RMP-73).

Goal 2 - Manage the wilderness in such a manner that the landscape is essentially unaffected by human manipulation and influences, while allowing natural processes to dominate.

Objective: Accomplish necessary projects and activities occurring in wilderness with the minimum tool or requirement needed to achieve a desired result. The chosen tool, equipment, or structure is the one that least degrades wilderness values temporarily or permanently.

Goal 3 - Manage nonconforming uses of the Steens Mountain Wilderness, allowed under the Wilderness Act and the Steens Act, to have the minimum effect on wilderness values.

Objective 1: Manage livestock grazing in wilderness under the stipulations of the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (HR 101-405 Appendix A).

Objective 2: Provide for the level and type of commercial services necessary to enable the public to use, access, enjoy and understand the recreational and other values of wilderness, emphasizing opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation, inspiration, and solitude.

Objective 3: Allow for a level of reasonable access for the use and enjoyment of private inholding while protecting the wilderness values.

Objective 4: Manage to prevent and exclude motor vehicle and mechanical transport intrusions into the wilderness; either on closed roads or off of roads, except where authorized by permitted use or during emergencies (RMP-75). d. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR)

Goal 1 - Manage the existing and newly-designated WSR in conformance with the WSR Act and the Wilderness Act.

Objective: Protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV) of the designated WSR.

Goal 2 - Determine the suitability of eligible WSR. Manage those rivers found to be suitable in conformance with BLM Manual 8351 (WSR - Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management) for protective management of eligible and suitable WSR.

Objective: Protect and enhance the ORV of rivers determined to be administratively suitable for potential inclusion into the National WSR System by Congress (RMP-82). e. Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and Parcels with Wilderness Characteristics

Goal - Manage WSAs so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness.

Objective: Manage existing WSA so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness (RMP-80).

f. Parcels with Wilderness Characteristics

Goal - Manage parcels with wilderness characteristics to protect those characteristics.

Objective: Manage parcels with wilderness characteristics to protect those characteristics (RMP-81).

Comments Received

The BLM mailed a scoping letter to 57 agencies, organizations, tribes, Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC), and other individuals. A copy of the original EA and unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were mailed and in addition, a notice was posted in the Burns Times-Herald newspaper on March 19, 2014, to which the Burns District Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received 36 comments in the forms of letters and email communications. These comments were addressed and included in Appendix M of the EA.

On September 30, 2014, the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reaffirmed the TMP decision. The IBLA reversed itself and found that "with regard to our previous reversal of BLM's decision to designate Obscure Routes as open to motorized travel, we now vacate our prior reversal and affirm BLM's designation of all of the Obscure Routes as open to motorized travel." (185 IBLA at 63-64).

The IBLA concluded BLM's designation of Obscure Routes, Historical Routes, All Terrain Vehicle (ATV)1 Routes, and other routes did not violate the statutory prohibition against motorized off-road travel and construction of new motorized roads and trails.

In the March 2014 CRP EA, all obscure routes were shown as closed throughout all alternatives. IBLA’s reopening of these obscure routes was considered new information not previously analyzed in the March 2014 CRP EA. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the EA was rewritten to include this new information and made available for another public comment period with a notice in the Burns Times- Herald on January 14, 2015.

Under the No Action Alternative, “obscure routes” were considered open and analyzed as the existing condition. Subalternative B analyzed permanent closure of some “obscure routes”, some administrative use only routes, and one ATV route. Also within Subalternative B, a reroute of Little Blitzen Trailhead and roads existing prior to 2000 were analyzed into the transportation system. The remaining alternatives consider all “obscure routes” as closed.

1 All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use are limited to designated roads, ways, or motorized primitive routes.

The BLM solicited comments specifically on Alternative A (No Action) and Subalternative B (Modification of Additional Routes) from January 12 to February 16, 2015. The BLM received 13 comments in the form of letters and email communications. Responses to these comments may be found in Appendix A.

Decision and Rationale

Having considered the Proposed Action, No Action, all other action alternatives and their associated impacts, and based on analysis in the Comprehensive Recreation Plan Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-B060-2009-0058-EA, it is my decision to implement various components from all alternatives analyzed. Except as specifically provided below through adoption of a component of an action alternative, BLM will continue the status quo of recreation management as described under the No Action Alternative.

Additionally, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) found the Proposed Action, No Action, and alternatives analyzed in DOI-BLM-OR-B060-2009-0058-EA do not constitute a major Federal action that will adversely impact the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is unnecessary and will not be prepared.

Because this decision has multiple aspects, it will be broken into two sections: 1) Travel Management (including motorized and non-motorized routes), and 2) Recreation Management. The Steens Mountain Travel Management Plan (TMP) will be amended to reflect changes to road maintenance, changes in maintenance terminology (maintenance level to maintenance intensity), designation of additional trails and roads, changes to road usage, and closure of roads under this decision. In addition, several recreational opportunities will be afforded to help manage recreation within and outside the CMPA.

Under this decision all improvements are subject to available funding and staffing.

Section 1. Travel Management

a. Relocate Gate #5

Gate #5 near Black Canyon on South Loop Road will be moved one- quarter mile to the west of its present location as described under Alternative C. The new location will be expanded 50 feet on public domain land to allow for vehicles to turn around. Where necessary, the gate will be surrounded by boulders to prevent cars from going around the gate. The work will be completed with heavy equipment such as a road grader or dozer.

Rationale: The gate’s current location is at the bottom of a hill on a narrow stretch of South Loop Road. Unsuspecting visitors have a difficult time trying to turn around or back up the hill. Both maneuvers create

safety issues. The new gate location on top of the hill will rectify this situation and provide for a safe place to turn around. A sign notifying the public of the gate’s status was considered under Alternative B, however, a sign would require monitoring to ensure accurate status and utility. b. East Side Spring Gate

Install a new gate in W.M., T.35S., R.34E., Sec. 8, NE¼, to prevent unauthorized vehicles from driving into wilderness as described under Alternative D - Proposed Action.

Rationale: The gate will be installed on a grazing permittee route off East Steens Road outside wilderness, but within the wilderness road buffer. The gate will ensure unauthorized use does not occur. The permittee/private landowner will be provided a key. c. Kiger Ridge Road Gate

Install a new gate adjacent to the cattleguard located in T.33S., R.33E., Sec. 2, NW¼ as described under Alternative D - Proposed Action

Rationale: The gate will allow BLM to manage motorized access in conjunction with seasonal road closures to protect natural resources (e.g. limiting driving on wet, muddy roads and causing ruts and erosion). Seasonal monitoring of Kiger Ridge Road will assist in determining when this gate will be opened. d. Road Maintenance Terminology

Road maintenance will continue as described in the TMP (TMP) EA-OR 05-027-021 (November 28, 2007); however, terminology will be amended as described under Actions and Design Features Common to All Alternatives to reflect road maintenance intensities. Road Maintenance Intensities are described in Appendix A.

Rationale:

Converting from Maintenance Level to Maintenance Intensity was a joint effort, involving several divisions within BLM, to eliminate erroneous use and inconsistent interpretations of the terms used to describe the maintenance of linear features. Maintenance Level is not a design and construction standard and should not be used to describe the type of road or the physical condition of a road. Rather it was intended to state the type of activities which are appropriate to meet management objectives and should only refer to maintenance activity.

The conversion to Maintenance Intensity was first proposed in the Roads and Trails Terminology Report, April 2006 Washington Office Instruction Memorandum-2006-173 and was subsequently incorporated into the October 21, 2011, revision of the BLM Road Manual (9113).

Maintenance Intensities provide consistent objectives and standards for the care and maintenance of recognized routes within the BLM. Recognized routes by definition include: roads, primitive roads, and trails. Maintenance Intensities provide operational guidance on the appropriate intensity, frequency, and type of maintenance activities to be undertaken to keep the route in acceptable condition and provide guidance for the minimum standards of care for the annual maintenance of a route. Maintenance Intensity does not describe route geometry, route types, types of use, or other physical or managerial characteristics of the route. Maintenance Intensities provide a range of management objectives and standards of care.

Generally speaking, Maintenance Level 2 crosswalks to Maintenance Intensity 1 and Maintenance Level 3 crosswalks to Maintenance Intensity 3; although crosswalk variations are not uncommon.

The scope of activities described within Maintenance Level 2/Maintenance Intensity 1 includes maintaining drainage, which can include grading to prevent/minimize erosion; correcting drainage problems; and protecting adjacent lands. Brushing can be performed if route bed drainage is being adversely affected and contributes to erosion.

The scope of activities described within Maintenance Level 3/Maintenance Intensity 3 includes maintaining drainage structures as needed, conducting grading to provide reasonable riding comfort, brushing to improve sight distance, removing landslide debris, and conducting annual and preventative maintenance.

The verbatim definitions are provided in Appendix B. e. Steens Mountain Loop Road Back Country Byway

The entire Steens Mountain Loop Road will be kept open as part of the BLM’s Back Country Byway system and as described under the No Action Alternative. The entire Steens Mountain Loop Road will continue to be maintained at Maintenance Intensity 5 except the Rooster Combs section which is a Maintenance Intensity 3. Access roads from Steens Mountain Loop Road to campgrounds, overlooks, and interpretive sites will be maintained in accordance with the TMP (which will be amended as described below).

Rationale: The CMPA RMP/ROD provided for maintenance of existing facilities including routine maintenance of existing roads, ditches, culverts, water control structures, and cattleguards. The TP and TMP also provide guidance for routine maintenance.

During the CRP planning process and in response to a complaint filed by the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) in summer 2011 to U.S. District Court regarding the TMP, the BLM reviewed 139 road Segments totaling 108.22 miles. The review was documented on Route Analysis Forms and included a map of the road Segment along with a National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) map. The BLM then made a proposal to District Court regarding the level of maintenance to be performed on each road. On August 25, 2011, District Court Judge Paul Papak adopted BLM’s proposal in full. This injunction, as shown on the Injunction Map, will continue under the Court Order until such time as the issue is resolved by the U.S. District Court.

f. Roads and Ways

The CMPA TMP will be amended as described below. Changes to the transportation system were analyzed under all alternatives. In addition, Alternative A analyzed “obscure routes” as open; Subalternative B analyzed permanent closure of some routes, administrative use only routes, and one ATV route; and the remaining alternatives considered all “obscure routes” as closed. Any valid, existing rights-of-way (ROW) will not be impacted by road closures. On future maps, open “obscure routes” will be referred to as open “primitive routes”. The word “obscure” will no longer be used. Routes not shown in the tables below remain open as designated in the TMP. In general, BLM considered various routes for closure in this CRP but is leaving the routes not discussed below open to the public. The specific reasons are detailed in Route Analysis Forms and generally routes were left open if they:

 lead to a range development,  provide access to hunting areas,  are needed for fire suppression activities,  are needed to implement the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project,  provide access to dispersed camp sites,  are used to view wildlife and wild horses,  are used by Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts,  are associated with a ROW or easement,  were specifically left open in the Steens Act or the RMP and TMP, or  provide access to private lands.

Specific rationale for open routes identified as issues may be found on Route Analysis Forms and summarized in Table 12 below in addition to Responses to Comments in Appendix A. Routes identified under Alternative E for closure had direct and indirect effects. For example, closing Coyote Creek Road and Smyth Ranch Road eliminates access to private lands. Kern Reservoir, Knox Springs, and Witzel Spring Roads provide access to large blocks of BLM-managed land as well as access to privately-owned lands. Riddle Ranch Road and Cold Springs Road are used to access the Riddle Brothers Ranch National Historic District (Riddle Brothers Ranch) and provide the public an opportunity to revisit the past.

Table 1 displays roads closed to the public; however, motorized administrative use will be allowed. These roads will be maintained as needed. These roads can be found on the appropriate maps using the route identifiers.

Table 1. Public Road Closures (Motorized Administrative Use with Road Maintenance Intensity 1) Map Route Legal Description, W.M. Miles of Road Travel Identifier Closed Management Map Number CRP-1 Segment T.29S., R.36E., sec. 16. 0.46 1 D CRP-4 Segment J T.31S., R.32.75E., sec. 10, 0.46 4 and 7 sec. 15, sec. 22. CRP-5 Segment T.31S., R.32.75E., sec. 33, 1.44 7 C2 sec. 34. CRP-5 Segment T.32S., R.32.75E., sec. 02, 0.22 7 E1 sec. 11. CRP-15 Segment T.30S., R.34E., sec. 28, 0.49 3 F sec. 29. CRP-16 Segment T.30., R.32E., sec. 11. 0.32 4 B CRP-16 Segment T.30S., R.33SE., sec. 32. 0.34 4 E T.31S., R.32.75E., sec. 02. CRP-16 Segment T.31S., R.32.75E., sec. 01. 0.52 4 F CRP-16 Segment T.31S., R.32.75E., sec. 11. 0.06 4 G CRP-17 Segment T.31S., R.33E., sec. 20, 0.97 3 A sec. 21. CRP-17 Segment T.31S., R.33E., sec. 34. 0.54 3 B Total 5.82 Rationale: Roads available to permittees, landowners, contractors, and BLM employees. BLM retains full administrative access on these roads. These roads will be used on an as-needed basis by BLM and BLM contractors for activities including, but not limited to, monitoring and accessing range improvements for maintenance purposes. Grazing permittees may use these roads as well on an as-needed basis for access to range improvements they maintain within their authorized allotments, for salting of their livestock within their authorized allotments, and for access to their private lands. Landowners will have access to their deeded lands or lands they administer for an individual under a lease. Any valid existing ROWs will not be impacted by these road closures.

No other purposes for these roads for use by the general public were identified during scoping or the comment periods. 11

Table 2 displays roads closed to the public; however, motorized administrative use will be allowed. Roads will not be maintained. These roads can be found on the appropriate maps using the route identifiers.

Table 2. Public Road Closures (Motorized Administrative Use: No Road Maintenance) Map Road Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Management Identifier Map Number CRP-3 T.30S., R35E., sec. 31. 0.33 2 Segment D2 T.30.5S., R.34E., sec. 25, sec. 36. CRP-3 T.30.5S., R.34E., sec. 25, 0.51 2 Segment H sec. 26, sec. 35. CRP-5 T.32S., R.32.75E., sec. 23, 0.29 7 Segment F sec. 36. CRP-9 T.33S., R.32.75E., sec. 30. 0.27 6 Segment E CRP-9 T.33S., R.32.75E., sec. 30, 0.47 6 Segment F sec. 31. CRP-15 T.30S., R.34E., sec. 13. 0.84 2 Segment C T.30S., R.35E., sec. 18. CRP-19 T.37S., R.33E., sec. 18. 0.37 13 Segment B Total 3.08 Rationale: Roads available to permittees, landowners, contractors, and BLM employees. BLM retains full administrative access on these roads. These roads will be used on an as- needed basis by BLM and BLM contractors for activities including, but not limited to, monitoring and accessing range improvements for maintenance purposes. Grazing permittees may use these roads as well on an as-needed basis for access to range improvements they maintain within their authorized allotments, for salting of their livestock within their authorized allotments, and for access to their private lands. Landowners will have access to their deeded lands or lands they administer for an individual under a lease. Any valid existing ROWs will not be impacted by these road closures.

No other purposes for these roads for use by the general public were identified during scoping or the comment periods.

Maintenance may be allowed in emergency situations such as fire and search and rescue, to protect human health and safety, and to protect natural resources (e.g. from soil erosion). Appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation will occur for non-emergency actions.

2 This road will be designated as an ATV route; however, a full-sized vehicle is not prohibited.

Table 3 displays roads closed to the public and no motorized administrative use will be allowed. Road maintenance will not occur. These roads can be found on the appropriate maps using the route identifiers.

Table 3. Public Road Closures (No Motorized Administrative Use) Map Road Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Management Identifier Map Number CRP-7 Segment T.33S., R.32E., sec. 03. 0.29 5 E (At the junction of Segments C and E) CRP-13 T.34S., R.34E., sec. 20. 0.44 12 Segment C1 CRP-17 T.32.5S., R.33E., sec. 20. 0.15 7 and 8 Segment C CRP-19 T.37S., R.33E., sec. 18. 0.25 13 Segment A CRP-19 T.37S., R.33E., sec. 20, 1.74 13 Segment C sec. 29, sec. 30. OR-33 T.31S., R.35E., sec. 05. 0.40 2 Total 2.87 Rationale: No purposes for these roads for use by the general public were identified during scoping or the comment periods.

Table 4 displays ways closed to the public; however, motorized administrative use will be allowed. No maintenance is to occur on a way. These routes can be found on the appropriate maps using the route identifiers.

Table 4. Public Way Closures (Motorized Administrative Use Only: no route maintenance) Map Route Identifier Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Management Map Number CRP-2 Segment D T.31S., R.35S., sec. 04. 0.49 2 CRP-17 Segment D T.33S., R.32E., sec. 01. 1.75 5 and 6 T.33S., R.32.5S., sec. 06, sec. 07. Total 2.24 Rationale: Roads available to permittees, landowners, contractors, and BLM employees. BLM retains full administrative access on these roads. These roads will be used on an as- needed basis by BLM and BLM contractors for activities including, but not limited to, monitoring and accessing range improvements for maintenance purposes. Grazing permittees may use these roads as well on an as-needed basis for access to range improvements they maintain within their authorized allotments, for salting of their livestock within their authorized allotments, and for access to their private lands. Landowners will have access to their deeded lands or lands they administer for an individual under a lease. Any valid existing ROWs will not be impacted by these road closures.

No other purposes for these ways for use by the general public were identified during scoping or the comment periods.

Maintenance on ways is generally conducted by passage of a vehicle; however, maintenance may be allowed in emergency situations such as fire and search and rescue, to protect human health and safety, and to protect natural resources (e.g. from soil erosion). Appropriate NEPA documentation will occur for non-emergency actions.

Table 5 displays existing roads discovered for inclusion into the transportation system with Maintenance Intensity 1.

Table 5. Existing Roads discovered for inclusion into the TMP. Route Identifier Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Management Map Number OR-07 T.32S., R.32E., sec. 02, 2.45 5 sec. 03, sec. 10, sec. 15.

OR-39 T.33S., R.32E., sec. 33. 0.52 5 CRP-16 Segment T.29S., R.32E., sec. 33. 0.57 4 A Total 3.94 Rationale: During the CRP development, roads were discovered within the CMPA not previously mapped during the original TMP inventory. The BLM accessed 1994 - 1996 NAIP imagery to ensure these roads existed prior to the Steens Act (pre-2000). These three roads were apparent on NAIP, and currently exist on the landscape. Verification was also received from BLM staff that have been on District for over 30 years and from permittees/private landowners for the individual areas. OR-7 follows an existing powerline and fence. OR-39 provides access to a reservoir. CRP 16, segment A parallels a pipeline and trough.

Table 6 displays obscure ways closed to the public with no motorized administrative use or maintenance. These roads can be found on the appropriate maps using the route identifiers.

Table 6. Public Obscure Way Closures (No Motorized Administrative Use) Route Identifier Legal Description Mileage Travel Management Map Number OR-01 T.32S., R.32E., sec. 22, 0.98 5 sec. 27, sec. 28. OR-03 T.34S., R.32.75., sec. 17, 1.21 10 sec. 19, sec. 20. OR-08 T.32S., R.32E., sec. 11, 3.87 5 and 6 sec. 12, sec. 13, sec. 14, sec. 24. OR-13 T.34S., R.32.5E., sec. 19, 1.79 9 sec. 20, sec. 21. OR-14 T.34S., R.32.5E., sec. 21. 0.27 9 OR-16 T.34S., R.32.5E., sec. 11. 0.83 6 and 10 OR-19 T.32S., R.32.5E., sec. 09, 1.21 6 sec. 10, sec. 15.

OR-24 T.33S., R.32E., sec. 1, 1.43 5 and 6 sec. 12, sec. 13. OR-30 T.30S., R.35E., sec. 34. 0.60 2 OR-31 T.31S., R.35E., sec. 04. 0.13 2 OR-35 T.33S., R.34E., sec. 15. 0.52 11 Total 12.84 Rationale: These “obscure” ways (routes within WSA) will be closed to all motorized use. The ways are no longer apparent on-the-ground and did not appear to meet any purposes such as access to a range improvement, dispersed campsite, or vista. No viable uses were identified during the public comment period.

Table 7 displays obscure roads closed to the public with no motorized administrative use or maintenance. These roads can be found on the appropriate map using the route identifier.

Table 7. Public Obscure Road Closure (No Motorized Administrative Use) Route Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Identifier Management Map Number OR-05 T.31S., R.32.75E., sec. 27, 0.43 7 sec. 34. OR-22 T.33S., R.32E., sec. 14. 0.44 5 OR-27 T.37S., R.33E., sec. 18, 0.66 13 sec. 19. OR-31 T.30S., R.35E., sec. 33. 0.08 2

OR-37 T.37S., R.32.75E., sec. 25. 0.19 13

Total 1.61 Rationale: These roads will be closed to all motorized use. The roads are no longer apparent on-the-ground and did not appear to meet any purposes such as access to a range improvement, dispersed campsite, or vista. No viable uses were identified during the public comment period.

Table 8 displays obscure ways closed to the public; however, motorized administrative use will be allowed. These routes will only be maintained by passage of a vehicle unless site-specific NEPA is conducted for safety or resource concerns. These roads can be found on the appropriate maps using the route identifiers.

Table 8. Public Obscure Way Closures (Motorized Administrative Access Use) Route Identifier Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Management Map Number OR-02 T.33S., R.32E., sec. 3; 0.85 5 T.32S., R.32E., sec. 34. OR-09 T.32S., R.32.5E., sec. 31. 0.39 5 and 6 (Provides access to a reservoir and spring) OR-15 T.34S., R.32.5E., sec. 21. 0.19 9 (Provides access for monitoring and grazing management) OR-18 T.32S., R.32.75E., sec. 06, 0.49 6 (Provides access for sec. 07. monitoring, for grazing management, and to a reservoir) OR-21 T.33S., R.32E., sec. 10, 1.26 5 (Provides access to private sec. 15. lands, for monitoring, and for grazing management) OR-23 T.33S., R.32E., sec. 01, 0.85 5 and 6 (Provides access within close sec. 02. proximity to private lands, for grazing management, and for monitoring) OR-25 T.33S., R.32.5E., sec. 16. 0.14 6 (Provides access to a spring and was specifically requested to remain open) OR-32 T.31S., R.35E., sec. 04, 0.68 2 (Provides access to an existing sec. 05. reservoir and fence) OR-38 T.30S., R.36E., sec. 18, 0.16 1 (Crosses private land before sec. 19. entering into BLM-managed lands for grazing management and monitoring) Total 5.01

Rationale: Ways available to permittees, landowners, contractors, and BLM employees. BLM retains full administrative access on these ways. These ways will be used on an as- needed basis by BLM and BLM contractors for activities including, but not limited to, monitoring and accessing range improvements for maintenance purposes. Grazing permittees may use these ways as well on an as-needed basis for access to range improvements they maintain within their authorized allotments, for salting of their livestock within their authorized allotments, and for access to their private lands. Landowners will have access to their deeded lands or lands they administer for an individual under a lease. Any valid existing ROWs will not be impacted by these way closures.

No other purposes for these ways for use by the general public were identified during the comment period.

Table 9 displays an obscure road closed to the public; however, motorized administrative use will be allowed. There will be no maintenance of this route. This road can be found on the appropriate map using the route identifier.

Table 9. Public Obscure Road Closure (Motorized Administrative Use: no road maintenance ) Route Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Identifier Management Map Number OR-34 T.32., R.33E., sec. 34. 0.54 11 Rationale: Road is available to permittees, landowners, contractors, and BLM employees. BLM retains full administrative access on this road. This road will be used on an as-needed basis by BLM and BLM contractors for activities including, but not limited to, monitoring and accessing range improvements for maintenance purposes. Grazing permittees may use this road as well on an as-needed basis for access to range improvements they maintain within their authorized allotments, for salting of their livestock within their authorized allotments, and for access to their private lands. Landowners will have access to their deeded lands or lands they administer for an individual under a lease. Any valid existing ROWs will not be impacted by this road closure.

No other purposes for this road for use by the general public were identified during scoping or the comment periods.

Maintenance may be allowed in emergency situations such as fire and search and rescue, to protect human health and safety, and to protect natural

resources (e.g. from soil erosion). Appropriate NEPA documentation will occur for non-emergency actions.

Table 10 displays an obscure road that will be closed to the public; however, motorized administrative access use will be allowed. This route will be maintained at Maintenance Intensity 1. This road can be found on the appropriate map using the route identifier.

Table 10. Public Obscure Road Closure (Motorized Administrative Use: maintenance intensity level 1) Route Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Identifier Management Map Number OR-36 T.34S., R.32E., sec. 02. 0.23 5 Rationale: This road will be maintained at Maintenance Intensity 1. This road will be used on an as-needed basis by BLM and BLM contractors. BLM retains full administrative access on this road to conduct activities such as, but not limited to, monitoring of a sensitive area. This road occurs within regular public domain lands. Maintenance may be necessary if BLM or its contractors need to bring equipment into the area for excavation or protection.

Table 11 displays a route that is recommended for ATV use. The route is not recommended for use by full-sized vehicles; however, full-sized vehicles are not prohibited. These roads can be found on the appropriate maps using the route identifiers.

Table 11. ATV Use Recommended (Way) (full-size vehicles are not prohibited) Route Legal Description, W.M. Mileage Travel Identifier Management Map Number OR-28 T.34S., R.32.5E., sec. 36. 1.09 10 T.35S., R.32.5E., sec. 01. Rationale: This way is apparent on the east and west ends. The portion in the middle accesses two reservoirs and follows a rocky drainage encroached by juniper trees. The trees limit the width of vehicle passage and limit the road’s appearance on NAIP. The OHV community prefers routes that are rough and rocky and have specifically requested use of this route. This route could provide for wild horse viewing/monitoring (as it is within the South Steens Herd Management Area (HMA)) and dispersed recreation opportunities. Maintenance on ways is generally conducted by passage of a vehicle; however, maintenance may be allowed in emergency situations such as fire and search and rescue, to protect human health and safety, and to protect natural resources (e.g. from soil erosion). Appropriate NEPA documentation will occur for non-emergency actions.

Table 12 displays roads to remain open as documented on Route Analysis Forms (RAF) during the CRP planning process to address specific roads identified as issues under Alternatives B and E. The roads associated with each CRP number and segment may be found on Alternative E maps attached to the EA.

Table 12. Roads to Remain Open Route Direct Rationale for Roads to Remain Open Analysis Road Form Number Segment CRP-1 All All segments are needed for access for monitoring, use supervision, utilization, and Segments overall grazing management. The road provides access to the Riddle Mountain Herd Management Area for monitoring and wild horse viewing; the segments are except D used by deer and upland bird hunters, the OHV community, and dispersed motorized campers. These segments provide access to Oregon Department of State Lands (using either segment A or segment B) and access to range improvements. In 2011 and 2012 the roads were used as fire breaks. CRP-1 A The road is very apparent on NAIP; it connects Mary’s Lake Road to Mahon Res Quail Creek Road (to Oregon State lands). Pictures A1 and A3 clearly show a road; this segment provides access to fences. CRP-1 B The road is very apparent on NAIP; picture B1 clearly shows a road. This segment of road connects two segments of Mahon Res Quail Creek Road together. CRP-1 C This road is visible on NAIP; it accesses Burnt Flat Guzzler. CRP-1 E This road accesses Neal’s Lake Reservoir #1 and is apparent on NAIP. Since segment D is for administrative use only, segment 3 is needed to access North Quail Creek Reservoir. CRP-2 All These segments are used for grazing management, to provide access to fences and Segments multiple pastures, to provide access to the Five Creeks Restoration Project area, and to access private lands. They are used as part of Oregon Department of Fish and except D Wildlife’s (ODFW) habitat/hunter (deer, elk, antelope) access program. This area is the second most highly used region on the east side of Steens Mountain: there are multiple dispersed motorized camp sites, access is provided to Riddle Creek for fishing, exceptional opportunities for the OHV community are provided, and access is provided for wild horse monitoring and viewing (Riddle Mountain HMA). Also, they provide an additional evacuation route in case of an emergency (via Stonehouse Road).

CRP-2 A This segment is part of Smyth Ranch Road and provides access to three reservoirs. The road is very apparent on NAIP; it is clearly visible on pictures A1, A2, and A3. It provides access off Stonehouse Road and access to a historical cabin (photo A2 - Ward Place). CRP-2 C This road is Coyote Creek Road/Ward Place/McLean Road. It provides access to Cabin Reservoir and Bald Mountain Spring. The road is clearly visible on NAIP, as is apparent in pictures C1A, C1, C2, C3, C4A, C5, C7, C8, C9, and CA1. It also provides access to Mclean Cabin and connects to South Virginia Valley Road (a major unpaved road). CRP-2 E The road is apparent on NAIP, and is apparent in pictures E1A, E1, and E3. It accesses a reservoir and fence lines and provides access to private lands. CRP-3 All These roads provide for hunting (deer, elk and antelope); provide access to implement the Five Creeks Restoration Project; provide access to multiple miles of fence; provide access off Stonehouse Road (the second most highly used region on the east side of Steens Mountain); provide for grazing management, including use supervision and monitoring; provide outstanding opportunities for the OHV community; provide access to multiple dispersed motorized camp sites; and provide access to Riddle Creek for fishing.

Table 12. Roads to Remain Open Route Direct Rationale for Roads to Remain Open Analysis Road Form Number Segment CRP-3 A This segment is part of Smyth Ranch Road and provides access to two reservoirs. It also provides access off Stonehouse Road. The road is visible on the NAIP; photos A1, A5, A2, A5B, and A5A clearly show the road. CRP-3 B The road is apparent on NAIP; photos B9, B5 and B4 indicate the presence of a road and photo B5 clearly shows access to a gate. This is a segment of Smyth Ranch Road. CRP-3 C This road provides access to Dollar Lake Reservoir and to private lands. The road is visible on NAIP; photos C5, C2, and C3 show evidence of a road. CPR-3 G This road provides access to private lands and access to a fence. The road is apparent on NAIP; photos G6A and G6 show evidence of a road (the area lacks vegetation so the road is not as prominent as others in the area). CRP-4 All Juniper management has occurred in the area since the 1980s; Kern Reservoir Road was maintained in 2006; some road maintenance occurred in 2007 in conjunction with the Granddad fire; portions of road were maintained for a control line for the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project; roads provide access for hunting (deer and antelope); roads provide access for grazing management and monitoring; segments provide outstanding opportunities for the OHV community as well as for motorized dispersed camping; these segments can provide a loop in conjunction with other roads. The roads could be used as an alternative evacuation route if Moon Hill Road is not available.

CRP-4 A Road provides access to three water developments and multiple miles of fence as well as access for grazing management and monitoring. This segment is the only route into the south half of Krumbo Creek Pasture. Some segments of the road are more obvious in NAIP than others. CRP-4 D This road is better suited for BLM and public access to avoid private lands. CRP-4 F This is Kern Reservoir Road and was maintained in 2006. It provides access to six water developments as well as fence lines. One of the segments provides access to North Krumbo Mountain Pasture. The road is apparent on NAIP; photos F1, F2, F3, and F4 show evidence of a road. CRP-4 G This road provides access to Elliot Reservoir and fences; it parallels an entire fence line. It also provides access to North Krumbo Mountain Pasture and provides for motorized vehicle hunting access. CRP-4 I This road provides access to unnamed reservoirs. The road is apparent on NAIP; photo I1 shows evidence of a road. CRP-4 K This is a segment of Dust Bowl-Willow Spring Road and provides access to 2 reservoirs. The road is very apparent on NAIP; photo K1 clearly shows the road. CRP-5 A, C, I, The north/south portion (approximately 3 miles) has had maintenance. Segments and G were maintained in 2006; part of the maintenance occurred during the Granddad fire and portions were maintained during rehabilitation efforts. The primary purposes for maintenance were for a control line for the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration project and for sediment control. Spot maintenance has occurred periodically over the past 10 years. Roads provide indirect access to private lands, are used for grazing administration and monitoring, provide access for public hunting, and also contribute to OHV recreational values. CRP-5 A Road segment provides access to a spring and four reservoirs. The road is obvious on NAIP its entire length; photo A3 clearly shows a road leading to a fence, photo A2 clearly shows a road, and photo A1 shows berms on each side of the road CRP-5 D Road provides access to three reservoirs. The road is obvious on NAIP its entire length; road is apparent on photo D1. The road has received maintenance.

Table 12. Roads to Remain Open Route Direct Rationale for Roads to Remain Open Analysis Road Form Number Segment CRP-5 G Road provides access to a reservoir. The road is visible off North Loop Road. The road provides access to private lands and a fence as well as access to a portion of BLM lands surrounded by private lands. CRP-5 I Road provides access to two reservoirs. Road is very apparent on NAIP; photos I1 and I3 clearly show a road and photo I1 shows how the road passes through juniper trees. CRP-6 A, C, J, Knox Spring Road was maintained in 2006. Part of the maintenance occurred K, L, and during the Granddad Fire and portions were maintained during rehabilitation efforts; the primary purpose for maintenance was for a control line for the North M Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project. Additionally, spot maintenance has occurred on the roads periodically over the past 10 years. Roads are used for grazing administration and monitoring, and provide access for wild horse viewing, hunting, and dispersed camping. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge opened east canal road in their planning document providing motorized access to BLM-managed lands.

CRP-6 A Witzel Spring Road accesses seven water developments and provides access to fences. Most of the road is very apparent on NAIP; photos A2 and A5 show evidence of a road. CRP-6 C Knox Springs Road accesses four water developments and was maintained in 2006. Road is apparent on NAIP; photos C1 and C3 clearly show a road. CRP-6 J Provides access to Long Draw Reservoir and provides access for motorized recreational hunting. The way is apparent on NAIP; photo J1 clearly shows evidence of a route. CRP-6 K This is a way providing access to Lambing Creek Reservoir. The way is apparent on NAIP. CRP-6 L Provides access to Fir Seep Dugout and Cooley Reservoir. The way is apparent on NAIP. CRP-6 M East Refuge Road provides access to Granddad Reservoir (popular fishing location) and Little Mud Creek Reservoir. Road is visible on NAIP; photos M1, M4, and M3 clearly show a road. CRP-7 A, B, C, Segments provide for exceptional motorized recreational opportunities including E, J, and hunting (deer and antelope), OHV opportunities, wild horse viewing (South Steens HMA), and dispersed motorized camping. Segments also provide for grazing and K wild horse management; two segments provide access to Highway 205 for emergency evacuation. CRP-7 A Fish Creek Road - specifically left open in the Steens Act (an Act drafted by diverse interest groups), RMP and TMP. The road provides access to seven water developments and a fence and provides exceptional motorized recreational opportunities such as wild horse viewing, dispersed camping, and hunting. Road provides access for grazing administration and monitoring and is used for wild horse viewing and monitoring. The road is apparent on NAIP. CRP-7 B Dry Creek Road provides access to private lands and a fence line. It is apparent on NAIP; road is visible on photo B1. CRP-7 C Road provides access to two water developments. Apparent on NAIP; photo C1 shows a road. CRP-7 E Road provides access to five water developments, is used to monitor wild horses, and provides access to private lands. The road is apparent on NAIP; it is evident on Photo E3. CRP-7 J This is a way and provides access to two reservoirs. As a way it is only allowed to be maintained by passage of a vehicle. The way is somewhat apparent on NAIP.

Table 12. Roads to Remain Open Route Direct Rationale for Roads to Remain Open Analysis Road Form Number Segment CRP-7 K This way provides access to three water developments and a fence. Portions of the way are apparent on NAIP; it is apparent on photos K1 and K2. As a way it is only allowed to be maintained by passage of a vehicle. CRP-8 A Kiger Ridge Road (actually a way) provides access to Kiger Gorge, Kiger Gorge Trail (trail leads to Kiger Gorge Creek for fishing) and is the only access to Mountain Top Pasture in the Chimney Allotment. It also provides access to a fence and private lands. The way is used for grazing management and monitoring as well as by the OHV community and deer and antelope hunters. As a way, it is only allowed to be maintained by passage of a vehicle. The majority of the way is apparent on NAIP; photos A1, A2, and A3 indicate the presence of the way.

CRP-9 A and J Road was specifically left open in the Steens Act, RMP and TMP. Segments provide access to Riddle Brothers National Historic District, Nye Trailhead, Nye Cabins, and Cold Springs. Segments provide an evacuation route for camp hosts stationed at Riddle Brothers Ranch as well as BLM-personnel staying at the Administrative site. It is a popular 4-wheel drive road (Segment A) (Harney Desert 4-wheelers) and provides access for hunting (deer and antelope) and fishing; segments provide access to dispersed camping sites. Road also provides access for wilderness monitoring and juniper treatments within the Historic District.

CRP-9 A Cold Springs Road is very apparent on NAIP; it is visible in photos A1-7, A13, A14 and A0. CRP-9 J Riddle Brothers Ranch Road provides access to a BLM administrative site. It is very apparent on NAIP. The road has been maintained. CRP-10 C, D, E, Segments D, F, I create a loop for motorized recreationists. Routes provide access F, H, and for grazing management, monitoring, and wild horse viewing; segments provide access to primitive campsite. Also provides nearby access to fishing and hunting I areas and opportunities for the OHV community.

CRP-10 C Road is on private lands. CRP-10 E During the Burnt Car Settlement Agreement, Tombstone Connector Road was converted to a trail as segment E allowed for access to the same general area. Photos E1 and E2 indicate the presence of the way. As a way it is only allowed to be maintained by passage of a vehicle. CRP-10 F A segment used to connect the loop to Steens Mountain Loop Road; Photo F1 indicates clear presence of the way. As a way it is only allowed to be maintained by passage of a vehicle. CRP-10 H This way provides access to a primitive campsite and to a fence. The way is apparent on NAIP; it is evident in photo H2. CRP-10 I Way provides access to a waterhole. The way is very apparent on NAIP; photos I1 and I2 clearly show a route (in photo I1, a rock berm appears on the right side of the photo). CRP-11 B Under the CRP, segment A will be opened its entire length (see OR-10). This way provides access to a dispersed motorized campsite as well as to wild horse viewing. The way provides access for monitoring and wildland firefighting and is also used for hunting (antelope). Photo B1 shows evidence of the way as does NAIP.

CRP-12 A, B, and All segments are used for monitoring, grazing management, and wild horse C viewing/management. Also receives use by the OHV community and provides access for hunting (antelope and deer). It is the only access to the east side of the pasture and provides access to private lands.

Table 12. Roads to Remain Open Route Direct Rationale for Roads to Remain Open Analysis Road Form Number Segment CRP-12 A Segment A is a way and is referred to as Three Springs Road. The way accesses private property as well as three water developments. Segments of the route leading to Porky Trail and Mr. Coyote Reservoirs will be joined and recommended for ATV use, but not prohibited to full-sized vehicle use (see OR-28). Way is visible on NAIP; photos A0-4 and AB1 show clear evidence of a road. CRP-12 B Segment B provides access to four reservoirs and the Historic Bill Taber Cabin. Segment provides indirect access to the Donner und Blitzen River. It also provides access to the Blitzen Crossing fence (ONDA v. Green). Way is evident on NAIP; photos B3, B4, B6A, B6B, and B5 show evidence of this way (photo B6B indicates access to a dispersed camp site). CRP-12 C Segment C provides access to private lands via a historical route in Steens Wilderness as well as access to the Donner und Blitzen River and the Blitzen Crossing Fence. Segment C appears on NAIP. CRP-13 D, E, G, Weston Basin and Indian Creek Roads are the most highly used routes on the east H, I side of Steens; both roads were specifically left open in the Steens Act, RMP, and TMP. Segments are used for grazing administration, monitoring, bighorn sheep viewing/hunting, chukar hunting, and dispersed motorized camping; these roads are used as part of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) habitat/hunter access program. CRP-13 D and E These segments provide access to the historical Weston mine and portions are currently used by ATVs (full-sized vehicles are not prohibited); both segments are visible on NAIP. CRP-13 G, H, and These segments are part of the Indian Creek Road specifically left open in the I Steens Act, RMP, and TMP; road provides access to a spring and a fence. Roads G, H, and I are visible on NAIP. CRP-14 C This segment of road (off Bone Creek Road) was specifically left open by the Steens Act, RMP, and TMP. The permittee uses the route to haul salt; it is also used for monitoring and grazing management and provides access for hunting and dispersed motorized camping. Visible on NAIP.

Table 13 displays open “obscure” routes reviewed during the second comment period for the CRP.

Table 13. “Obscure Routes” to Remain Open as Primitive Routes. Route Legal Rationale for Roads to Remain Open Analysis Description Form Number OR-4 T.34S., R.32.5E, This route connects two segments of a way and facilitates access to dispersed sec. 2 and 3; camping and a deer hunting area. The route provides an alternate route to private T.33S., R.32.5E, lands and allows for access to implement the North Steens Project, to wild horse sec. 34 and 35 viewing/monitoring (South Steens HMA), and to livestock grazing management/monitoring. The route is apparent on NAIP as an existing feature on the landscape. OR-6 T.32S., R.32E., This route facilitates access for hunting opportunities, grazing sec. 10, 11, 14, management/monitoring, and wild horse viewing/monitoring (South Steens HMA) 23 and 25; and provides access to existing water developments. T.32S., R.32.5E., sec. 19 OR-7 T.32S., R.32E., This road existed prior to the Steens Act. The route provides access to an existing sec. 2, 3, 10, and fence and is along an existing powerline ROW. The road provides access for 15 monitoring and can provide public hunting access along with wild horse viewing. It is very apparent on NAIP. OR-10 T.34S., R.32.5E., This way creates a loop by connecting to an existing way; loops are desirable to sec. 10, 11, 15, many recreationists, particularly the OHV community. The way provides access for and 21 wild horse viewing/management (South Steens HMA), hunting, grazing management/monitoring, and taking in the vast views. This way crosses low sagebrush flat making it less apparent on NAIP, but it is apparent in some locations. OR-11 T.34S., R.32.5E, This route provides access for hunting, dispersed camping, wild horse sec. 9 and 16 view/monitoring (South Steens HMA), and livestock management/monitoring. The route is apparent on NAIP. OR-12 T.34S., R.32.5E., This route provides access for wild horse viewing/monitoring (South Steens HMA) sec. 18 and livestock management/monitoring. The route is a spur road to Long Dam Reservoir (a congregation area for wild horses). The route is very apparent on NAIP. OR-17 T.37S., R.33E., This route provides access for upland game bird hunting, for distribution of salt, and sec. 25, 30, and for monitoring. The route is apparent on NAIP and follows a ridge providing for 31 open vistas. OR-20 T.31S., This route has several uses including providing access for hunting opportunities (elk, R.32.75E., sec. deer, and antelope), for monitoring, for implementation of the North Steens Project, 29 and 30 and to water developments. OR-26 T.30S., R.35E., This route provides indirect access for the private landowner and access to maintain sec. 7 an existing fence. The road appears to follow a drainage and connects two existing routes. It provides access for wild horse viewing/monitoring (Kiger HMA) as well as public hunting access and contributes to OHV recreational values. OR-29 T.34S., R.32.5E., This way has a high recreational value for big game hunting due to higher elevations sec. 25 and 26 and cover; a hunting camp is located at the drainage before the waterhole (personal communications with permittee on 2/26/15). When the waterhole is full, the area receives a lot of wild horse use (also providing access for wild horse viewing/monitoring (South Steens HMA). It connects two water developments. The way is visible on NAIP.

Overall Rationale

The BLM took a comprehensive look at the motorized and non-motorized transportation system within the CMPA as directed by the Steens Act and CMPA RMP. The BLM 26

documented this review on Route Analysis Forms (RAF). The RAFs include a map of the road segment along with a National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) map. Rationale for proposed road closures, administrative-use only roads, and for keeping roads open to the public can be found on RAFs which were posted to BLM’s website at: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/plans/steens-rec/index.php.

The basic premise for designating a road as open, closed, or for administrative use was based on the purpose of the road. Does the road lead to a range development? Does it access an area for hunting? Is it needed for fire suppression activities or to implement the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project? Is the road used to access dispersed campsites? Are there any resource concerns (such as erosion or juniper encroachment) or safety issues? Does the road exist on the landscape? Is there a Right-of-Way (ROW) or easement associated with the road? What is the level of use? Is it duplicative? What is the soil type?

The BLM also talked to landowners, permittees, Back Country Horseman, OHV advocates, interested publics, the SMAC, and Harney County Court.

The Steens Act allows for off-road travel for administrative purposes including emergencies and for the construction or maintenance of agricultural facilities, fish and wildlife management, or ecological restoration projects.

Alternative E provided a focus on non-motorized transportation such as hiking and horseback riding.

h. Trails and Trailheads

Design Features for Trails

Trail construction will follow guidelines described in USDA Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook (e.g. trail width, trail foundation, trail corridor, trails in wet areas, stream crossings and any other additional trail elements) and will be consistent with the Wilderness and WSR Plan.

Universally accessible trails will follow the guidelines described in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for Buildings and Facilities as adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice (e.g. minimum tread width will be 36 inches wide).

Re-routing sections of a trail or converting primitive trails into designated trails may be necessary to mitigate resource damage and protect natural resources. Examples include, but are not limited to, erosion, rock slides, loss of vegetation, rills, water flow patterns, gullies and soil surface loss. Existence of these will be determined through field observations.

Accessible trails will be constructed to protect the environment and the natural setting while integrating accessibility where possible. Trail projects will be designed to connect to an accessible trail or trailhead with the intent of developing trails accessible to all users, including those with disabilities.

Table 14 displays existing trails to be managed as described under the No Action Alternative.

Table 14. Existing Trails Name of Trail Mileage Maintenance Summary Reconstruct portions of Nye Trail as described under Alternative B. Continue maintenance under Nye Trail 1 3 the No Action Alternative. Kiger Gorge Trail 1 1 Reconstruct portions of Wet Blanket Trail as described under Alternative B. Continue Wet Blanket Trail 1.5 3 maintenance under the No Action Alternative A. Continue maintenance under the No Action Pike Creek Trail 1.5 3 Alternative. Construct 0.50 mile of trail and rehabilitate 0.25 mile of trail (will be allowed to recover over time, branches and other vegetation will be thrown on the trail to deter hikers in T.33S., R32.75E., Sec. 33 SE1/4 through T.34S., R.32.75E., Sec. 4 NE1/4 to South Steens Equestrian and Family Campgrounds as described under Subalternative B). Continue maintenance under the No Action Alternative A. Little Blitzen Trail 8.5 3 An MRDG was completed on February 27, 2014. Continue maintenance under the No Action Big Indian 8 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action Wildhorse Lake 1 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action Steens Summit 0.5 3 Alternative. Mud/Ankle Creek Continue maintenance under the No Action Trail 9 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action Blitzen River Trail 4 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action Wilderness Trail 1 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action Burnt Car Trail 0.25 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action High Desert Trail 20.5 1 Alternative. Tombstone Continue maintenance under the No Action Canyon Trail 5 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action Dry Creek Trail 3.5 3 Alternative. Continue maintenance under the No Action WJMA Trail 1 3 Alternative.

Rationale: The existing trails were designated through the following documents: Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ROD and RMP, Desert National Scenic Trail Feasibility Report and EA, Wildland Juniper Management Area Interpretive Trail EA DOI-BLM-OR-B060-2009-0078, and the Burnt Car Rehabilitation EA DOI-BLM-OR-B060-2010-0006.

Trails are among the best ways to experience the outdoors. Trails help people of all ages incorporate exercise into their daily routines by connecting them with places they want or need to go. Trails provide for a variety of activities all year such as walking, hiking, bicycling, running, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. Trails help safeguard the environment and improve the quality of air and water. Trails are essential for the protection of plants and wildlife.

Table 15 displays the New Trails that will be designated as analyzed under Alternatives C, D, and E.

Table 15. New Trails Name of Trail Mileage Maintenance Summary Intensity 1. Threemile 2.5 1 The Three Mile Creek Trail is located in T.35S., Creek Trail R.32E., Section 24, 25, and 26. The trail starts at Threemile Creek Trailhead to dispersed back country campsites. 2. Huffman Trail 2 1 The Huffman Trail is located in W.M., T.35S., R.32., Section 23, 24, and 25. Huffman Trail starts at Threemile Access Point on Threemile Creek Trail to an old Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) Road to the top of Catlow Rim, which provides for scenic vistas. 3. Fred Riddle 4 1 The trail will be located in W.M., T.34S., R.32.75E., Trail Sec 4, T.33., R.32.75E., Section 22-24, 26-28, 32 and 33, T.33S., R.33E., Sections 6 and 8 (see map).

The designation of this trail creates a loop back to the South Steens Campground. The trail starts at the South Steens Campground and follows Little Blitzen Trail to High Desert Trail, to Fred Riddle Trail, to Cold Spring Road, to Nye Trail, and then back down Little Blitzen Trail to the campground.

This trail will require removal of brush in places.

4. Kueny/Black 7 1 Kueny/Black Canyon Trails are located in T.33S., Canyon Trails R.32E., Sections 21, 27, 28, 29 and 30. The trails start at the trailhead and wind their way through either Kueny Canyon or Black Canyon. A visitor can hike up one canyon and down the other canyon, thereby creating a 7-mile long loop. 5. Levi Brinkley 1.5 3 The closed two-track road paralleling Little Blitzen Memorial Trail3 River will be designated as the Levi Brinkley Memorial Trail (approximately 1.5 miles long). The trail is located in W.M., T.33S., R.32.75E., Sections 30 and 33.; W.M., T.33S., R.32.5E., Section 36. A memorial plaque (2 feet by 2 feet) will be placed at the start of the trail.

6. Eusabio 7 1 The Eusabio Ridge Trail is located in T.34S., Ridge Trail R.33.E., Sections 33 and 36. The Eusabio Ridge Trail takes off from the Indian Creek Road. A recreationist can get to the Ankle/Mud Creek Trail from the Eusabio Ridge Trail.

3 Levi Brinkley was born and raised in Harney County with his three brothers. After working as a firefighter at Malheur National Forest Service in Burns, Oregon, he went to work for the Prineville Hotshots. He and thirteen others were killed on July 6, 1994, on Storm King Mountain (South Canyon Fire) in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

Table 15. New Trails Name of Trail Mileage Maintenance Summary Intensity 7. Three 13.5 3 The trail starts at South Loop Road. The trail follows Springs Bell along the Three Springs Road and the way leading to Donner und Blitzen River. The trail then follows Trail along the Donner und Blitzen River to the next way (motorized route) which leads the recreationist back to the South Loop Road. 8. Pike 0.5 3 Designate a 0.5-mile, old mining, two-track road as Creek Trail part of Pike Creek trail. This trail will connect Dry Creek Trail to Pike Creek Trail. The trail extension Extension 1 is located in W.M., T.34S., R.34E., Sections 14 and 18 and T.34S., R.33E., Section 13. 9. Oregon 39.5 1 This is a citizen’s proposed trail primarily following Desert Trail the High Desert Trail, other existing trails, drainages, and closed roads through the CMPA. No new trail construction will occur. 10. Indian 9.75 3 The designation of the Indian Creek Road Trail Creek Road creates a loop trail with several side trails (e.g. High Desert Trail, Dry Creek Trail). This trail follows Trail Indian Creek Road. The trail starts out on the Indian Creek Road to a side trail of Dry Creek Trail back to Indian Creek Road.

The trial will serve two purposes - hiking and equestrian use. 11. Desert 4 3 By designating the Desert Meadows trail will create Meadows a loop trail. The trail will run through T.33S., R.32.5E., Sec. 23, 24, 25, 26, and 36. T.33S., Trail R.32.75E., Sec. 18, 19 and 30. Rationale: Through public scoping, Alternative E - Limited Development and Dispersed Recreation - and public comments to the EA, visitors clearly indicated they wanted more developed trails in Steens Mountain Wilderness, especially trails that create a loop. Five of the new trails are loop trails or connect trails to make loops.

The SMAC supported the Three Mile Trail, Fred Riddle Trail, and Kueny Canyon Trail,

Most of the newly designated trails already exist on the ground in the form of existing roads, ways, closed roads and trails; therefore, no construction is necessary. The one exception is Little Blitzen Trail which will be rerouted to allow for public parking at the South Steens Family and Equestrian Campgrounds for the purpose of public health and safety.

Section 2. Recreation Management

a. Winter Recreation

Under the No Action Alternative non-motorized winter recreation within the CMPA does not require a Winter Recreation Permit.

North Loop Road Motorized Winter Recreation

As outlined under the No Action Alternative and CMPA RMP/ROD over- the-snow machines (e.g. snowmobiles, snow tracks, and jeeps) will still be allowed along North Loop Road to the Kiger Gorge Parking Area with an approved winter recreation permit. Motorized recreationists will be allowed to go as far as Kiger Gorge Parking Area. Also, if the permitted recreationist is accompanied by a commercial recreation permit holder authorized to operate over-the-snow machines or by a member in good standing of the local snowmobile club, over-the-snow machine use is allowed along Cold Spring Road to Nye Cabin and along Dingle Creek.

Up to 4 permits can be issued on a first-come/first-served basis, not to exceed 30 permits per month from December to February and 60 permits per month from March to May. Maximum group size will remain at 12.

Rationale: The over-the-snow machine usage on North Loop Road has ranged from no use to the high being eight, with the overall average being 3 from 2002 to 2014. Non-motorized use has ranged from 7 to 13 with the average being 10 over the same period. Because the average use is not limiting recreational visitors, and no conflicts were identified, a need to increase or decrease the number of permits issued or group size is not warranted.

The BLM was asked by the SMAC to look at other areas for winter recreation within the CMPA, especially the use of over-the-snow machines.

Motorized winter recreation off South Loop Road (Alternative D) was not selected due to insufficient snow levels and distribution of snow (snow drifts followed by bare ground); therefore, over-the-snow machine travel could be impossible in some years. Due to limited staff and funding, resources are not available to implement a motorized winter recreation program on South Loop Road. b. Special Recreation Permits

Special Recreation Permits (SRP) are authorizations allowing for recreational uses of public lands and related waters. They are issued to control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, and provide for the health and safety of visitors. Organized Groups and Special Area permits are usually issued in high use areas or where recreational use requires special BLM management. Commercial SRPs are also issued as a mechanism to provide a fair return to the United States for the commercial recreational use of public lands.

An SRP will be required as provided by BLM regulations for activities including, but not limited to, scientific study, education activities, and commercial uses affecting other visitors or having an impact on the area’s resource values. The Burns District Office requires an SRP for groups greater than 12 people or including more than 18 recreational livestock (i.e. horses, mules, and pack animals). There is currently no limitation, with the exception of guides and outfitters, on the number of commercial or organized group SRPs issued for the CMPA. The existing limit of five hunting and guiding SRPs will continue (as determined in the Needs Assessment, August 2011). Rationale: No issues or conflicts were brought forth during scoping or the EA comment period to warrant a change to current management; therefore, the No Action Alternative was selected. c. Information, Signing, and Interpretation

The BLM will continue to maintain and update information in existing kiosks, brochures, and signage. The agency will place signs, as needed, for public safety and information. Two new kiosks’ locations are described below: i. Fields Kiosk

Develop and install a kiosk in Fields, Oregon next to Fields Station store as described under Alternative C. An easement or a Cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) will be required, secured, and finalized with the private landowner prior to the expenditure of any Federal funds for improvements on private property. The kiosk will display a map of the area, provide additional interpretation, and describe recreational opportunities.

ii. South Loop Kiosk

Alternative D was selected to install an information board on South Loop Road, located at: W.M., T.33S., R.32E., Sec. 7, SE¼, displaying a map, additional interpretation, and recreational opportunities. The kiosk will be designed to complement the existing CMPA sign.

Rationale: The BLM places signs, as needed, for public safety and information. South Loop Kiosk is needed for visitors traveling along South Loop Road to provide directions, distances, and locations to major attractions. Fields Kiosk was requested by the private business owner to help address visitor inquiries.

d. Developed Campgrounds (Fee Campgrounds)

Project Design Features for Developed Campgrounds

Developed campground sites will include a parking pad, living area, and tent pad (14 feet by 16 feet). The parking pad will be configured to either allow for pull through or back-in parking for a trailer. Parking pads will be an aggregate surface up to 28 feet wide and 78 feet long at no more than a 2 percent grade.

The living area (a defined space for campers), will be approximately 550 square feet and include a picnic table, fire ring, and grill. Accessible facilities will include items such as accessible tables, fire rings, and trails meeting grade requirements.

The work will be completed with heavy equipment (e.g. dozer, road grader, and backhoe) depending on site conditions.

Equestrian camp sites will be developed as described above plus the sites will also include wood or metal corrals approximately 12 feet by 12 feet for livestock. The work will be completed with heavy equipment (e.g. dozer, road grader, and backhoe) depending on site conditions.

Camp Host Sites will be developed as described above plus the sites will also include potable water and will each have a 1,500-gallon holding tank on a level pad.

i. Page Springs Campground

This campground is located in: W.M., T. 32 S., R. 32.5 S., Sec. 17, NW¼.

The BLM will continue to maintain 31 camp sites, 1 group site, accessible camping, vault toilets, potable water, and grey water disposal.

Over time, cottonwood trees will be replaced with less hazardous trees and/or shrubs, as recommended by BLM Burns District Office Specialist. The vegetation will be planted by hand or with a backhoe based on vegetation size.

Rationale: No issues or comments indicated a need to change current management of the campground; therefore, this portion of the No Action Alternative was selected.

Black cottonwood limbs were trimmed in 2014 as a short-term solution. Falling limbs create a safety hazard. Implementation of Alternative B by replacing the trees with less hazardous trees will address the safety issue as well as provide the shade and aesthetics the public has come to expect. The SMAC recommended replacing the cottonwood trees.

The amphitheater as described under Alternative B was not selected. Interest to construct an amphitheater was not expressed through scoping or the public comment period. In addition, BLM does not have the capacity to adequately serve the needs of the public through this venue. ii. Fish Lake Campground

This campground is located on Oregon State Lands in: W.M., T. 32.5 S., R. 33 E., aec. 20, S½; aec. 29, N½NE¼, NW¼; and W.M., T. 33 S., R. 32.75 E., aec. 1, SE¼.

The campground will be maintained with 23 camp sites, a picnic area, boat launch, vault toilets, potable water, and grey water disposal.

Changes to Fish Lake Campground under Alternatives B and C include: 1) two camp sites will be upgraded with accessible facilities which include picnic tables, fire rings, and compacted paths leading to restrooms, 2) camp sites #21, #22, and #23 will be designated as tent camping only, and 3) a camp host site will be developed with a camping pad, potable water, and sanitation tanks below ground. This work will be completed by using heavy equipment such as a backhoe.

The BLM will remove the horse corral located in W.M., T.32.5S., R.33E., Sec. 29, across North Loop Road from Fish Lake Campground as described under Alternative C.

Rationale: Providing accessible facilities for visitors allows them to enjoy the same array of personal and social benefits from outdoor recreational pursuits. It is imperative that the BLM meet the challenge of providing accessible outdoor facilities and activities without fundamentally altering the nature of the activity itself. The SMAC supported accessible facilities.

Because of the current configuration of campsites #21 - #23, backing a camp trailer into these sites is extremely difficult. Therefore, these three sites are to be designated tent camping only.

Fish Lake Campground receives an average of 1,181 visitors per year. As such, a volunteer camp host is a highly valued asset. In the past, the Burns BLM has found it difficult to maintain a volunteer camp host all summer because the basic amenities for the camp host (such as potable water and disposal of grey/black water) were not being met. Installation of these facilities along with a camping pad is expected to meet the needs of a volunteer host and improve host retention.

The horse corral facility at Fish Lake Campground will be removed because it lacks connection to the campground, separating horse owners from their animals should a problem arise. An equestrian campground that better meets the needs of equestrian recreationists is to be constructed at a designated site off of the North Loop road. iii. Jackman Park Campground

This campground is located in: W.M., T. 32.5 S., R. 33 E., Sec. 33, S½NE¼.

The BLM will continue to maintain 6 camp sites, vault toilets, and potable water. A sign will be placed recommending tent camping only in Jackman Park Campground.

Rationale: Maneuvering of camp trailers can be very challenging and may create a safety issue due to the confined nature and current configuration of the campground; therefore, tent camping is recommended but not mandatory. The SMAC recommended the No Action Alternative. iv. South Steens Family Campground

This campground is located in: W.M., T. 34 S., R. 32.75 E. Sec. 4, SW¼NE¼.

The BLM will continue to maintain 21 camp sites, vault toilets, and potable water.

Improvements at the campground as outlined under Alternative B include: 1) upgrading two camp sites with accessible facilities including picnic tables, fire rings, and compacted paths leading to

restrooms; 2) installing a camping pad, potable water, and sanitation tanks below ground at the camp host site; and 3) enlarging the day-use parking area by approximately 20 feet by 75 feet. This work will be completed by using heavy equipment such as a backhoe and/or grader.

Rationale: The rationale is the same as Fish Lake Campground. The volunteer camp host will be able to service South Steens Equestrian Campground as well. The parking area configuration is not conducive for more than three vehicles. Expanding the parking area allows for additional parking for day-use visitors. v. South Steens Equestrian Campground

This campground is located in: W.M., T. 34 S., R. 32.75 E., Sec. 4, SW¼NE¼.

The BLM will continue to maintain horse corrals, hitching posts, vault toilets, and potable water. Campsites may be reduced from 15 to 13 sites depending upon design of the day-use parking area described below.

Improvements to the campground as outlined under Alternative B include: 1) creating a day-use parking area (100 feet x 100 feet) at the front of the campground, which may eliminate two camping sites; 2) installing 12-foot x 12-foot horse corrals at all camping sites; 3) installing a 50-foot round pen covered with 6 inches of sand in the middle of the campground; and 4) installing signs stating “All-Terrain Vehicles are Not Recommended”.

Rationale: Installing horse corrals at each campsite allows owners the ability to monitor horses and aids in feeding and watering. The 50-foot round pen will allow the riders to take the “edge off” the horses before riding on the trails, possibly allowing for increased safety to riders.

Constructing a day-use parking area in the campground will better facilitate trailer parking for day-use horse rides. Currently there is no day-use parking at the campground; therefore, constructing a day-use parking area will alleviate day-use trailer parking within the campground providing additional camping opportunities.

Signs not recommending ATV use within the campground are to deter any horse and ATV conflicts.

vi. North Steens Equestrian Campground This campground will be located in W.M., T.32S., R.33E., sec. 31, S½.

The campground will be developed in stages under Alternative C using an adaptive-management approach. To start, five campsite pads to accommodate pick-ups with horse trailers will be leveled and graveled with a backhoe or similar type of heavy equipment. Campsites will be constructed according to the project design features listed below.

Each campsite will include a horse corral (12 feet x 12 feet), fire ring, and picnic table. A buck and pole-type fence will be placed around the perimeter of the campground encompassing approximately five acres. The fence will prevent ingress and egress of livestock. A backhoe or similar type of heavy equipment will be used to create the campground and spread aggregate material on the existing road. A cattleguard will be installed in line with the buck and pole fence within the existing road. Road maintenance of the campground access road will be consistent with Moon Hill Road maintenance intensity #3.

North Steens Equestrian Campground Mitigation Measures:

• The campground will be designed to follow road contour lines. • Corrals will be made of non-gloss metal as supported by the SMAC. • Any structure’s (e.g. vault toilets, fences) color will match the vegetation and strategic placement of structures will be used to maximize vegetative screening. • Solar panel for water pump will be placed behind buck and pole fences. Wood rail fence will be untreated and allowed to weather. Solar panels will be placed low to the ground, not to be raised above the fence.

Adaptive Management

Knowing uncertainties exist in managing for sustainable ecosystems, some changes in management may be authorized. As needed, to meet the demand of visitor use and following an adaptive management approach, BLM will add up to 10 more campsites with horse corrals (12 feet x 12 feet), fire rings, and picnic tables. The EA and this decision cover this action and no additional decision or NEPA are required. All clearances will occur prior to any construction. A vault toilet and a 50-foot round

pen will be installed, and a well will be drilled for potable water and recreational stock. Need will be determined through monitoring of traffic counters, trail registrations, amount of human debris, visitor register forms, and BLM observations.

Rationale: There is no facility for equestrian camping off North Loop Road. Fish Lake Campground provides for camping but recreational stock are not allowed. The current corrals are located too far from camp and right along North Loop Road posing a safety risk with passing vehicles, parked horse trailers while loading and unloading, and escaped horses standing on the road. The Backcountry Horsemen, SMAC, and other interested publics requested BLM develop an equestrian facility off North Loop Road around the 7400’ elevation. In addition, the BLM responds to numerous phone calls requesting information on equestrian camping off North Loop Road.

At 7400’ elevation, aspens trees are present providing a more enjoyable camping experience - shade, cooler evenings, and aesthetically pleasing views. South Steens Campgrounds are at approximately 5400’ elevation. This elevation is drier and more conducive for juniper trees. The North Steens Equestrian Campground will therefore provide a very different type of horse camping experience.

Per the Steens Act Subtitle B - Management of Federal Lands, Section 113 Land Use Authorities (f) Prohibition of Construction of Facilities, “No new facilities may be constructed on Federal lands included in the Cooperative Management and Protection Area unless the Secretary determines the structure—

(1) will be minimal in nature; (2) is consistent with the purposes of this Act; and (3) is necessary— (A) for enhancing botanical, fish, wildlife, or watershed conditions; (B) for public information, health, or safety; (C) for the management of livestock; or (D) for the management of recreation, but not for the promotion of recreation.”

The campground is the only equestrian campground off North Loop Road making the project minimal in nature. The development is consistent with the purposes of the Steens Act as it is necessary for management of recreation rather than promotion of

recreation. Dispersed horse camping in the North Steens area already occurs based on BLM observations.

Adhering with the project mitigation measures will ensure VRM Class 1I will be met.

vii. Penland Campground

This campground will be located in WM. T.35S., R.33E., sec. 15. The campground will be developed under Alternative D in stages using an adaptive management approach. To start, five campsite pads to accommodate pick-ups with horse trailers will be leveled and graveled using a backhoe or similar type of heavy equipment. Campsites will be constructed according to the project design features listed below.

Each campsite will include a horse corral (12 feet x 12 feet), fire ring, and picnic table. A buck and pole-type fence will be placed around the perimeter of the campground encompassing approximately five acres. The fence will prevent ingress and egress of livestock. A backhoe or similar type of heavy equipment will be used to create the campground and spread aggregate material on the existing road. Road maintenance of the campground access will be maintenance intensity #3.

Penland Wilderness Recreation Site Mitigation Measures:

• Proposed structures will be colored to match “Beetle” from the Standard Environmental Colors Chart. • Corrals will be non-glossy, dull-finish metal. • Campground road will be at an angle from the key observation point (KOP) on East Steens Road. The campground road will be curved in nature to avoid long straight road sections. • Solar panel for the water pump will be placed behind a buck and pole style fence. Solar panels will be placed low on the ground and behind the vault toilet. Wood rail fence will be untreated and allowed to weather.

Adaptive Management

Knowing uncertainties exist in managing for sustainable ecosystems, some changes in management may be authorized. As needed, to meet the demand of visitor use, BLM will add up to 10 more campsites with corrals, fire rings, and picnic tables. A vault toilet and a 50-foot round pen will be installed, and a well will be drilled for potable water and recreational stock. Need will be

determined through monitoring of traffic counters, trail registrations, amount of human debris, visitor register forms, and BLM observations. The EA and this decision cover this action and no additional decision or NEPA are required. All clearances will occur prior to any construction. The SMAC supported an adaptive management strategy.

Rationale: There is no developed campground on the east side of the CMPA. The Backcountry Horsemen and SMAC requested BLM develop an equestrian facility on the east side. During the development of the Steens CMPA boundary, the BLM kept 120 acres in T.35S., R.33E., sec. 15 for the purpose of public access to this portion of Steens Mountain Wilderness. These 120 acres are outside the CMPA boundary; therefore, they are not limited by the Steens Act purposes.

BLM does not expect this developed campground will compete with the proposed private campground to the north. The private campground serves the Alvord Hot Springs and Indian Creek Road areas.

Adhering to the project mitigation measures will ensure VRM Class II will be met. e. Dispersed Campgrounds (Non-Fee Sites)

Project Design Features for Dispersed Campgrounds (Non-Fee Sites) Any designated non-fee campground access roads will be assigned Maintenance Intensity 2. Access roads through private lands will be determined through easements.

i. Mann Lake Recreation Site

This dispersed campground is located in W.M., T. 32 S., R. 35 E., sec. 07, lots 1-5 inclusive; T. 32 S., R. 34 E., sec. 12, SE¼NE¼, NE¼SE¼. The campground will continue to be maintained with two vault toilets and dispersed camping on the west side of the lake under the No Action Alternative.

Rationale: Mann Lake Recreation Site will be managed to maintain its current condition as no issues or concerns were noted and public comments recommend not changing management.

ii. Pate Lake Cooperative Site

The dispersed campground is located on private lands in W.M., T. 32.5 S., R. 33 E., sec. 21, S½SW¼; sec. 28, N½NW¼. As outlined under the No Action Alternative, this campground will continue to be maintained through a Cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) with the landowner. The BLM has provided five non-fee, dispersed campsites with picnic tables and fire rings.

Rationale: The BLM initially entered into a CMA with the private landowner to provide an “overflow” area for Fish Creek Campground. Based on BLM observations, Pate Lake is infrequently used, and as such, 2015 will be the last year of the CMA. iii. Lily Lake

This dispersed campground is located in W.M., T. 33 S., R. 32.75 E., sec. 01, lot 2. The campground will continue to be managed as a dispersed campground under the No Action Alternative.

Rationale: Lily Lake Recreation Site will be managed in its current condition as no issues or concerns were noted. iv. Home Creek Recreation Site

This recreation site will be developed as described under Alternative C and will be located in W.M., T.35S., R.32E., sec. 10, NE¼ on the west side of Steens Mountain.

Access is through private land. An easement will be required from the landowner. BLM will install private land boundary and information signs. Overnight camping will be allowed.

Approximately 1.5 miles of private and public road will be improved to Maintenance Intensity 3 by using aggregate gravel and installing a cattleguard. Improvement of the road will be accomplished by using heavy equipment (road grader, dump truck). If resource damage occurs, as determined by field observations, signs and or boulders will be placed to confine vehicles to specific areas.

Rationale: Historically the public used this site for recreational purposes. There is still a desire from the public to use this area based on public comments, phone calls, emails, and personal communications with BLM staff. During the development of the

CMPA boundary the BLM kept approximately 40 acres in T.35S., R.32E., sec. 10 for the purpose of public access to the western portion of Steens Mountain Wilderness. Through a cadastral survey, it was determined access across private lands was required before entering public domain land. The private landowner is willing to provide access for public purposes.

The development is minimal in nature and consistent with the purposes of the Steens Act. The parking area is necessary for management of recreation rather than promotion of recreation. As stated above, the area has been used historically and the public desires restored access. The site will also provide the public with a safe parking area off of Highway 205.

The informational sign will provide information regarding Leave No Trace, wilderness ethics, and safety precautions and a map of the area showing private lands. f. Overlooks and Other Points of Interest

i. Kiger Gorge Overlook (parking area and trail)

The overlook is located in W.M., T. 33 S., R. 33 E., sec. 01, lot 2.

As described under Alternative B, Kiger Gorge Overlook Trail will be upgraded to an accessible path (e.g. minimum tread width will be 36 inches wide, see Trail Design Features). In addition, the parking area will be enlarged to approximately 20 feet by 75 feet (less than an acre) to accommodate up to 8 more vehicles. Aggregate will be spread on the parking area. Parking area and trail work will be completed with heavy equipment such as a dozer or road grader and hand tools.

Rationale: The area has several “user-created” trails to the edge of Kiger Gorge. Designating one path will eliminate multiple trails and help reduce soil compaction and allow vegetation to return.

The existing parking area is too small to accommodate the recreational demands of the public. The BLM staff has witnessed more than six vehicles parked at the overlook parking area, which was originally designed to accommodate only three vehicles.

The SMAC supported expanding the parking lot and a compacted walkway.

ii. East Rim Overlook (parking area and trail)

The East Rim Overlook is located in W.M., T. 33 S., R. 34 E., sec. 19, lot 1.

As described under Alternative B, East Rim Overlook Trail will be upgraded to an accessible path (e.g. minimum tread width will be 36 inches wide, see Trail Design Features). In addition, the parking area will be enlarged to approximately 20 feet by 75 feet (less than an acre to accommodate up to 8 more vehicles). Aggregate will be spread on the parking area. Parking area and trail work will be completed with heavy equipment such as a dozer or road grader and hand tools.

Rationale: The effects are the same as the Kiger Gorge Overlook. iii. Wildhorse Lake Overlook

Wildhorse Lake Overlook is located in W.M., T. 33 S., R. 33 E., sec. 25, SW¼SW¼. Wildhorse Lake Overlook Parking area will be maintained as is under the No Action Alternative.

Rationale: Existing site is limited by topography and no need to expand the site was noted. iv. Riddle Brothers Ranch National Historic District (Riddle Brothers Ranch)

Riddle Brothers Ranch (1,120 acres) is located in:

W.M., T. 33 S., R. 32.75 E., sec. 30, SE¼SW¼, S½SE¼; sec. 31, NE¼, NE¼NW¼, E½SE¼; sec. 32, S½; sec. 33, SW¼, SW¼NE¼, E¼NW¼.

Riddle Brothers Ranch will be managed according to the Riddle Brothers Historic District Cultural RMP EA OR-020-5-019 (January 1995) and in compliance with the Final Judgment in ONDA vs Green (Civil No. 95-2013-HA). The Historic District Plan was developed to address the immediate and long-term protection and management required to interpret, maintain, and enhance the cultural resource values present.

The change to management of this site as described under Alternative B is to increase public motorized access from four to five days during the summer months (Wednesday through Sunday). Also, three picnic tables and rest benches will be installed near the Caretaker Cabin.

Rationale: Internal scoping, observations by BLM specialists, and the caretakers at the Ranch have indicated a need to have the gate open an extra day to allow for motorized access.

The picnic tables and rest benches will provide rest areas for the public to enjoy the historical setting. v. Nye Place and Cold Spring Cabins

The cabins are located in W.M., T. 33 S., R. 33 E., sec. 05, SE¼SW¼ and W.M., T. 33 S., R. 32.75 E., sec. 21, respectively. These cabins will be maintained under the No Action Alternative in their current rustic conditions and be managed for the publics’ use on a first-come/first-served basis.

Rationale: The Nye Place and Cold Spring Cabins will be managed in their current condition as no issues or concerns were identified and public comments, including the SMAC, recommended leaving management of the area as is. vi. Riddle Brothers Pipeline Extension and Pump House

The Riddle Brothers Pipeline Extension, as described under Alternative D, will provide potable water for the volunteer camp host(s) at the caretaker cabin and for irrigating the lawns for fire protection and beautification of the grounds at Riddle Brothers Ranch. The pipeline will extend from the well near the administrative Clemens Place and follow Cold Spring Road for approximately 4,750 feet. Pipeline deemed safe for delivering potable water will be buried up to 3 feet deep with installation of 3 frost-free hydrants. The pipeline will be installed in W.M., T.33S., R.32.75E., sec. 31 as soon as funding is available.

An 8-foot by 8-foot, wood-framed, pump house will be constructed with a concrete slab foundation in W.M., T.33S., R.32.75E., sec. 31 next to the Grey House (BLM administrative site). The pump house will also store solar batteries providing power to the Grey House. The pump house will be built to look like the surrounding historical buildings. 45

Rationale: The piped water from the well at the administrative site will meet the requirements of BLM’s Compliance Assessment - Safety, Health, and the Environment (CASHE) inspection requiring potable water at the host site (caretaker cabin). In addition, the well water will provide for fire protection for historical structures and beatification of the landscape. vii. Cold Spring Re-Development

Cold Spring is located in W.M., T.33S., R.32.75E., sec. 21. The headbox for Cold Spring is located in wilderness and will be cleaned out by hand. The outlet from the headbox will allow the water to flow down the natural drainage ditch across Cold Spring Road into an existing overflow pond. The overflow pond will be maintained at approximately 4 feet by 8 feet. The overflow pond is within the Cold Spring Road buffer outside Steens Mountain Wilderness.

Rationale: The spring was developed when the property was privately owned. It is unknown when the spring was originally developed. Through a land exchange, the land surrounding the spring became public land and the spring was used by recreationists, especially equestrian visitors. Back Country Horsemen has requested and the SMAC has recommended the spring be put back into working condition to provide water for recreational livestock as described under Alternative D. The headbox still exists within wilderness, so no new development will occur in wilderness. viii. Kueny Canyon Access Point

As described under Alternative C, a parking area approximately (200 feet by 200 feet) leveled with gravel will be constructed on private lands in W.M., T.33S., R.32E., sec. 30, SE¼, also a small 3 feet by 5 feet information board will be installed. A public easement is required from the landowner prior to any improvements. Also, an approach permit will be acquired from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to develop an access point off Highway 205. The work will be accomplished by heavy machinery (such as a dozer or road grader). No campsites will be developed; however, overnight camping will be allowed.

The Kueny Trailhead is located in W.M., T.33S., R.33E., Sec. 3 NE¼. A public easement is required from the landowner prior to any improvements. An approach permit will be acquired from

ODOT to develop an access point off Highway 205. Overnight camping will be allowed. This work will be completed by heavy equipment (such as a dozer or road grader).

Rationale: Kueny Canyon Access Point project is a private landowner proposal. The access point will provide public access off Highway 205 to the west side of the CMPA. This access point provides for overnight camping for one recreational vehicle, and specifically allows the public to recreate in Kueny and Black Canyons.

The development is minimal in nature, on private lands, and consistent with the purposes of the Steens Act. The parking area is necessary for management of recreation rather than promotion of recreation. An easement will be required.

The informational sign will provide information regarding Leave No Trace practices, wilderness ethics, and safety precautions and a map of the area showing trails and private lands. ix. Threemile Creek Canyon Access Point

Current access to Threemile Creek is off Highway 205 on a BLM- managed road. This road is located in an area where visibility is poor. The BLM is currently working with the landowner to secure a 5-acre easement to develop an approximate 200-foot by 200-foot parking area on private land to provide safe egress and ingress to the area.

The development will be minimal in nature (as described under Alternative D), on private lands, and consistent with the purposes of the Steens Act.

A trailhead parking area will be developed to provide access to Threemile Creek Trail and Huffman Trail on the west side of Steens Mountain Wilderness. The parking area will be located in W.M, T.35S., R.32E., sec. 25 and 26. Approximately 1/8-mile of fencing will need to be redesigned to allow for the parking area. The barbed-wire fence will be built to BLM fence specifications.

An alternate option to the easement is to construct the parking area on BLM-administered land using existing access.

Threemile Creek Canyon Access Point Mitigation Measures:

• Access road to the parking area will follow existing contours of land. • Project work to maintain as much native vegetation as possible.

Adhering to mitigation measures, the parking area may attract attention but will not dominate the view of the casual observer. Therefore, VRM Class I will be met.

Rationale: There is a desire from the public to have access to the Steens Mountain Wilderness from the west side based on public comments, phone calls, emails, and personal communications with BLM staff.

Threemile Creek is the only public access to Steens Mountain Wilderness from the west side. The area is currently not developed and difficult to see. These approximately 40 acres were set aside in the development of the Steens Act for the purpose of public access.

The parking area is necessary for management of recreation rather than promotion of recreation. Relocating the access points will provide better ingress and egress off Highway 205 as well as provide parking for vehicles with trailers.

The informational sign will provide information regarding Leave No Trace practices, wilderness ethics, and safety precautions and a map showing trails and private lands.

Adhering with the project mitigation measures will ensure VRM Class 1 will be met. x. Vault Toilets

Project Design Features for Vault Toilets

Vault toilets will meet the following standards:

• 750-gallon underground waste vault with an odor-free ventilation system, not requiring water, sewer or electric. • 18-inch toilet riser with seat/lid, stainless steel grab bars. • 12-inch diameter vent pipe, 24-inch diameter cleanout for pump access. • 12-inch diameter vent pipe screen to keep out wildlife and debris.

• Set on a concrete foundation and slab approximately 15 feet by 15 feet. • Exterior will be designed to blend in with the landscape and may use, but will not be limited to, cedar siding, faux precast concrete or stucco, and a powder-coated steel door with pull handle and deadbolt, and will be installed using heavy equipment such as a backhoe and crane. • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) will perform a site investigation for each toilet to ensure compliance with current ODEQ vault toilet sighting standards. Location will require a test pit. • (5 feet by 4 feet by 2 feet) to be excavated at the proposed location by the BLM Operations Crew for ODEQ to inspect.

(a) Turkey Foot Vault Toilet

The vault toilet will be constructed just off the North Loop Road in W.M., T.33S., R.33E., sec. 13, NE¼ as described under Alternative D.

Turkey Foot Toilet Mitigation Measures:

• The placement of the vault toilet will be positioned so the view of the toilet from North Loop Road will not be above the horizon. This will give the project a low profile. • The placement of boulders around the vault toilet will minimize focus and continue to give the view a grainy effect. • The vault toilet siding will be a mottled type to visually blend in with the existing rock texture. • The color of the vault toilet will match existing rock color or a shade darker. • The parking area will be designed to have a curvilinear shape similar to the curves in the road. • The gravel of the parking area will match the color of the gravel on the road. • The door of the vault toilet will face away from the road.

(b) South Steens Loop Road Vault Toilet

The vault toilet will be constructed in W.M., T.33S., R.32E., sec. 22 at the new Gate #5 location under Alternative D.

The vault toilet will be located in W.M., T.32S., R.32.75E., sec. 29 near the Wildlands Juniper Management trailhead as described under Alternative D.

Rationale: BLM recreation maintenance staff has seen the need for the proposed vault toilets at their prospective locations. During the summer, staff has picked up and disposed of toilet paper and other unsanitary items along Loop Road. These toilets will provide sanitary facilities for public use, aid in keeping our public lands clean, and reduce any health and safety issues to BLM staff. The toilets will follow mitigation measures as described above.

Adhering to mitigation measures, the Turkey Foot Toilet area may attract attention but will not dominate the view of the casual observer. Therefore, VRM Class I will be met. The SMAC supported the Turkey Foot toilet. g. Other Design Features

 Vehicles and equipment will be cleaned prior to entry to the sites for project work to aid against spread of noxious weeds. BLM will inventory and monitor any project sites for noxious weeds. Any new weeds found will be treated using the most appropriate methods as analyzed in the Burns District Weed EA or subsequent weed treatment decision.  Proposed project sites will be surveyed for cultural resources prior to implementation. Cultural resource sites will be avoided or effects mitigated in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).  Proposed improvement sites will be surveyed for Threatened and Endangered (T&E) and Special Status plant species prior to improvement implementation, and sites will be avoided.  New facilities will be constructed at least 2 miles from leks to minimize disturbance during the breeding season.  All proposed wire fences, constructed within 1.25 miles of a lek or known seasonal use area (e.g. spring exclosures), will include plastic reflective clips on the wire to reduce mortality from sage- grouse hitting the fences.  No project construction or maintenance will occur April 1 through June 15 during sage-grouse nesting.

 An agreement (such as an easement, memorandum of understanding, or CMA) will be obtained for any parking area, trail, or camp site developed on private lands.  Disturbed sites will be seeded with BLM approved seed mix.

h. Monitoring

Section 111(c) of the Steens Act requires implementation of a monitoring program for public lands in the CMPA including Steens Mountain Wilderness and WSR.

The BLM will measure the effectiveness of projects by following monitoring guidelines described in the CMPA (RMP-16), Appendix P of the RMP, and the Steens CMPA Monitoring Plan (3/17/2011). Methods of monitoring include, but are not limited to, photo points, trail and traffic counters, registration boxes, surveys, site visits, personal contacts, field observations, and patrolling.

Frequency of monitoring is dependent on workforce and budget.

i. Adaptive Management

“Adaptive Management is a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes and monitoring to determine whether management actions are meeting desired outcomes; and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management recognizes that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain.”(43 CFR 46.30).

Knowing uncertainties exist in managing for sustainable ecosystems, some changes in management may be authorized, including addressing social trails and full development of campgrounds as described above.

Appeal Procedures

Within 30 days of receipt of this decision, you have the right to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), Office of the Secretary, in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR Sec. 4.4. An appeal should be in writing and specify the reasons, clearly and concisely, as to why you think the decision is in error. A notice of appeal and/or request for stay electronically transmitted (e.g. email, facsimile, or social media) will not be accepted. A notice of appeal and/or request for stay must be on paper. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal must be filed in the Burns District Office at 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738. The appellant has the burden of showing the decision is in error.

A copy ofthe appeal, statement ofreasons, and all other supporting documents should also be sent to the Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 600, Portland, Oregon 97205. Ifthe notice ofappeal did not include a statement ofreasons for the appeal, it must be sent to the Interior Board ofLand Appeals, Office ofHearings and Appeals, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203. It is suggested appeals be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

The appellant may wish to file a petition for a stay (suspension) ofthis decision during the time the appeal is being reviewed by the Board pursuant to Part 4, Subpart B, Sec. 4.21 ofTitle 43 CPR. The petition for a stay must accompany your notice ofappeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below. Copies ofthe notice of appeal and petition for a stay must be submitted to each party named in this decision and to the ffiLA and to the appropriate Office ofthe Solicitor (43 CPR 4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden ofproofto demonstrate a stay should be granted.

Standards for Obtaining a Stay - except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay ofdecision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards (43 CPR 4.2l(b)).

(1) The relative harm to the parties ifthe stay is granted or denied, (2) The likelihood ofthe appellant's success on the merits, (3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm ifthe stay is not granted, and (4) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

As noted above, the petition for stay must be filed in the office ofthe authorized officer.

A notice ofappeal and/or request for stay electronically transmitted (e.g. email, facsimile, or social media) will not be accepted. A notice ofappeal and/or request for stay must be

Date: "'-\\vo\\'G

Signature: ' /4t-1-'7 Richard Roy, Three Rivers Field Man

APPENDIX A

JANUARY 2015 CRP RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

1. Comment: It appears that the proposed action - Alternative D - would leave all the obscure routes open for use and on all the maps.

1. Response: The cover letter dated January 12, 2015, as well as page 5 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) state under the No Action Alternative “obscure routes” are now considered open and are shown and analyzed as the existing environment. Subalternative B analyzes permanent closure of some routes, some administrative use only routes, and one All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) route. The remaining alternatives consider all “obscure routes” as closed. The EA has been clarified under each alternative to reflect what is stated on page 5 of the EA and in the cover letter.

2. Comment: If these roads are so obscure that people cannot even see them on the ground, they are not critical to anyone’s cattle operation or recreation. In the few places where use has dropped off, please let that use be historical only.

2. Response: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed route analysis forms (RAFs) for all of the obscure routes reopened by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). (RAFs can be viewed on the following website http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/plans/steens-rec/index.php). In the RAFs the BLM indicated the condition of the routes as well as possible uses. Based on the information BLM gathered, Subalternative B proposed some routes for closure, some for administrative use, and one for ATV use.

The obscure routes (or ways) within Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) were never assigned maintenance levels. As ways, these routes are primarily maintained by the passage of a vehicle. Routes outside WSAs were assigned maintenance level 2 under the Travel Management Plan (TMP).

3. Comment: Because these roads have not been used in so long, the existing condition cannot be considered the same as if those routes were used on a regular basis. Even if these routes on paper have the same maintenance level as well-used routes, they are not actually well used. NEPA was designed to analyze actual environmental impacts, not just theoretical environmental impacts.

The evidence is clear that Steens Mountain, like other wild places in Oregon, is seeing increased recreational pressure.

3. Response: Because these roads have been closed for a number of years, BLM had to take a hard look at the obscure routes. As such, BLM looked at NAIP imagery to determine the conditions of the routes between the years 2009 and 2011. (The IBLA initially closed the obscure routes on February 19,

2009). We then used BLM staffs’ personal knowledge of the area to determine if these routes served a purpose prior to their closure in 2009. Based on these factors, as well as other considerations documented on the RAFs, Subalternative B provided an option for changes to be made regarding the proposed status of obscure routes.

4. Comment: The Steens Act does not exclude routes that have become overgrown or otherwise naturally reclaimed, but whose line may be traced on the ground, or exclude routes that have been infrequently used in the past. Nor does it exclude routes that exist only as a matter of record. A new route is clearly one that never existed, but has not been brought into existence, by construction or use.

4. Response: The Steens Act (Section 112) required BLM to complete a comprehensive transportation plan (TP) within the Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) to address maintenance, improvement, and closure of roads and trails as well as travel access. The TP within the Resource Management Plan (RMP) addressed maintenance of roads; the TMP identified all known and existing roads using historical data (maps and previous inventories) as well as on-the-ground knowledge to develop alternatives for improvement and closure of roads and trails; and the Comprehensive Recreation Plan (CRP) took yet another look at the transportation system (motorized as well as non-motorized) and provided a range of alternatives including closure of some routes.

BLM went through a weighty decision process to decide whether a route should be left open or closed. Please see the transportation section below for rationale.

5. Comment: A proper analysis would start from the assumption that these roads are not currently being used. It should then analyze the impact of increased use as would reasonably be expected. The first increments of increased use can sometimes be the most significant - bring the sights and sounds and influence of vehicles to places that are essentially wild. The EA should address the existing experience of recreational solitude and the existing habitat values that wildlife find in these areas where there is no actual road. It should then address the impacts of adding new traffic to these areas.

5. Response: Alterative A analyzed obscure routes as open and the effects to solitude and wildlife can be found on pages 144 and 150 of the EA, respectively. Sub-alternative B analyzed some of the obscure routes as closed, some only available for administrative use, and one ATV route. Please also review the RAFs for status of each route on the ground.

6. Comment: While none of the road segments at issue are very long, each small piece can make a difference for wildlife. Large intact expanses of habitat were once quite common but are now rare. Great Basin species such as sage-grouse and pronghorn evolved in the context of the large open habitat expanses. The analysis should disclose

how many more acres would be effectively roadless if these roads were closed permanently.

6. Response: Impacts to wildlife and sage-grouse by leaving the obscure routes open can be found on pages 150 and 117 of the EA, respectively. The majority of the obscure routes (27 miles out of 36) exist within WSAs (areas designated because of their size, naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, and additional unique features). The remaining 9 miles (outside WSAs) are short segments of roads within areas that do not possess wilderness values as determined during the RMP process with one exception. One segment can be found within a parcel containing wilderness characteristics adjacent to High Steens WSA. This route was analyzed for closure under Subalternative B.

7. Comment: The proper consideration of roadless/unroaded values requires explicit disclosure of potential wilderness, and the wide range of other values associated with roadless/unroaded areas and an [Environmental Impact Statement] EIS analysis of the impacts of proposed actions on each of those values (e.g., water quality; healthy soils; fish and wildlife refugia; centers for dispersal, recolonization, and restoration of adjacent disturbed sites; reference sites for research; non-motorized, low-impact recreation; carbon sequestration; refugia that are relatively less at-risk from noxious weeds and other invasive non-native species).

7. Response: Please refer to responses to comments 17 and 21 in Appendix M of the EA regarding wilderness characteristics.

8. Comment: Additionally, it is terribly confusing to recreational users if maps - especially new maps - show features that do not actually exist. Markings on new recreational maps should only show roads that a person could reasonably identify on the ground. Otherwise BLM risks contributing to the confusion of people seeking primitive backcountry experiences. People are seeking opportunities for solitude in an increasingly busy world.

8. Response: Any newly created public maps will only show those routes available to the general public. Routes used for administrative purposes would be shared with individuals who would be allowed to use these specially-designated routes. Administrative and closed routes would not appear on public maps.

9. Comment: First and foremost the Steens Act very plainly guarantees reasonable access to private property. BLM is not in the business of regulating activities and uses on private property, that authority is left to the states. Specifically in Oregon it is management by the Harney County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Harney County Planning Commission. Reasonable access is the access needed to use private property in any form that is deemed legal by the proper authority and desired by the land owner. Analyzing access to private property inside a recreation plan is inconsistent with the Steens Act.

9. Response: Under Section 112(c) of the Steens Act, “the Secretary shall provide reasonable access to nonfederally owned lands or interests in land within the boundaries of the CMPA and wilderness area to provide the owner of the land or interest the reasonable use thereof.” The CRP EA reviewed routes suggested by outside interest groups for closure which would affect private landowners’ access. This information is reflected in the analysis of the EA and conforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Landowners may also apply for access permits through a Right-of-Way (ROW) outside of Steens Mountain Wilderness. Private landowners with lands surrounded by wilderness may apply for a 2920 Permit or a Cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) for reasonable and/or adequate access to their private lands. These actions would be analyzed under site-specific NEPA. Based on review of the RAFs, BLM is not aware that it is proposing closure of any routes providing access to private lands, and BLM has specifically proposed leaving some routes open to landowners for access to private land.

10. Comment: As discussed in the Steens Mountain Advisory Council meeting there are a number of roads in the South Steens Area that are critical to ranching operation and access to private land. Some of these roads are being analyzed for closure. I fully object to closure of any roads or ways or routes that are important to ranching operations or access to private land.

10. Response: The BLM completed RAFs on all of the obscure routes proposed for closure (RAFs can be viewed on the following website - http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/plans/steens-rec/index.php) including those found within the South Steens Area. Two of the conditions identified on the RAFs were access to private lands and range improvements. Routes providing access to private lands were analyzed under Subalternative B as open or closed to the public but designated open for administrative use and permittee, landowner, and contractor access. Administrative-use routes would not be shown on maps provided to the general public. Permittees would use these roads through their various permits including, but not limited to, grazing permits, trailing permits, cooperative range improvement agreements, and special use permits to continue on-the-ground operations.

11. Comment: Roads that go unused deteriorate quickly. Roads that are not maintained deteriorate quickly. Just because these roads don’t show up on satellite imagery or are difficult to see on the ground does not mean they were not constructed with equipment, maintained with equipment, used for many economic and recreational purposes, and remain valuable for those who need to use them.

Through the years as permittees and landowners, we have made a serious mistake. We have been cooperative in conservation efforts and been convinced we should tread lightly on the land. We have agreed not to maintain roads out of respect for wildlife and

watershed health. Unfortunately this cooperative attitude has subjugated our rights to access our land and areas critical to our ranching operations.

11. Response: Please see response 8 above regarding administrative use. The BLM staffs’ personal knowledge of the area was used to determine if these obscure routes served purposes other than for administrative use prior to their closures in 2009. Some routes were found to provide access to areas for hunting, wildlife/wild horse viewing, dispersed camping, and routes for Off- Highway Vehicle (OHV) users (among other possible purposes). Many of these routes were not included under Subalternative B for closure of any kind.

Obscure routes within WSA were mapped during the 1979 Wilderness Intensive Inventory. The routes were designated as either a “way” or a “road”. The term “obscure route” was not used. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 provided the definition of a way as a route (or “way”) created by the passage of vehicles. Routes that were constructed were designated as roads. In March 1980 the Wilderness Review Intensive Inventory documented the boundaries of inventoried units using the FLPMA road vice way criteria. The boundaries were described by roads and other features such as ROWs and land ownership boundaries. The units were further inventoried for size, naturalness, solitude, recreation, and supplemental values. A proposed decision with rationale for the unit was suggested in the unit description. In 1991 The Wilderness Study Report (Report) was published. The Report provides a more detailed study of the specific environment for each WSA and includes maps displaying each unit’s boundary roads and roads “cherry stemmed” (routes technically outside WSA) into private inholdings. All other routes are considered ways.

12. Comment: Regarding the Fish Creek private property parcels on Steens, I wanted to make sure BLM understood the historic nature of both use and motorized access into and between these two pieces of land.

12. Response: The historic nature of this particular route is outside the scope of the CRP. This particular route will be analyzed under a separate EA under Section 112(c) of the Steens Act to determine reasonable access within Steens Mountain Wilderness for the private landowner. This route will not be part of a public Travel Management Plan. See Response to comment 9 above regarding ROWs, 2920 permits, or CMAs.

13. Comment: It is disheartening to see the public recreational users, the ranchers, property owners, and other interested parties excluded from Steens Mountain. Harney County needs economic development and many of those opportunities lie on BLM land. The population in the Burns High School topped 320 in 1990. It is less than 190 today. As a citizen of Harney County I plead with BLM to find ways to increase recreation and other economic uses of the land rather than continuing to find ways to eliminate it. The wilderness loving, backpacking, hiking, population is a small segment of the population.

13. Response: As a multiple-use agency, the BLM is tasked with balancing various uses across the landscape. In this case, BLM is implementing the Steens Act and other applicable laws. The CRP EA is an attempt to manage all types of recreation including motorized recreation (on existing routes) and non-motorized recreation in compliance with these laws.

14. Comment: The BLM has failed to develop and consider a reasonable range of alternatives in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It appears that BLM has also ignored its duties to consult with the Steens Mountain Advisory Council regarding proposed road closures, in violation of the Steens Act. The County requests that BLM either: (1) entirely rescind consideration of closing the Obscure Routes from the CRP; or (2) develop alternatives with input from the public and the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) that would undertake both development and keep all the Obscure Routes open. If BLM refuses to take one of these two steps, Harney County can no longer support Alternative D and must urge BLM to select Alternative A, no action.

14. Response: On September 30, 2014, the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reaffirmed the Travel Management Plan (TMP) decision in part, vacated in part IBLA’s previous decision and affirmed the TMP decision in part. The IBLA reversed itself and found that "with regard to our previous reversal of BLM's decision to designate Obscure Routes as open to motorized travel, we now vacate our prior reversal and affirm BLM's designation of all of the Obscure Routes as open to motorized travel." (185 IBLA at 63-64). The IBLA concluded BLM's designation of Obscure Routes, Historical Routes, ATV Routes, and other routes did not violate the statutory prohibition against motorized off-road travel and construction of new motorized roads and trails.

In the March 2014 CRP EA, all obscure routes were shown as closed throughout all alternatives. Based on IBLA’s reopening of these obscure routes, this was considered new information not previously analyzed in the March 2014 CRP EA. To comply with NEPA, the EA was rewritten to include this new information and made available for another public comment period.

Under the No Action Alternative, “obscure routes” were considered open and analyzed as the existing condition. Subalternative B analyzed permanent closure of some “obscure routes”, some administrative use only routes, and one ATV route. Also within Subalternative B, a reroute of Little Blitzen Trailhead and roads existing prior to 2000 were analyzed for incorporation into the transportation system. The remaining alternatives consider all “obscure routes” as closed.

The BLM met with the SMAC on January 29 and 30, 2015. One of the main agenda topics was discussion of Subalternative B and the No Action Alternative in the CRP. The SMAC provided comments for BLM to consider. Minutes of the

meeting will be posted to http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/steens-rac-minutes.php once approved by the SMAC. Please also refer to Responses to Comments in Appendix M of the EA regarding coordination with the SMAC during the CRP process.

15. Comment: Harney County invested a significant amount of time with the public and affected landowners identifying existing routes within the CMPA, culminating in the development of an official County map that was submitted to BLM as part of the TMP planning process. Harney County is extremely frustrated and disappointed that BLM is now considering alternatives within the CRP process that would close the Obscure Routes.

15. Response: The BLM appreciates Harney County’s efforts in development of the TMP; however, to comply with the NEPA, the BLM had to consider this new information regarding obscure routes. The BLM developed a new alternative (Subalternative B) and changed the No Action Alternative to show obscure routes as part of the existing condition. Subalternative B analyzed permanent closure of some obscure routes, some administrative use only routes, and one ATV route. The remaining alternatives considered all obscure routes as closed.

16. Comment: With respect to the January 2015 draft EA, the BLM is acting arbitrarily and capriciously in at least two ways: (1) BLM has failed to develop and consider a reasonable range of alternatives, in violation of NEPA; and (2) the BLM has failed to comply with its duties to consult with the SMAC and the public regarding proposed road closures, in violation of the Steens Act.

16. Response: Please refer to response to comment 15 above regarding BLM’s requirements under NEPA. In addition, please refer to Responses to Comments in Appendix M of the EA regarding coordination with SMAC and range of alternatives.

17. Comment: The IBLA's reopening of the Obscure Routes substantially changed the baseline conditions subject to the CRP process. To the extent the BLM deems it necessary or appropriate to consider motorized vehicle routes in the CRP process, the BLM must consider the baseline conditions to be that all 555 miles of routes identified in the TMP, including the Obscure Routes, are currently open. The BLM then must redevelop a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the CRP. The range of alternatives addressed in the January 2015 draft EA fails to do so.

Rather than seeking input from the public regarding appropriate alternatives aimed at addressing possible route closures—including whether it would be in the public interest to close Obscure Routes—the BLM has unilaterally and arbitrarily modified the existing alternatives, Alternatives B through E to "consider" all the Obscure Routes "as closed" and added a modified alternative, Alternative B-1, which would close several miles of Obscure Routes. The lack of public input into the development of alternatives—and input relative to whether to close any Obscure Routes in the first place—violates the scoping and public participation processes contemplated under NEPA. For instance, the BLM

offers no explanation of why it would be in the public interest for the "full development" alternative (Alternative D) to be analyzed only with a full closure of Obscure Routes. Had BLM sought public input, it likely would have found that most of the parties in support of full recreational development under Alternative D, including Harney County, would have proposed keeping all Obscure Routes open to be consistent with County plans and policies. BLM's decision to take an entirely contrary approach in developing alternatives, without any input from the public, is arbitrary and capricious in its plainest sense.

In fact, BLM has failed to develop or consider any alternatives under which both recreational developments would occur and all the Obscure Routes would remain open. Only in the no action alternative did BLM consider leaving all the Obscure Routes open. For this fact alone, BLM has—for all practical purposes—made an unlawful and arbitrary decision to close all or some of the Obscure Routes, in violation of its duty to consider all reasonable alternatives before making such a decision. It is illegal for the BLM to "unreasonably narrow the agency's consideration of alternatives so that the outcome is preordained." Alaska Survival v. Surface Transp. Bd., 705 F. 3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Nati Parks & Conservation Ass'n, 606 F. 3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010). Where an agency puts its desired project design and/ or features ahead of the true underlying purpose and need for the project, the agency violates NEPA. See Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F. 3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1997). Here, BLM appears to be trying to unlawfully preordain the closure of all, or a significant portion, of the Obscure Routes in violation of NEPA.

To comply with its obligations to consider all reasonable alternatives, BLM should comply with its obligations to consider all reasonable alternatives, BLM should, and must, develop and consider alternatives that incorporate leaving all Obscure Routes open, including with respect to Alternative D.

17. Response: Please refer to responses to comments 15 and 16 above regarding BLM’s requirements under NEPA and alternatives analyzed as well as baseline conditions and the use of 2009 and 2011 NAIP. In addition, please refer to Responses to Comments in Appendix M of the EA regarding coordination with SMAC and range of alternatives.

The BLM has involved the public from the very beginning. The BLM sent scoping letters to interested publics, environmental organizations, State and local government agencies, and the Burns Paiute Tribe on December 11, 2007. The BLM coordinated with State, County, and private landowners as required by the Steens Act through numerous public SMAC meetings. The BLM staff also met with individual landowners, Harney County Court, and non-governmental organizations separately during the development of the EA. The BLM provided a 45-day public comment period for the original EA, allowing another opportunity to obtain comments from interested publics and the SMAC. The BLM then provided an additional 30-day comment period in order to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the EA regarding obscure routes. Finally, a SMAC

meeting, open to the public, was held on January 29 and 30, 2015. During every SMAC meeting there are designated times for the public to raise issues to SMAC members.

In addition, no specific impacts or mitigation measures were identified during the public comment period that would warrant preparation of yet another alternative and a new EA. The BLM may select from among alternatives during the decision process as long as the impacts of the action were adequately analyzed. See, for example, Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. Kimbell, 709 F.3d 836, 854 (9th Cir. Nev. 2013).

18. Comment: It does not appear that BLM sought input from the SMAC or the public prior to proposing the closure of all, or a substantial portion, of the Obscure Routes in all of the action alternatives. It is particularly telling that in Ms. Karges' January 12, 2015 letter, the BLM is only soliciting comments from the public on Alternative A and Sub- alternative B (Modification of Additional Routes). BLM is apparently seeking no public input regarding its decision to incorporate a blanket closure of Obscure Routes in its redevelopment of Alternatives B through E, in violation of the Steens Act.

In addition, in the EA, BLM argues that its consultation with the SMAC in 2011 and 2013 satisfied its duty to consult regarding proposed road closures. None of these consultations could possibly fulfill BLM's consultation duty because the IBLA decision reopening the Obscure Routes did not occur until September 2014. The BLM could not have possibly consulted with the SMAC in 2011 or 2013 on the proposal of closing the Obscure Routes. It is also notable that BLM asserts in the EA that the SMAC provided criteria for evaluating proposed road closures but BLM includes no discussion of what those factors were, or how the BLM considered those factors in deciding to propose closure of the Obscure Routes. It is clear that BLM did not adequately consult with the SMAC prior to releasing the January 2015 draft EA.

BLM's failure to consult with the SMAC and public regarding the proposed route closures violates its duties under the Steens Act. 16 U.S.C. § 460nnn-22(c).

18. Response: In the March 2014 CRP EA, all obscure routes were shown as closed throughout all alternatives. Regarding the January 2015 version, please see response to comment 1 regarding analysis of obscure routes under each alternative.

The BLM met with the SMAC on January 29 and 30, 2015. One of the agenda topics was discussion of Obscure Routes, including the changes through Subalternative B and the No Action Alternative in the CRP. This meeting was scheduled to allow input and a possible recommendation from the SMAC regarding the obscure routes. The SMAC provided comments for BLM to consider. Please also refer to Responses to Comments in Appendix M of the EA regarding coordination with the SMAC during the CRP process.

19. Comment: The County requests that BLM either: (1) entirely rescind consideration of closing the Obscure Routes from the CRP; or (2) develop alternatives with input from the public and the SMAC that would undertake both development and keep all the Obscure Routes open. If BLM refuses to take one of these two steps, Harney County can no longer support Alternative D and must urge BLM to select Alternative A, no action.

19. Response: Please see responses to comments above.

20. Comment: There are roads that do pass through these mountains also but it is those little known obscure routes that make the long travel to the Steens Mountains from far off cities a must. Leave it as it is (Alternative A). The roads have been maintained for the safe passage of motorized vehicles as they should be, but do it for only high clearance vehicles. Very little maintenance even on the roads would be appreciated. Please leave the obscure routes as they are with the only improvements of few users keeping them open as they have been done since before a wilderness existed in the Steens Mountain. These Obscure Routes are the mainstay for the OHVs (All motorized user[s] are Class I, Class II, Class III, Class [IV] who enter the Steens Mountains) using these routes.

20. Response: Under the No Action Alternative, all obscure routes would remain open. Subalternative B proposes to close some, keep some open for administrative use, and create an ATV route.

BLM Burns District maintains motorized routes when funding and the need arises. Most of the motorized routes in the CMPA have been assigned Maintenance Level 2 (or Maintenance Intensity 1). See Appendix B for a description of the Maintenance Intensities.

Motorized routes within WSAs are referred to as ways. Ways can only be maintained by the passage of vehicles according to BLM Manual 6330 - Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Many of the obscure routes are in fact ways not available for maintenance. Please refer to response to comment 2 above regarding the definition of a way.

21. Comment: We the motorized community have a right as American citizen[s] to use all routes outside of the wilderness boundaries and the few within the boundaries (Riddle Ranch-Cold Springs Road- Nye Cabin Road- North Loop Road for example) for outdoor recreation or working the land. There are no other areas like this in America that allow the use of these old ancient motorized routes. There is nothing that states in writing that these routes should not remain open forever and ever for all users to use motorized or not.

21. Response: Cold Spring Road (which the Nye Cabin is along), Riddle Brothers Ranch Road, and North Loop Road are technically outside of Steens Mountain Wilderness; therefore, the public may use motorized vehicles on these roads under all alternatives except Alternative E. The TMP Decision (2007) states, “Changes may need to be made to the transportation system in terms of adding or closing

certain routes or changing maintenance levels to meet management objectives.” (p. 14).

22. Comment: The BLM [is] the public land manager and all of us have a right to visit this place (all public lands in stewardship of the BLM) and recreate whether motorized or not.

The PNW4WDA believes the Burns BLM District has a duty to keep all roads and Obscure Routes open to motorized users operating within Steens Mountain. The Steens Mountain Comprehensive Recreation Plan needs to be rewritten excluding any mention of motorized roads or routes closed as it is offensive to us to[o]. We are American citizens also and have the right to use these lands and our ability to use this vast area will not be allowed without motorized access.

The PNW4WDA believes the Burns BLM District has the responsibility to keep all roads and Obscure Routes that are currently open to motorized use open forever.

22. Response: Following the requirements of NEPA, BLM has provided a reasonable range of alternatives as described in response to comment 1. The BLM may select from among alternatives during the decision process as long as the impacts of the action were adequately analyzed. See, for example, Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. Kimbell, 709 F.3d 836, 854 (9th Cir. Nev. 2013). It is the mission of the BLM to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The CMPA RMP’s goals and objectives are to provide opportunities for environmentally responsible recreation; preserve natural and cultural heritage resources; reduce threats to public health, safety, and property; understand and plan for the condition and use of the public land; and restore at risk resources and maintain functioning systems (to name a few). As such, BLM must manage public lands for all, as well as to preserve our natural resources. Also refer to response to comment 13 above.

23. Comment: Some in my family may never know its beauty and why our maternal and fraternal grandfathers spent much of their time working and striving and surviving the late 1800’s and early 1900’s on Steens Mountain. Closures will certainly cement their chances and other’s chances of the experiences I have had at Steens Mountain. I have had the pleasure of exploring [GPS] roads that are now referred to as obscure. Please do not close one obscure route. What is done on paper has a much more detrimental consequence than the few tires and hoofs and feet that would trod the obscure route.

23. Response: Please see response to comment 22 above regarding range of alternatives and BLM’s mission and goals and objectives under the CMPA RMP. The BLM must manage public lands for all.

24. Comment: Reading below the lists of preparers and consulted and those coordinating this document I do not see who was consulted on Off Highway Vehicle recreation specifically.

The number of miles of roads in the Steens Mountain is not over inflated. They do not crisscross or litter the landscapes. The significance of being able to access the high plateaued meadows all but empty of man’s touch is an experience next to none I can describe. To have a handful of rigs each containing a family or friends exclaiming the beauty and taking into account the area’s history is tradition handed down beyond motorized vehicles.

24. Response: The BLM has a qualified staff and BLM’s Outdoor Recreation Specialist considered all types of recreational users including OHV users. Additionally, BLM scoped this project for well over a year; provided a 45-day comment period on the March 2014 EA; and provided a 30-day public comment period on the January 2015 EA to receive comments from the public, including the OHV community. All public participation is appreciated as we work to present alternatives that meet the needs of the public. Please see response to comment 22 above regarding range of alternatives, requirements under NEPA, and BLM’s mission and goals and objectives under the CMPA RMP. The BLM must manage public lands for all, as well as to preserve our natural resources.

25. Comment: Hunters, sightseers, casual Sunday drivers who have gone on those roads less traveled on tip toes have preserved the right to pass.

Closing roads because they are obscure is saying they are obsolete. No such thing could be further from the truth. Obscure routes are what the motorized vehicle recreationalist dreams of. Far from obsolete they are of high priority. All routes left open for motorized use allows for the remaining roads, routes, ways or two tracks to remain sustained; less travel on all roads by providing the obscure traditional and historic passages left by our fathers serves all purposes and causes.

Closed obscure routes or roads do not benefit the permitted grazers, or the bicyclists or any other.

Maintenance and costs to the BLM should not be considered when the public’s traditions and histories are shut down.

25. Response: Please see responses to comments 1 and 22 above regarding range of alternatives, requirements under NEPA, and BLM’s mission and goals and objectives under the CMPA RMP. The BLM must manage public lands for all, as well as to preserve our natural resources.

26. Comment: I have travelled and hunted on Steens Mountain for 60 years and used some of the obscure roads for access. As a senior citizen I still enjoy getting onto Steens Mountain and hunting chukars and use some of these obscure roads as access in my 4

wheel drive or ATV. I believe in wise multiple use on our public lands. Those mountains just seem to get higher and steeper as you grow older; a senior citizen just needs a little help getting into our back country public lands and these obscure roads really help.

26. Response: Obscure routes were closed in 2009. In September of 2014, the IBLA reopened these routes to motorized use. The BLM is following the requirements of NEPA by reexamining these routes as explained under responses to comments 1 and 22. In addition, BLM must manage public lands for all, as well as to preserve our natural resources.

27. Comment: As BLM explains in the CRP, the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) on September 30, 2014, purported to reestablish Obscure Routes. 185 IBLA at 63-64. This decision, however, was made in error. At that time, the case was before the IBLA after being remanded from the U.S. District Court. Judge Papak of the District Court specified in his April 28, 2011, Opinion and Order (Dkt # 103), “I vacate the IBLA’s decision (with the exception of the IBLA’s closure of Obscure Routes) and remand this action back to the IBLA for further proceeding.” April 28, 2011, Opinion and Order, at 9 (emphasis added). The District Court maintained this limitation in its July 8, 2011, Order on Reconsideration (Dkt # 118), concluding, “I remand the case to the agency for further explanation, but do not vacate the IBLA’s existing decision.” July 8, 2011, Opinion and Order, at 6. The IBLA’s existing decision, at that time, held that Obscure Routes were not open to motorized use. The remand order explicitly excluded that issue. Under the law of the case doctrine, “a court is precluded from re-examining an issue previously decided by the same court or a higher appellate court in the same case.” 138 IBLA 164, citing A&A Concrete, Inc. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 781 F.2d 1411, 1418 (9th Cir.) cert denied, 476 U.S. 1117 (1986); United States v. Maybusher, 735 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 1110 (1985).

Because this general rule provides that a court cannot reexamine an issue previously decided, and the remand order did not re-open the issue to the IBLA on remand, the IBLA re-decided the issue in error. Therefore, the IBLA’s February 19, 2009, decision, holding Obscure Routes as closed to motorized use, continues to control today. The IBLA’s September 30, 2014, decision is currently before the District Court. It is a live issue. If the District Court concurs with ONDA’s analysis, BLM will be forced to alter and amend the CRP accordingly. Meanwhile, it is improvident of BLM to attempt to push this issue through the backdoor. Its actions may very well lead to further litigation, and with it, an avoidable use of taxpayer money and BLM time.

Even if the District Court allows Interior to relitigate the issue of Obscure Routes, it is likely that the Court will bar BLM from implementing that part of the decision pending resolution of the TMP case. The Obscure Routes are among the most primitive to nonexistent paths on Steens Mountain. Any mechanical maintenance or driving on these routes is likely to result in irreparable harm by creating routes where none currently exist or by significantly upgrading these paths on the landscape—results which in turn will irreparably harm irreplaceable wilderness and wildlife habitat on Steens Mountain. The existing maintenance injunction, proposed by BLM itself and which protects routes far

more established than the Obscure Routes, remains in place to protect against just such irreparable harm.

27. Response: The BLM finds that the CRP process provides an appropriate opportunity to address Obscure Routes in light of updated information BLM summarized in Route Analysis Forms (RAF). While Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) disagrees with the IBLA’s September 2014 decision, this does not change the result of the IBLA ruling opening Obscure Routes. The BLM has responded appropriately by noting the IBLA ruling as the status quo in the EA. In any case, BLM has discretion to make changes to the route system provided in the TMP Decision through the CRP Decision. BLM finds this appropriate due to the information provided in BLM’s RAFs.

28. Comment: BLM has created significant confusion and contradiction about the status of the Obscure Routes under the various alternatives in this revised EA by merging the new Sub-Alternative B with the original EA. BLM must clarify the status of all Obscure Routes in each alternative including the Proposed Action.

The notion that all Obscure Routes would be closed under the remaining alternatives is contradicted throughout the remainder of the revised EA. Both the revised EA and the original EA utilize an additive approach to Alternative construction wherein the alternatives include “all portions” of the prior alternative. Therefore Alternative B must be interpreted to mean that all Obscure Routes would be open as described under Alternative A.

Similarly, Alternatives C and D are constructed in this additive fashion.

Personal communications with BLM indicate that it is not the intent of BLM to propose that all Obscure Routes remain open in Alternative C and Alternative D - Proposed. Similarly, BLM’s own webpage for the revised EA includes this description: "Under the No Action Alternative "Obscure Routes" (33 segments, totally (sic) approximately 36 miles) are now considered open and analyzed as the existing condition. Sub-Alternative B analyzes permanent closure of some "Obscure Routes," some administrative use only routes, and one All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) route. Also within Sub-Alternative B, a reroute of Little Blitzen Trailhead and roads existing prior to 2000 are being analyzed and added into the transportation system. The remaining alternatives consider all "Obscure Routes" as closed."

And this confusing error might have been partly remedied had Sub-Alternative B been described as part of the Alternative D - Proposed Action in the revised EA. The net result of this complex set of contradictions is that BLM has published a revised EA that fails to accurately communicate the action it intended to propose and the public is left confused and unable to comment on the proposed action in an informed and accurate manner. BLM must remedy this error and allow the public to comment on a corrected and coherent EA that accurately portrays the alternatives, their effects on the human environment, and precisely what is being proposed.

28. Response: Please refer to response to comment 1 above regarding the changes to the EA to clarify how the obscure routes were analyzed under each alternative. Please refer to response to comment 17 above regarding development of a new environmental analysis and selection from among alternatives during the decision process (as long as the impacts of the action were adequately analyzed).

29. Comment: BLM has not provided sufficient evidence or analysis to support the existence or designation of the Obscure Routes.

The Obscure Route analysis forms that BLM has placed on its website fail to support designation of these new roads on Steens Mountain. The absence of detailed narratives, ground-based photographs of the routes or other evidence supporting conclusions about route condition, uses and needs makes it impossible for the public to evaluate, in any way, the merits of BLM’s assertions about the Obscure Routes--including the threshold question of whether they even exist.

The most fundamental problem with opening Obscure Routes is that it would allow off- road travel and establishment of new roads within the CMPA and within existing Wilderness Study Areas. If a route is “hard to locate,” and especially if a route is “not found on the ground,” any attempt at motorized travel will necessarily result in off-road travel and establishment of new roads, because the driver will not be able to determine where the theoretical route is supposed to exist on the ground.

29. Response: The BLM has completed RAFs for every obscure route, trying to determine the existence of the route and its purpose (if any). During the public comment period in January 2015 individuals, including individuals in the SMAC, provided additional information regarding some of the obscure routes. This information will be reflected in the decision and in some cases the RAFs were updated to reflect new information. In addition, based on public comments, the BLM “ground truthed” and photographed many of the obscure routes. Photographs will be attached to the corresponding RAF and posted to the BLM website at: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/plans/steens-rec/index.php.

Finally, the BLM documented on maps these obscure routes within WSAs in the 1979 Wilderness Intensive Inventory.

30. Comment: To further complicate matters, BLM has modified the location and configuration of some of the Obscure Routes, ostensibly to correspond to 2009 aerial imagery. In some of these cases, changes correspond to routes that were created after 2000 when the Steens Act became law. In other cases, newly configured routes veer as far as a quarter mile from the original route depicted on the map. These changes are destined to cause confusion, the routes having become invisible moving targets.

30. Response: The data better pinpoints the precise location of routes originally designated in the TMP. The routes have not physically moved on the ground. The

refined GIS data do not reveal additional routes. Rather the data instead adjust the precise location of the routes. It is routine that GIS data are improved through the aid of aerial photography and as other information becomes available that better pinpoints the location of routes. The BLM makes its current GIS data available 24/7 to the public on the internet. See http://www.blm.gov/or/gis/data details.php?data=ds000041. In sharing this data, the BLM cautions that its GIS information is dynamic and may change over time, and that GIS information may be updated without notification.

31. Comment: OR-2 is a 0.9-mile route consisting of two segments (Map OR-02a). One segment corresponds to Blackline 957 and to TMP inventory route #55. The second segment extends north from Blackline 957, and is not identified as a route (Obscure or otherwise) in the TMP. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-2, the route is described as “somewhat apparent” in NAIP aerial imagery. BLM proposes to open the route under Sub-Alternative B to provide “disbursed recreation and hunting opportunities as well as access to an existing reservoir.” Although the route analysis purports that the route is “somewhat apparent” on NAIP imagery, careful inspection reveals that most of the route is not visible on either 2009 or 2000 NAIP imagery (Maps OR-02b, c, d, e). In particular, the newly fabricated north segment (0.16 miles) does not exist on either 2000 or 2009 NAIP imagery (map OR-2 b, c). BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne-AR17615) describes the entire route as “Route no longer visible” on the ground and makes the recommendation to “retire.” BLM has not provided any photographs or other new on-the ground evidence that its 2005 inventory was in error.

Anyone who attempted to travel this route, which is not visible, would be breaking new ground, not only within the CMPA (which doesn’t allow off-road travel), but also within a Wilderness Study Area (which forbids mechanized ground disturbance as well as off- road travel). It would degrade the wilderness character present in the area, not only harming its outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation, but also for solitude. Furthermore, dispersed recreation and hunting can occur in the area whether or not a route is opened up to vehicle traffic here. BLM should reserve new motor vehicle recreation and hunting for areas that are not protected for their wilderness character. Opening the route would negatively impact wildlife by allowing vehicle traffic and noise to intrude up to a mile inside the area. Vehicle travel in the area would also allow weed invasion and increase the fire danger, as well as having a direct impact on native vegetation including sagebrush. Allowing establishment of this new road will consequently add to the fragmentation of dwindling sagebrush habitat. Sagebrush habitat fragmentation is the primary driver behind the decline of Greater sage-grouse throughout its range, including Oregon. The proposed route is in habitat identified by BLM as Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as Core sage-grouse habitat. As BLM’s own route analysis points out, OR-2 is not needed for “safe access,” fire break, or implementation of ongoing or foreseeable projects.

31. Response: Obscure route OR-2 (RAF number) was identified in the 1991Wilderness Study Report, page 327, Map 1 for OR-2-86E - Blitzen River Proposal. Obscure routes were not closed to the public until 2009. In addition, this

way did appear in the 2007 TMP as an obscure route. The BLM looked at NAIP imagery to determine the condition of the routes between the years 2009 and 2011. (The IBLA initially closed the obscure routes on February 19, 2009). We then used BLM staffs’ personal knowledge of the area to determine if these routes served a purpose prior to their closure in 2009. In reference to ONDA’s black line 957, our GIS data shows this portion of the way as part of the segment on the TMP map. In addition, this segment of the way (ONDA’s referenced black line 957) is apparent on NAIP. The remaining portion of the way is less apparent, but we know it leads to a reservoir. Based on these factors, as well as other considerations documented on the RAFs, Subalternative B provided an option for changes to be made regarding the proposed status of obscure routes. Mr. Sherbourne’s inventory notes were recommendations, not decisions. The deciding official left all obscure routes as open in the 2007 TMP decision.

The question on the RAF is “Could the road be used as a successful fire break if maintained (emphasis added).” Since the road is a way, it cannot be maintained except by the passage of a vehicle; therefore, it cannot be an effective fire break. An effective fire break would need to be cleared of vegetation from between 200 and 600 feet depending upon vegetation type and structure.

For comments related to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat, please see specifically response to comment 58 in Appendix M of the EA.

32. Comment: OR-4 is a 1.3-mile route complex consisting of three segments (Map OR 04a). One segment corresponds to Blackline 1196 and another to 1182 and is TMP inventory route #49. The third segment corresponds to the east half of Blackline 1184 and is TMP inventory route #50. Route OR-4 lies in the Blitzen River WSA. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-4, the route complex is described as “somewhat obvious” in NAIP aerial imagery. BLM proposes to open the route under Sub-Alternative B to provide “disbursed recreation and hunting opportunities” as well an “alternate road” to private property and access to implement the North Steens Project and monitoring. Although the route analysis purports that the route is “somewhat obvious” on NAIP imagery, the imagery provided in BLM’s route analysis does not show any visible route! Careful independent inspection reveals a “somewhat obvious” linear feature over a 0.1 mile length, whereas the remaining 1.2 miles are not visible on either 2009 or 2000 NAIP imagery (Maps OR-4 b, c, d, e, f, g). Furthermore the “somewhat obvious” portion is not connected to any visible route. BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne-AR17615) describes the #49 portion as having an “impassable drainage crossing” and not connecting with #50 “due to lack of use.” It describes the #50 portion as “hard to follow” and recommends “could be closed entirely…simply by removing it from maps.” BLM has not provided any photographs or other new on-the-ground evidence that its 2005 inventory was in error.

There are several problems with opening OR-4 for public motorized travel. The #49 portion (Blacklines 1182 and 1196) has an “impassable drainage crossing” at its south entrance. New road construction would be necessary (in a WSA, remember) to re-connect

the route, which in turn is not visible for most of its length. Similarly, the #50 portion is “hard to follow” and does not connect with #49 “due to lack of use.” In order to connect the two segments, a vehicle would have to break new ground until it reached the invisible #50. It suffers the same problems, then, as the #50 portion, and for the same reasons.

32. Response: All obscure segments (RAF number OR-4) were identified in the Wilderness Study Report, 1991, page 327, Map 1 for OR-2-86E - Blitzen River Proposal. Obscure routes were not closed to the public until 2009. This way did appear in the 2007 TMP as an obscure route. The BLM looked at NAIP imagery to determine the condition of the routes between the years 2009 and 2011. (The IBLA initially closed the obscure routes on February 19, 2009). We then used BLM staffs’ personal knowledge of the area to determine if these routes served a purpose prior to their closure in 2009. In reference to TMP inventory route #49, “…delete this portion of route due to impassible drainage...”, the BLM staff traveled this way during summer 2013 on ATVs (personal communications). In reference to ONDA’s black line 1182, our GIS data shows this portion of the way on our TMP map. Based on these factors, as well as other considerations documented on the RAFs, Subalternative B provided an option for changes to be made regarding the proposed status of obscure routes. Mr. Sherbourne’s inventory notes were recommendations, not decisions, and these routes were inventoried 4 years prior to their closure. In reference to TMP inventory route #50, this number does not appear on the TMP inventory map.

ONDA’s segment #1 is clearly visible on the 2000 NAIP; Segment 2 is somewhat visible; and Segment 3 is somewhat visible in places, which coincides with BLM’s overall statement of “somewhat obvious on NAIP”. These segments of ways connect together two larger segments currently open to the public.

Please see the response to comment 31 regarding OR-2 for information concerning fire breaks and sage-grouse habitat.

33. Comment: OR-6 is a 3.0-mile route complex consisting of five segments (Map OR 06a). All 5 segments of Route OR-6 lie in the Blitzen River WSA. The west-most segment (0.24 mi) may correspond to Blackline 669, although the two route lines lie from 0.1 to 0.2 miles from each other. Another segment (1.2 mi) extends east from the first segment, and possibly corresponds to Blackline 722, although the two route lines lie 0.2 miles apart for most of their length. These two segments are part of TMP inventory route #15. The third segment (0.15 mi) is not identified as a route under the TMP. A fourth segment (0.13 miles) is not identified as a route under the TMP, and is proposed for closure under the revised EA/FONSI. The fifth east-most segment extends east from Blackline 811, then veers northward to join a segment of Blackline 825. Approximately 0.8 miles of this 1.3-mile segment does not correspond to a route identified in the TMP. This route is TMP inventory route #133. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-6, the route complex is described as “apparent” in NAIP in sections 10, 11, and 14. None of the routes are apparent in the other sections including 19, 23, and 24. BLM proposes to open the route segments under Sub-Alternative B to provide access for hunting

opportunities, water developments, and monitoring. Although the route analysis purports that the route is “apparent” in sections 10, 11, and 14 on NAIP imagery, the linear features are quite distant (0.1-0.2 mi.) from the routes identified in the TMP and in places not visible in 2000 NAIP imagery (Maps OR-6b, c, d). The remainder of the route complex is not visible on NAIP imagery, either from 2000 or 2009 (Maps OR-6f, g). BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne-AR17615) describes the #15 portion as “nonexistent or almost nonexistent” and the #133 portion was not given a physical description.

The western segments as shown are not identified in the TMP, although they do follow a parallel linear feature visible on NAIP. The dissimilarity between the TMP route and the revised CRP route attests to BLM’s on-the-ground observation that these routes are “nonexistent or almost nonexistent.” Regardless of what NAIP imagery might show from the air, such linear features may not be visible on the ground, as is the case here. The third segment does not correspond to any route identified in the TMP. Aerial imagery from 2000 shows a single-track cow trail leading to the reservoir (Map OR-06d). 2009 shows a two-track linear feature not present on the 2000 imagery, and suggests unauthorized off-road travel and establishment of a new route since 2000 (Map OR-06e). There is no legal justification for establishing a new route here in a WSA within the CMPA. It is also in PPH and Core sage-grouse habitat.

The fourth segment, like the previous one does not correspond to any route identified in the TMP. There is no evidence of a route here, either on 2000 or 2009 aerial imagery. It is proposed for closure under Sub-Alternative B. However, because the route segment does not legally exist, there is no need to propose closure under NEPA.

The final, east-most segment extends east from the terminus of TMP Blackline 811. This portion of the segment does not correspond to any route identified in the TMP (Map OR 6 f, g). It eventually joins Blackline 825, which is not visible on either 2000 NAIP or 2009 NAIP over its entire course. (Map OR-6h, i).

33. Response: All obscure routes for OR-6 (RAF number) were identified in the Wilderness Study Report, 1991, page 327, Map 1 for OR-2-86E - Blitzen River Proposal. Obscure routes were not closed to the public until 2009. The obscure routes are shown on the TMP Decision map and partially correspond to route number 133 on the TMP inventory map. The RAF addresses three segments rather than the five mentioned. ONDA’s segments 1 and 2 should be combined as well as segments 4 and 5. TMP Inventory Route #15 is part of RAF OR-8. ONDA’s segment 5 or TMP inventory route #133 connects two existing ways together providing through access for hunting opportunities.

Please see response to comment 31 regarding OR-2 for information regarding BLM’s process for consideration of “obscure routes”, information regarding fire breaks, and responses to effects to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

34. Comment: OR-7 is one of the proposed new routes that were not in the TMP called "Pre-2000 Existing" routes. ONDA requests that BLM clarify why this route was not

included in the TMP and provide documentation of the route’s existence prior to passage of the Steens Act.

34. Response: The TMP Decision (2007) states, “Changes may need to be made to the transportation system in terms of adding or closing certain routes or changing maintenance levels to meet management objectives.” (p. 14).

35. Comment: OR-11 is a 0.9-mile route extending south from a WSA way named “Weaver Road.” OR-11 corresponds to Blackline 1221. This proposed route is TMP inventory route #47. Route OR-11 lies in the South Fork Donner Und Blitzen WSA. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-11, the route complex is described as “apparent” on NAIP. BLM proposes to open the route segments under Sub-Alternative B to provide access for hunting, dispersed recreation, and monitoring. Although the route analysis purports that the route is “apparent” on NAIP imagery, careful study reveals several single track animal trails radiating from a reservoir at the beginning of the route, but no evidence of a road (Map OR-11 a, b). In fact, the entire length of OR-11 follows a single track animal trail (Maps OR-11c, d, e, f). BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne AR17615) could not locate a vehicle route past the reservoir (“Way only evident to reservoir”). 2000 NAIP imagery shows animal trails unchanged from the 2009 imagery. It is safe to conclude that no vehicle route existed past the reservoir when the Steens Act became law in 2000 as was the case in 2005.

There are several problems with opening OR-11 for public motorized travel. First, there is no visible route on the ground, as pointed out in BLM’s own 2005 inventory. Dispersed recreation and hunting can occur in the area whether or not a route is opened to vehicle traffic here. BLM should reserve new motor vehicle recreation and hunting for areas that are not protected for their wilderness character.

35. Response: This obscure route (RAF number OR-11) was identified in the Wilderness Study Report, 1991, page 303, Map 1 for OR-2-85G - South Fork Donner und Blitzen River Proposal. Obscure routes were not closed to the public until 2009. As stated, the route is visible on NAIP and provides for dispersed camping and hunting opportunities.

36. Comment: OR-12 is a 0.23-mile route corresponding to Blackline 1225. This route is TMP 2005 inventory route #46. Route OR-12 lies in the South Fork Donner Und Blitzen WSA. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-12, the route complex is described as “apparent” on NAIP, and is “very apparent on-the-ground,” although no photo documentation is provided. BLM proposes to open the route segments under Sub- Alternative B to provide access for wild horse viewing and monitoring. Although the route is visible as a linear feature on 2000, 2005, and 2009 NAIP imagery (Map OR-12 a,b,c), there is no on-the-ground documentation that this route actually exists. Linear

features that are visible on NAIP imagery are not necessarily visible on the ground. BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne-AR17615) states that the route is “no longer visible.” BLM’s conflicting inventory reports should be resolved by on-the-ground photographic documentation to confirm the actual status of this route.

There are several problems with opening OR-12 for public motorized travel. First, there are conflicting assertions by BLM’s own inventory managers as to whether or not the route is visible on the ground.

36. Response: Obscure route (RAF) OR-12 was identified in the Wilderness Study Report, 1991, page 303, Map 1 for OR-2-85G - South Fork Donner und Blitzen River Proposal. Obscure routes were not closed to the public until 2009. This particular route is very apparent on NAIP and leads to Long Dam used by wild horses; therefore, providing an excellent opportunity for wild horse viewing. Please see response to comment 31 regarding OR-2 for information regarding BLM’s process for consideration of “obscure routes”, information regarding fire breaks, and responses to effects to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

37. Comment: OR-17 is a 1.8-mile route complex consisting of three segments. All three segments correspond to BLM’s TMP 2005 inventory route #25 (Map OR-17a). The southern-most segment enters from County Road 202 (Catlow Valley Road) and runs NNW for 0.22 mi. This segment corresponds to Blackline 1481. The second segment extends NNW from the first segment, and corresponds to a 0.24 mile portion of Blackline 1385. The third segment extends 1.3 miles east from the junction of the first two segments, and corresponds to Blackline 1386. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-17, the route complex is described as “apparent” on NAIP. BLM proposes to open the route segments under Sub-Alternative B to provide access for hunting and distribution of salt. Mechanical maintenance would be provided for under the alternative. Although the route analysis purports that the route is “apparent on NAIP imagery, careful study reveals old road scars over the location of the first two segments, but only a single track animal trail in the eastern 0.2 miles, and no trace of a linear feature for the remaining 1.1 miles, either on 2000 or 2009 NAIP imagery (Maps OR-17b, c, d, e, f, g). BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne-AR17615) states, “route no longer used, delete from system,” and adds that a county ditch blocks access from the north.

There are several problems with opening OR-17 for public motorized travel. First, there was no public use of this route when the Steens Act was enacted in 2000. This is clearly demonstrated by 2000 NAIP imagery, which is unchanged from 2005 NAIP imagery. There is no visible route over most of OR-17. Vehicle travel and mechanical maintenance in the area would also allow weed invasion and increase the fire danger, as well as having a direct impact on native vegetation.

37. Response: The RAF failed to mention the fact the road also provides access to an old mine for historians and geologists. This particular route is outside WSA. The TMP indicated the route was an obscure route.

Please see response to comment 31 regarding OR-2 for information regarding BLM’s process for consideration of “obscure routes” and information regarding fire breaks.

38. Comment: OR-20 is a 1.5-mile route complex consisting of three segments. Two of the three segments correspond to BLM’s TMP 2005 inventory route #105. About half of the NE segment corresponds to route #105 and the other half does not correspond to any route identified in the TMP (Map OR-20a). The southwestern-most segment is an extension of BLM 8243-C0 and runs NNE for 0.5 mi. to the top of a ridge and corresponds to Blackline 593. BLM reconfigured this segment slightly to correspond to a linear feature visible on NAIP imagery. The second segment continues NNE from the first segment for 0.09 mi, and corresponds to a fraction of Blackline 586. The third segment continues NNE from the second segment along TMP Blackline 586 for 0.36 mile to a waterhole. The remaining 0.9 miles veers away from the TMP route and cuts across to a reservoir near the terminus Blackline 586. A portion of OR-20 is 0.25 miles from the nearest TMP route [Map OR-2f]. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR 20, the route complex is described as “visible” on NAIP. BLM proposes to open the route segments under Sub-Alternative B to provide access for hunting opportunities, water developments, monitoring, and implementation of the North Steens Project. Mechanical maintenance would be provided for under the alternative. Although the route analysis purports that the route is “visible” on NAIP imagery, careful study reveals only some portions to be visible on both 2000 and 2009 NAIP imagery (Maps OR-2b, c, d, e). Linear features that are visible on NAIP imagery are not necessarily visible on the ground. BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne-AR17615) describes the route as “hard to find.” The fact that BLM has reconfigured the new route to as far as a quarter mile away from the official TMP route attests to just how “hard to find” it is. As true for each of the Obscure routes it proposes to open, BLM has provided no on-the-ground photographic evidence of its existence.

There are several problems with opening OR-20 for public motorized travel. First, 0.9 mile portion is not identified as a route under the TMP. Secondly, the route is “hard to find,” and in fact the discrepancy between the original route delineated in the TMP and this new iteration clearly suggests that the route is not visible on the ground. BLM provides no on-the-ground photographic documentation that its new route location is visible on the ground. Secondly, there is no indication that this “hard to find” route has ever been constructed or mechanically maintained. Any mechanical maintenance on the route would comprise new road construction, which is expressly forbidden by the Steens Act.

38. Response: This entire route was identified in the TMP as an obscure route. The route is outside a WSA. The road is obvious on NAIP where it meanders through vegetation and crosses a low sagebrush flat. This road connects to two other road segments aiding in creating a road loop. Please see response to comment 31 regarding OR-2 for information regarding BLM’s process for consideration of “obscure routes”, information regarding fire breaks, response

regarding updating GIS data, and responses to effects to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

39. Comment: OR-26 is a 0.7 mile route segment corresponding to a portion of TMP Blackline 182. OR-28 corresponds to BLM’s TMP 2005 inventory route #149. BLM has reconfigured OR-26 to follow a two-track that was not present in 2002, but has been illegally created after 2009. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-26, the route complex is described as “somewhat obvious on NAIP and appears to follow a drainage.” However, although the TMP depiction does follow the stream bed, the reconfigured OR 28 stays away from the drainage to the east, except for the southernmost 0.2 miles. BLM proposes to open the route for public use under Sub-Alternative B to provide for indirect access to private property and for fence maintenance. Although the route analysis purports that the route can be seen on NAIP imagery, careful inspection reveals that the route is not visible on either 2009 or 2000 NAIP imagery (Maps OR-26 a, b). A two-track route created since 2009 can be seen on very recent NAIP imagery (Map OR-26 c). The public has not been granted access to its 2005 inventory findings (Sherborne-AR17615), so it is not possible to say what it found on the ground in 2005. BLM has not provided any photographs or other new evidence that the route is visible on the ground. The evidence that it has provided (2009 NAIP imagery) contradicts BLM’s statement that the route “can be seen on NAIP.”

There are several problems with opening OR-26 for public motorized travel. First, the route did not exist in 2000 when the Steens Act became law, as evidenced by 2000 NAIP imagery. To establish a new route here would be a clear violation of the Act.

39. Response: RAF OR-26 route was shown on the TMP decision map as an obscure route and is outside WSA. This small segment connects two larger segments of road together and follows one of the Five Creeks Restoration Project unit boundaries. Please see response to comment 31 regarding OR-2 for information regarding BLM’s process for consideration of “obscure routes”, information regarding fire breaks, response regarding updating GIS data, and responses to effects to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

It appears the comments for RAFs OR-26 and OR-28 routes were combined under OR-26. RAF OR-28 route was analyzed as an ATV route. This way connects sections of two other ways creating a loop. RAF OR-28 route follows a drainage over rocky terrain and accesses two reservoirs. This way was shown on the TMP decision map as an obscure route. This way corresponds to TMP inventory route #43 and acknowledges the route creates a loop and should remain open. This route was visited by BLM personnel on October 29, 2014 (personal calendar entry). The way is encroached by junipers making it primarily passable only by ATVs.

40. Comment: OR-33 is one of the proposed new routes that were not in the TMP called "Pre-2000 Existing" routes. Most of OR-33 is not visible on 2000 NAIP. ONDA requests

that BLM clarify why this route was not included in the TMP and provide documentation of the route’s existence prior to passage of the Steens Act.

40. Response: After further investigation, it was concluded this road was created in 2006 during wildland fire suppression activities. This will be reflected in the decision record.

41. Comment: OR-37 is a 0.19 mile route segment corresponding to TMP Blackline 1366 and to BLM’s TMP 2005 inventory route #30c. OR-37 follows a steep hillside to an abandoned mine site. In BLM’s CRP Route Analysis form for OR-37, the route is described as “visible” on NAIP. BLM proposes to open the route under Sub-Alternative B to provide access to the mine. Although the route analysis purports that the route is “visible” on NAIP imagery, careful inspection reveals that the entrance is not visible on either 2000 or 2009 NAIP. (Maps OR-37 a, b). BLM’s 2005 inventory (Sherborne AR17615) describes the route as “not found so remove from system.” BLM has not provided any photographs or other new evidence that the route is visible on the ground.

There are several problems with opening OR-37 for public motorized travel. First, the entrance to the route is not visible, and was not visible in 2000 when the Steens Act became law, as evidenced by 2000 NAIP imagery.

41. Response: The road is visible on NAIP and provides access to a historical mine site/area for geology enthusiasts. The road is outside WSA and was identified in the TMP decision as an obscure route. As stated, the road is 0.19 mile and considered a spur road.

Please see response to comment 31 regarding OR-2 for information regarding BLM’s process for consideration of “obscure routes”, information regarding fire breaks, response regarding updating GIS data, and responses to effects to sage- grouse and sagebrush habitat.

42. Comment: PR-39 is one of the proposed new routes that were not in the TMP called "Pre-2000 Existing" routes. ONDA requests that BLM clarify why this route was not included in the TMP and provide documentation of the route’s existence prior to passage of the Steens Act.

42. Response: This road leads to private lands and a large, constructed reservoir. This road was visited by BLM personnel on October 29, 2014 (personal calendar entry). The road exists on the ground and is outside WSA.

43. Comment: The need and appropriateness of designating the following Obscure Routes for Administrative Use only is unsubstantiated by the EA and Route Analysis forms. In most cases, part or all of the route is not visible on 2009 NAIP imagery and no reference is made in the route analysis forms or accompanying aerial images to the status of the route at the time of the Steens Act. The route analysis forms provide scant analysis of any needs or past uses of these routes and offer insufficient support for their designation.

43. Response: Obscure routes within WSAs were documented in the 1979 Wilderness Intensive Inventory. The routes were designated as either a “way” or a “road”. The term “obscure route” was not used. The FLPMA provided the definition of a way as a route (or “way”) created by the passage of vehicles. Routes that were constructed were designated roads. In 1980, the Wilderness Review Intensive Inventory documented the boundaries of inventoried units using the FLPMA road v. way criteria. The boundaries were described by roads and other features such as ROWs and land ownership boundaries. The units were further inventoried for size, naturalness, solitude, recreation, and supplemental values. A proposed decision with rationale for the unit was suggested in the unit description. In 1991 the Wilderness Study Report was published. The report provides a more detailed study of the specific environment for each WSA. Maps included in the report show each unit’s boundary roads and those roads “cherry stemmed” (technically outside WSA) into private inholdings. Obscure routes within WSAs are considered ways.

Administrative routes (RAFs OR-9, OR-10, OR-15, OR-18, OR-21, OR-28, OR-29, OR-32 and OR-38) would be available to permittees, landowners, contractors, and BLM employees. BLM retains full administrative access on these routes. These roads will be used on an as-needed basis by BLM and BLM contractors for activities including, but not limited to, monitoring and accessing range improvements for maintenance purposes. Grazing permittees may use these routes as well, on an as-needed basis, for access to range improvements they maintain within their authorized allotments, for salting for their livestock within their authorized allotments, and for access to their private lands. Landowners will have access to their deeded lands or lands they administer for an individual under a lease. Any valid existing rights (ROWs) would not be impacted by these route closures. The Steens Act allows for off- road travel for administrative purposes including emergencies and for the construction or maintenance of agricultural facilities, fish and wildlife management, or ecological restoration projects.

RAF OR-9 route provides access to a very visible reservoir on NAIP and connects to a historical route identified in the TMP.

RAF OR-10 route provides access to help in gathering wild horses and monitoring for wild horses and grazing. This route connects existing routes together creating a loop. The route is within the South Steens HMA.

RAF OR-15 route is apparent on NAIP and provides access for wild horse and grazing monitoring. The route is within the South Steens HMA.

RAF OR-18 route provides access to an existing water development and also provides access for monitoring.

RAF OR-21 route connects two existing roads to two parcels of private land and provides for access for wild horse and grazing monitoring. The route is within the South Steens HMA.

RAF OR-28 route was addressed above under OR-26.

RAF OR-29 route provides access to an existing water development and also provides access for wild horse and grazing monitoring; when the waterhole is full, the area receives a lot of wild horse use. A hunting camp is located at the drainage before the waterhole (personal communications with permittee on February 26, 2015).

RAF OR-32 route provides access to an existing reservoir (RIPS #711328) as well as to a fence line for maintenance.

RAF OR-38 route would only be available to the permittee for grazing management as a public easement across private lands does not exist to access OR-38. The route is visible on NAIP.

44. Comment: The revised EA makes clear that even if BLM could appropriately consider designating and opening any of the Obscure Routes there would be detrimental impacts to wilderness characteristics in Wilderness Study Areas. The EA acknowledges:

The effect to the wilderness characteristics of the WSAs as a result of opening the Obscure Routes [is that] there would be a potential for increased use. Increased use of the routes would, over time, increase the visibility of the routes. Obscure routes that lead to the river corridors would likely see more motorized use than the other Obscure Routes. This use would likely be for recreational activities such as hunting and fishing. Other Obscure Routes would be used by motorized visitors, but to a lesser degree, to explore on ways previously administratively closed by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decision. Reopening these routes would diminish outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive type of recreation. Increased access would increase opportunities for visitor encounters with nonmotorized visitors, diminishing opportunities for solitude.

Revised EA at 144.

This type of impact, including diminished opportunities for solitude or a primitive type of recreation, is inconsistent with FLPMA and BLM’s non-impairment criteria for the management of activities in Wilderness Study Areas which directs the agency to manage WSAs in a manner that maintains the area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness. BLM Policy speaks explicitly to this issue of maintaining improved conditions. “FLPMA requires the BLM to manage all WSAs "so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.” “If wilderness characteristics have improved since 1976 for a particular WSA, it is the policy of the BLM to not allow actions that would cause the regression of the WSA to its 1976 condition. For example, if primitive routes have been closed and rehabilitated, the BLM will not permit them to be re-established. The benchmark for the non-impairment standard is the condition in 1976 or current condition of the WSA, whichever is the better condition of wilderness characteristics.” (BLM Manual 6330 Sec. 1.6.B.6)

44. Response: Obscure routes within WSAs were documented in the 1979 Wilderness Intensive Inventory. The routes were designated as either a “way” or a “road”. The term “obscure route” was not used. The FLPMA provided the definition of a way as a route (or “way”) created by the passage of vehicles. Routes that were constructed were designated as roads. In March 1980, the Wilderness Review Intensive Inventory documented the boundaries of inventoried units using the FLPMA road v. way criteria. The boundaries were described by roads and other features such as rights-of-ways and land ownership boundaries. The units were further inventoried for size, naturalness, solitude, recreation, and supplemental values. A proposed decision with rationale for the unit was suggested in the unit description. In 1991 the Wilderness Study Report (Report) was published. The Report provides a more detailed study of the specific environment for each WSA and includes maps displaying each unit’s boundary roads and roads “cherry stemmed” (routes technically outside WSA) into private inholdings. All other routes are considered ways.

The Report found these areas either suitable or non-suitable for wilderness designation and was sent to Congress for consideration. In the absence of a final decision for designation of wilderness, all suitable and/or non-suitable areas became WSA. The BLM met the requirements of FLPMA by conducting this inventory and showing all these routes on the original maps. These areas are still WSA in spite of the fact the presence of a way exists. Effects to wilderness character have been addressed in the environmental effects section for WSAs. See page 143of the EA.

45. Comment: Designating Obscure Routes as Open or For Administrative Use Only would result in impacts to the existing condition of vegetation. At page 121 the EA states that: "The reopening of the Obscure Routes to motorized access would trample the vegetation that has re-established since the routes were closed in 2009." BLM cannot

approve route designations that would result in this type of impact to current WSA condition and must therefore maintain the permanent closure of Obscure Routes.

45. Response: See response to comment 32 above regarding wilderness inventory and the 1991 Wilderness Study Report. The Steens Act does not exclude routes that have become overgrown or otherwise naturally reclaimed, but whose line may be traces on the ground, nor exclude routes that have been infrequently used in the past. Nor does it exclude routes that exist only as a matter of record. While difficult or hard to locate on the ground, routes that are obscure do, in fact, exist. Effects to upland vegetation have been addressed in the environmental effects section for upland vegetation (page 107).

46. Comment: Designating Obscure Routes as Open or For Administrative Use Only would also harm wildlife habitat and vegetation within the CMPA. ONDA provided extensive comments regarding the impacts to wildlife, including Greater sage-grouse, from roads and road maintenance in our March 2014 comments. The impacts cited in those comments apply equally, if not more so, to Obscure Routes that would be designated as Open or For Administrative Use Only and clearly support the permanent closure of all Obscure Routes.

46. Response: Effects to wildlife have been addressed in the environmental effects section for wildlife (page 149). Also, please refer specifically to response to comment 58 in Appendix M of the EA regarding impacts to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

47. Comment: ONDA requested that BLM integrate the Steens TP, TMP, and CRP into a single, comprehensive plan. Only a truly comprehensive analysis and plan would comply with the Steens Act, FLPMA, and NEPA. BLM has resisted this for a decade now. BLM argues that the Court in ONDA v. Shuford, No. 06-242-AA, allowed BLM to use the information in the TP and TMP. EA at 245. This does not change the fact that these documents must be merged into a single plan in order to be considered a comprehensive analysis.

47. Response: The BLM disagrees with ONDA’s contention that the Steens TP, TMP, and CRP need to be written in a single plan to be comprehensive. ONDA argued this to the District Court of Oregon, but the Court declined ONDA’s request to vacate the Transportation Plan and did not hold that a separate Comprehensive Recreation Plan was unlawful. (ONDA et al. v. Shuford (BLM) et al., Civ. No. 06-242-AA (D.Or. June 8, 2007), 08-35942 (9th Cir.)). BLM completed a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the entire CMPA and this RMP expressly noted that a host of activities, such as recreation and travel, would also need to be considered in separate, step-down plans. The RMP specifically directs that any actions to accommodate or manage existing or anticipated recreation use will be addressed and analyzed in a later comprehensive recreation plan.

48. Comment: ONDA repeats its previous request that BLM include a map that illustrates the current CMPA route network. The map should demarcate designated maintenance levels, maintenance intensities, and which routes are limited due to the court injunction arising from the U.S. District Court’s July 8, 2011 decision. This missing information is an essential part of the environmental baseline necessary to inform any analysis and decision for the CRP. Without an accurate baseline, there is no way to ensure meaningful public review and an informed agency decision.

48. Response: Information for maintenance intensities of motorized routes in the CMPA ROD and RMP is on page 62. Further maintenance guidance on specific motorized roads relative to the case 3:09-cv-00369-PK, ONDA v. McDaniel, are found on the Injunction Map.

Comments regarding fencing, sage-grouse habitat connectivity, potential fragmentation, lands with wilderness character, and cumulative effects were addressed and responses may be found in Appendix M of the EA (Response to Comments).

49. Comment: Until active litigation of the Obscure Routes issue is resolved it is an unwise and wasteful use of agency resources to continue to pursue the designation of Obscure Routes through the revised EA or any other effort. BLM has failed to sufficiently respond to public comments and information requests from the original EA and together these numerous deficiencies have led to unworkable proposed action and indefensible analysis that must be withdrawn and reconsidered.

49. Response: Please see response to comment 17 above regarding moving forward with analysis of obscure routes, BLM’s ability to pick and choose amongst alternatives, and supplementing EAs.

The BLM has sufficiently reached out to the public for comments during scoping and two public comment periods and addressed all substantive comments from both public comment periods. Please refer to the first set of Responses to Comments in Appendix M of the EA. Changes were also made to the EA in response to many of these comments.

50. Comment: As the steward of this unique landscape, we encourage BLM to reject the IBLA holding that obscure routes can – no matter how remote, overgrown, and unidentifiable - be considered existing routes for purposes of travel management planning since doing so would be inconsistent with BLM’s current route classification standards. In addition, BLM should reject the IBLA decision that obscure routes are valid routes, as a matter of agency policy, since designating obscure routes in travel management plans would consistently violate BLM’s OHV use minimization criteria, among other policies.

50. Response: Please refer to responses to comments above regarding BLM’s consideration of each obscure route.

51. Comment: When developing travel management policies, BLM is authorized to designate three types of travel routes within planning areas: roads, primitive roads, and trails. BLM Manual 1626. In addition, BLM must provide a process for selecting these specific routes and ultimately designate them as open, limited or closed to vehicle use. Id. In BLM managed Wilderness Study Areas (WSA), the agency may designate “primitive routes.” See, Manuals 1626 and 6330. Obscure routes, however, are not a formally recognized route classification under either general BLM travel and transportation policy or BLM WSA management policy. Since obscure routes are not a valid route classification for either area, both of which overlap the Steens Mountain CRP area, BLM should not include them within its proposed travel management plans.

Since obscure routes should not be recognized under BLM travel policy in general, they should not be considered among existing route inventories within the Steens Mountain CRP. Under the Steens Act, vehicle travel is restricted in the area to preexisting designated roads and trails, thereby prohibiting “off road” motorized vehicle use and the development of new routes within the plan area. Steens Act, 16 U.S.C. §460nnn 22(d)(1)(2006), ONDA, et al., 185 IBLA 59. By allowing obscure routes – a nonexistent route classification – to be considered for existing route status, BLM is effectively proposing new routes in the Steers Mountain CMPA where they are prohibited by statute. To do so contracts both established agency route classification policies and the statute governing the management of the Steens Mountain CMPA.

51. Response: BLM Manual 1626 (Rel. 1-1731) .06 Policy states, “Travel and transportation management (TTM) is a comprehensive approach to on-the-ground management and administration of travel and transportation networks of roads, primitive roads, and trails, and areas.”

BLM Manual 1626 B.4 notes that in WSAs motorized/mechanized linear transportation features may be identified in a transportation inventory as a motorized/mechanized “primitive route”. The glossary within the manual defines Primitive Route as, “Any transportation linear feature located within a WSA or lands with wilderness characteristics designated for protection by a land use plan and not meeting the wilderness inventory road definition.”

The term “obscure route” will no longer be used. Hereafter the obscure routes noted in the CMPA TMP will be referred to as primitive routes.

43 CFR 8342.1 requires all public lands to have an OHV area designation. Areas must be designated as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. Open, limited, and closed areas are defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5, (f), (g) and (h) respectively. Where open areas allow cross-country travel, limited areas limit OHV use to designated routes (road, primitive road, and trail) and can be further limited by types or modes of travel. Closed areas prohibit motorized vehicle travel altogether. These designations were made during the RMP process.

See response to comment 2.

52. Comment: BLM must comply with Federal Regulations (43 C.F.R. §§8342.1 and 8342.2) and Executive Orders (E.O.) 11644 and 11989 to minimize impacts and damages caused by OHV-use on public lands. To do so, the agency must ensure that the OHV area and route designations are managed to minimize the conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreation visitors, the natural, esthetic, and the scenic values of special designation areas. 43 C.F.R. §8342.1. To designate vehicle routes and trails consistent with agency policy, BLM must locate roads, primitive roads, and trails in order to:

(1) minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; (2) minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and (3) minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands.

52. Response: BLM has complied with the Federal Regulations and Executive Orders by analyzing the obscure routes in the EA and presenting the effects to resources such as wildlife, habitat, and vegetation. As stated above, OHV designations were made during the RMP process. The Steens Act prohibits off road travel with two exceptions - administrative purposes, including emergencies, and for the construction or maintenance of agricultural facilities, fish and wildlife management, or ecological restoration projects.

53. Comment: Similarly, travel planning in Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) includes its own minimization criteria for identifying recreation routes. Under BLM Manual 6330, recreational motorized or mechanical vehicle use in WSAs is only allowed when the use is consistent with applicable laws and meets the WSA non-impairment standard. This requires BLM to demonstrate that all uses and facilities within the WSA are both temporary and do not create a surface disturbance. BLM Manual 6330.06(C). For example, existing designated open areas and pre-Wilderness Act primitive roads may be permissible within a WSA, but primitive routes may not be improved or maintained since this would create additional surface disturbance. Id, at .06(D)(6)(b).

Therefore, to ensure that the minimization and nonimpairment criteria are applied correctly, BLM must provide evidence documenting how it has considered and analyzed existing and proposed routes, plus potential OHV impacts in the plan area. BLM Manual 1626.06(A)(2)(a), 1626.06(B), and 6330. However, courts have held that BLM cannot assess these routes in a general sense, but must analyze all routes on a “route specific level” in order to “assess the effects of route designations.” See, S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Burke, 981 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1104-06 (D. Utah 2013). Similarly, the court in Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM, held that a detailed survey and inventory of routes is still considered inadequate if “there is nothing in the record to show that the minimization criteria were in fact applied when OHV routes were designated.” 746 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1071-81 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

As a result, even if obscure routes were an approved route classification under BLM policy and could be considered “existing routes” as suggested by the IBLA, obscure route designations in travel management plans will not surpass court scrutiny since it will not meet the minimization criteria. The nature of obscure routes inhibits BLM’s ability to properly find, map, and assess their impacts on their surroundings, and, as a result, BLM cannot properly apply its minimization criteria, a violation of agency policy and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§4321, et seq.

53. Response: The BLM has conducted site visits, photographed, and completed route analysis forms (RAFs) on the obscure routes within the EA. The vast majority of the routes analyzed confirm they exist on the ground, although they range from clearly existent to barely existent. Nonetheless, they exist, and accordingly could be designated by BLM, pursuant to the Steens Act.

These obscure routes were recognized, identified, and mapped in the TMP and analyzed in the updated EA. The decision for the CRP will update terminology so that “Obscure Routes” referenced in the EA will be designated as “Primitive Routes” per BLM Manual 1626 “Travel and Transportation Management”. The term “Obscure Route” will no longer be used.

Again, OHV designations were made during the RMP process and the Steens Act prohibits off road travel with two exceptions - administrative purposes, including emergencies, and for the construction or maintenance of agricultural facilities, fish and wildlife management, or ecological restoration projects.

54. Comment: Since BLM is obligated to assess how motorized activities may impact the plan area and to choose a plan that minimizes impacts, it must have accurate data and maps of all motorized vehicle routes in the plan area. Obscure routes, however, are notoriously difficult to find, hard to map and lack agency inventory. As a result, there is no way BLM can conduct a sufficiently thorough analysis of these routes and will consistently violate its statutory, regulatory, and internal guidance requirements to minimize impacts from OHV travel within the plan area. As a matter of agency policy, BLM should reject the IBLA’s finding that obscure routes in the Steens Mountain CRP may be considered existing routes and designated within the final Steens Mountain CRP.

54. Response: All issues identified in this comment have been addressed above. Obscure routes have been thoroughly analyzed and BLM is reassessing BLM’s 2007 TMP decision.

55. Comment: The IBLA decision permitting BLM to consider obscure routes as possible existing routes within the Steens Mountain CRP is inconsistent with agency policy and should not be adopted. Similarly, BLM’s minimization criteria and existing case law require BLM to produce thorough details, analysis, and accurate route maps when making travel management planning decisions. Routes that cannot be identified or mapped also cannot be analyzed, and to include them in travel management plans without proper documentation will consistently violate agency policy and guidance requirements.

Although BLM may now consider obscure routes as possible existing routes within the Steens Mountain CRP, the agency is not obligated to do so. Therefore, we encourage BLM to remove obscure routes from consideration as existing routes within the Steens Mountain CRP thereby closing all obscure routes to motorized vehicles within the plan area. Doing so will not only result in a better and more enforceable recreation travel policy within the Steens Mountain CMPA, but also help the agency avoid inevitable legal challenges to BLM’s compliance with its minimization criteria.

55. Response: All issues have been responded to above.

APPENDIX B

ROAD MAINTENANCE DEFINITION COMPARISON SUMMARY

Appendix M of the CMPA RMP describes the Route Management Categories based on the primary purposes and uses of individual routes. Maintenance Levels outline the degree of maintenance to be performed on individual roads. The subsequent TMP also refers to maintenance levels.

For planning purposes, the BLM as a whole is using updated terminology for the Bureau’s Facility Asset Management System (FAMS) database for the BLM roads inventory. The terminology used in FAMS is referred to as road “Maintenance Intensity”. In an Opinion and Order, dated September 28, 2012, for case 3:09-cv-00369-PK states, “BLM explains that the agency endeavored at a national level to phase out the “Maintenance Level” terminology employed in the TMP in favor of the “Maintenance Intensity” terminology used in the 9113 Roads Manual in order to ensure consistency of implementation. Thus, BLM contends that Maintenance Intensity 1 as defined in the 9113 Roads Manual does not exceed Maintenance Level 2 as defined in the TMP and that Maintenance Intensity 3 in the 9113 Roads Manual does not exceed Maintenance Level 3 as defined in the TMP.” Honorable Paul Papak, United State Magistrate Judge, stated, “I agree with BLM on this point.”

Maintenance Intensity within BLM Road Manual 9113 and Maintenance Level within Steens Mountain CMPA RMP/ROD; AMU RMP/ROD; and, Steens Mountain TMP.

This supplemental statement is provided to help summarize the definitions and crosswalk from Maintenance Level to Maintenance Intensity. Converting from Maintenance Level to Maintenance Intensity was a joint effort, involving several divisions within the Bureau of Land Management to eliminate erroneous use and inconsistent interpretations of the terms used to describe the maintenance of linear features. Maintenance Level is not a design and construction standard and should not be used to describe the type of road or the physical condition of a road. Rather it was intended to state the type of activities that are appropriate to meet management objectives and should only refer to maintenance activity.

The conversion to Maintenance Intensity (MI) was first proposed in the Roads and Trails Terminology Report, April 2006 Washington Office (WO) IM-2006-173 and was subsequently incorporated into the October 21, 2011 revision of the BLM Road Manual (9113).

the minimum standards of care for the annual maintenance of a route. Maintenance Intensity does not describe route geometry, route types, types of use or other physical or managerial characteristics of the route. Maintenance Intensities provide a range of management objectives and standards of care.

Generally speaking, Maintenance Level 2 crosswalks to Maintenance Intensity 1 and Maintenance Level 3 crosswalks to Maintenance Intensity 3; although crosswalk variations are not uncommon.

The scope of activities described within Maintenance Level 2/Maintenance Intensity 1 includes; maintaining drainage, which can include grading to prevent/minimize erosion, correct drainage problems, and protect adjacent lands. Brushing can be performed if route bed drainage is being adversely affected and contributes to erosion.

The scope of activities described within Maintenance Level 3/Maintenance Intensity 3 includes; drainage structures maintained as needed, grading conducted to provide reasonable riding comfort, brushing to improve sight distance, landslide removal, annual and preventative maintenance.

The verbatim definitions provided below describe the level of road maintenance activity that is acceptable within each maintenance category (Level or Intensity) as documented in the individually referenced documents.

AMU and SMCMPA RMP/ROD Appendix M-2 Maintenance Level 1:

This level is assigned to roads where maintenance is limited to protecting adjacent land and resource values. These roads are no longer needed and are closed to traffic. The objective is to remove these roads from the transportation system. At a minimum, drainage and runoff patterns will be maintained as needed to protect adjacent land. Grading, brushing, or slide removal will not be performed unless roadbed drainage is being adversely affected or is causing erosion. Closure and traffic restriction devices will be maintained.

BLM Manual 9113 – Roads Manual Release 9-390 10/21/2011 Maintenance Intensity Level 1

Maintenance Description: Routes where minimum (low intensity) maintenance is required to protect adjacent lands and resources values. These roads may be impassable for extended periods of time.

Maintenance Objectives:

 Low (Minimal) Maintenance Intensity.  Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage and runoff patterns as needed to protect adjacent lands. Grading, brushing, or slide removal is not performed unless route bed drainage is being adversely affected, causing erosion.  Meet identified resource management objectives.  Perform maintenance as necessary to protect adjacent lands and resources values.  No preventative maintenance.  Planned maintenance activities limited to environmental and resource protection.  Route surface and other physical features are not maintained for regular traffic. Maintenance Funds: Maintenance funds provided to address environmental and resource protection requirements. No maintenance funds provided to perform preventative maintenance.

AMU and SMCMPA RMP/ROD Appendix M-2 Maintenance Level 2:

This level is assigned to roads open seasonally or year-round and uses may include commercial, recreation, private property access, and administrative purposes. Typically, these roads are passable by high clearance vehicles and are maintained, as needed, depending on funding levels. Seasonal closures or other restrictions may be needed to meet resource objectives or because of snow levels or other weather conditions. At a minimum, drainage structures will be inspected within a 3-year period and maintained as needed. Grading will be conducted as necessary to correct drainage problems. Brushing will be conducted as needed and slides may be left in place provided they do not adversely affect drainage.

BLM Manual 9113 – Roads Manual Release 9-390 10/21/2011 Maintenance Intensity Level 2

Reserved for Possible Future Use

Note: Oregon eastside districts have not yet established a standardized conversion of their roads from Maintenance Level to Maintenance Intensity. It is anticipated that higher use Maintenance Level 2 roads may be assigned Maintenance Intensity 3.

AMU and SMCMPA RMP/ROD Appendix M-2 Maintenance Level 3:

This level is assigned to roads open seasonally or year-round and uses may include commercial, recreation, private property access, and administrative purposes. Typically, these roads are natural or have an aggregate surface, but may include bituminous surface roads. These roads have a defined cross section with drainage structures such as rolling dips, culverts or ditches and may normally be negotiated by passenger cars driven

cautiously. User comfort and convenience are not considered a high priority. At a minimum, drainage structures will be inspected annually and maintained as needed. Grading will be conducted to provide a reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent speeds for the road conditions. Brushing will be conducted as needed to improve sight distance. Slides adversely affecting drainage will receive high priority for removal and other slides will be removed on a scheduled basis.

BLM Manual 9113 – Roads Manual Release 9-390 10/21/2011 Maintenance Intensity Level 3

Maintenance Description: Routes requiring moderate maintenance due to low volume use (for example, seasonally or year-round commercial, recreational, or administrative access). Maintenance Intensities may not provide year-round access but are intended to generally provide resources appropriate to keep the route in use for the majority of the year.

Maintenance Objectives:

 Medium (Moderate) Maintenance Intensity.  Drainage structures will be maintained as needed. Surface maintenance will be conducted to provide a reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent speeds for the route conditions and intended use. Brushing is conducted as needed to improve sight distance when appropriate for management uses. Landslides adversely affecting drainage receive high priority for removal; otherwise, they will be removed on a scheduled basis.  Meet identified environmental needs.  Generally maintained for year-round traffic.  Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect adjacent lands and resource values.  Perform preventative maintenance as required to generally keep the route in acceptable condition.  Planned maintenance activities should include environmental and resource protection efforts, annual route surface.  Route surface and other physical features are maintained for regular traffic. Maintenance Funds: Maintenance funds provided to preserve the route in the current condition, perform planned preventive maintenance activities on a scheduled basis, and address environmental and resource protection requirements.

AMU and SMCMPA RMP/ROD Appendix M-2 Maintenance Level 4:

This level is assigned to roads open seasonally or year-round. Uses include commercial, recreation, private property access, and administrative purposes. Typically, these roads are single or double lane and have an aggregate or bituminous surface. This Maintenance Level provides access for passenger cars driven at prudent speeds. At a minimum, the

entire roadway will be maintained at least annually, although a preventative maintenance program may be established. Problems will be repaired as discovered.

BLM Manual 9113 – Roads Manual Release 9-390 10/21/2011 Maintenance Intensity Level 4

Reserved for Possible Future Use

AMU and SMCMPA RMP/ROD Appendix M-2 Maintenance Level 5:

This level is assigned to roads open seasonally or year-round that carry the highest traffic volume of the transportation system. Uses include commercial, recreation, private property access, and administrative purposes. Typically, these roads are single or double lane and have an aggregate or bituminous surface. This Maintenance Level provides access for passenger cars driven at prudent speeds. The entire roadway will be maintained at least annually and a preventative maintenance program will be established. Problems will be repaired as discovered.

BLM Manual 9113 – Roads Manual Release 9-390 10/21/2011 Maintenance Intensity Level 5

Maintenance Description: Route for high (maximum) maintenance due to year-round needs, high volume of traffic, or significant use. Also may include route[s] identified through management objectives as requiring high intensities of maintenance or to be maintained open on a year-round basis.

Maintenance Objectives:

 High (Maximum) Maintenance Intensity.  The entire route will be maintained at least annually. Problems will be repaired as discovered. These routes may be closed or have limited access due to weather conditions but are generally intended for year-round use.  Meet identified environmental needs.  Generally maintained for year-round traffic.  Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect adjacent lands and resource values.  Perform preventative maintenance as required to generally keep the route in acceptable condition.  Planned maintenance activities should include environmental and resource protection efforts, annual route surface.  Route surface and other physical features are maintained for regular traffic.

Maintenance Funds: Maintenance funds provided to preserve the route in the current condition, perform planned preventative maintenance activities on a scheduled basis, and address environmental and resource protection requirements.

Additional general road maintenance guidance statements as provided in the documents referenced below:

Steens Mountain Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Plan, Appendix P- SMCMPA RMP (P-73)

Road - Constructed or evolved transportation route that is normally maintained for regular use (except during periods of closure) that can be reasonably and prudently driven by motorized or mechanized vehicles.

Route - A linear ground transportation feature such as a way or road.

AMU and SMCMPA RMP Appendix B - Best Management Practices Road Design and Maintenance (B-1); (also see Appendix M - TP, Best Management Practices M- 4)

1. Design roads to minimize total disturbance, to conform to topography, and to minimize disruption of natural drainage patterns.

2. Base road design criteria and standards on road management objectives such as traffic requirements of the proposed activity and the overall TP, economic analysis, safety requirements, resource objectives, and minimizing damage to the environment.

3. Locate roads on stable terrain such as ridgetops, natural benches, and flatter transitional slopes near ridges, and valley bottoms, and moderate side slopes and away from slumps, slide prone areas, concave slopes, clay beds, and where rock layers dip parallel to the slope. Locate roads on well-drained soil types; avoid wet areas when possible.

4. Construct cut and fill slopes to be approximately 3 horizontal (h): 1 vertical (v) or flatter where feasible. Locate roads to minimize heights of cutbanks. Avoid high, steeply sloping cutbanks and highly fractured bedrock.

5. Avoid headwalls, midslope location on steep, unstable slopes, fragile soils, seeps, old landslides, side slopes in excess of 70 percent, and areas where the geologic bedding planes or weathering surfaces are inclined with the slope. Implement extra mitigation measures when these areas cannot be avoided.

6. Construct roads for surface drainage by using outslopes, crowns, grade changes, drain dips, waterbars and insloping to ditches as appropriate.

7. Sloping the road base to the outside edge for surface drainage is normally recommended for local spurs or minor collector roads where low-volume traffic and lower traffic speeds are anticipated. This is also recommended in situations where long intervals between maintenance will occur and where minimum excavation is wanted. Out-sloping is not recommended on steep slopes. Sloping the road base to the inside edge is an acceptable practice on roads with steep side slopes and where the underlying soil formation is very rocky and not subject to appreciable erosion or failure.

8. Crown and ditching is recommended for arterial and collector roads where traffic volume, speed, intensity and user comfort are considerations. Recommended gradients range from 0 to 15 percent where crown and ditching may be applied, as long as adequate drainage away from the road surface and ditch lines is maintained.

9. Minimize excavation, when constructing roads, through the use of balanced earthwork, narrowing road widths, and end hauling where side slopes are between 50 and 70 percent.

10. If possible, construct roads when soils are dry and not frozen. When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities should be limited or ceased unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer.

11. Consider improving inadequately surfaced roads that are to be left open to public traffic during wet weather with gravel or pavement to minimize sediment production and maximize safety.

12. Retain vegetation on cut slopes unless it poses a safety hazard or restricts maintenance activities. Roadside brushing of vegetation should be done in a way that prevents disturbance to root systems and visual intrusions (i.e., avoid using excavators for brushing).

13. Retain adequate vegetation between roads and streams to filter runoff caused by roads.

14. Avoid riparian/wetland areas where feasible; locate in riparian/wetland areas only if the roads do not interfere with the attainment of resource objectives.

15. Minimize the number of unimproved stream crossings. When a culvert or bridge is not feasible, locate drive-through (low water crossings) on stable rock portions of the drainage channel. Harden crossings with the addition of rock and gravel if necessary. Use angular rock if available.

16. Locate roads and limit activities of mechanized equipment within stream channels to minimize their influence on riparian areas. When crossing a stream is necessary, design the approach and crossing perpendicular to the channel, where practicable. Locate the crossing where the channel is well-defined, unobstructed, and straight.

17. Avoid placing fill material in floodplain unless the material is large enough to remain in place during flood events.

18. Use drainage dips instead of culverts on roads where gradients will not present a safety issue. Locate drainage dips in such a way so that water will not accumulate or where outside berms prevent drainage from the roadway. Locate and design drainage dips immediately upgrade of stream crossings and provide buffer areas and catchment basins to prevent sediment from entering the stream.

19. Construct catchment basins, brush windrows, and culverts in a way to minimize sediment transport from road surfaces to stream channels. Install culverts in natural drainage channels in a way to conform with the natural streambed gradients with outlets that discharge onto rocky or hardened protected areas.

20. Design and locate water crossing structures in natural drainage channels to accommodate adequate fish passage, provide for minimum impacts to water quality, and to be capable of handling a 100-year event for runoff and floodwaters.

21. Use culverts which pass, at a minimum, a 50-year storm event or have a minimum diameter of 24 inches for permanent stream crossings and a minimum diameter of 18 inches for road crossdrains.

22. Replace undersized culverts and repair or replace damaged culverts and downspouts. Provide energy dissipaters at culvert outlets or drainage dips.

23. Locate culverts or drainage dips in such a manner as to avoid discharge onto unstable terrain such as headwalls or slumps. Provide adequate spacing to avoid accumulation of water in ditches or road surfaces. Culverts should be placed on solid ground to avoid road failures.

24. Proper sized aggregate and riprap should be used during culvert construction. Place riprap at culvert entrance to streamline waterflow and reduce erosion.

25. Establish adapted vegetation on all cuts and fill immediately following road construction and maintenance.

26. Remove berms from the downslope side of roads, consistent with safety considerations.

27. Leave abandoned roads in a condition that provides adequate drainage without further maintenance. Close abandoned roads to traffic. Physically obstruct the road with gates, large berms, trenches, logs, stumps, or rock boulders as necessary to accomplish permanent closure.

28. Abandon and rehabilitate roads that are no longer needed. Leave these roads in a condition that provides adequate drainage. Remove culverts.

29. When plowing snow for winter use of roads, provide breaks in snow berms to allow for road drainage. Avoid plowing snow into streams. Plow snow only on existing roads.

30. Maintenance should be performed to conserve existing surface material, retain the original crowned or out-sloped self-draining cross sec., prevent or remove rutting berms (except those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard normal surface runoff. Avoid wasting loose ditch or surface material over the shoulder where it can cause stream sedimentation or weaken slump-prone areas. Avoid undercutting back slopes.

31. Do not disturb the toe of cut slopes while pulling ditches or grading roads. Avoid sidecasting road material into streams.

32. Grade roads only as necessary. Maintain drain dips, waterbars, road crown, insloping and out-sloping, as appropriate, during road maintenance.

33. Maintain roads in special areas according to special area guidance. Generally, retain roads within existing disturbed areas and sidecast material away from the special area.

34. When landslides occur, save all soil and material usable for reclamation or stockpile for future reclamation needs. Avoid sidecasting of slide material where it can damage, overload, and saturate embankments, or flow into down-slope drainage courses. Reestablish vegetation as needed in areas where vegetation has been destroyed due to sidecasting.

35. Strip and stock topsoil ahead of construction of new roads, if feasible. Reapply soil to cut and fill slopes prior to revegetation.

AMU and SMCMPA RMP/ROD Appendix M - TP (M-1) (Notable text pertaining to road maintenance.)

Transportation and Roads

Goal 1 - Provide travel routes to and through BLM-managed land as appropriate to meet resource objectives while providing for private and public access needs.

Management Framework

An element of a TP is the management and protection of the basic resources . . . while providing a route system that accommodates public, private, and administrative access needs. In meeting those needs, routes should be managed to minimize undue damage, maintenance costs, and provide for safe travel. Numerous Federal laws and internal regulations give the BLM the authority and guidance to develop and manage transportation systems.

AMU ROD/RMP (RMP-15) and SMCMPA ROD/RMP (RMP-15) Operation and Maintenance Actions Projects and maintenance of existing and newly-constructed facilities will occur; however, the level of maintenance could vary based on annual funding. Normally, routine operation and maintenance actions are categorically excluded from NEPA analysis (with the exception of actions conducted within WSAs). Such activities could include, but are not limited to, routine maintenance of existing roads, ditches, culverts, water control structures, . . . cattleguards . . These actions are part of implementation of the RMP and should not require further analysis to implement.

AMU and SMCMPA RMP/ROD (M-3) Management directions include the following: (Assign Maintenance Level 3, 4, or 5 to specifically named roads). Assign Maintenance Level 2 to all remaining open roads within the CMPA unless otherwise prescribed under a CMA. Consider seasonal closures and road upgrades as needed to reduce damage to road surfaces, protect resources, or provide for public safety.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Burns District Office Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area Finding of No Significant Impact

Steens Mountain Comprehensive Recreation Plan ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOI-BLM-OR-B060-2013-0045-EA

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Burns District, conducted an analysis of recreational facilities and activities within and adjacent to Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA). The BLM-administered lands within the CMPA encompass 428,213 acres; there are also 66,850 acres of private and 1,070 acres of State of Oregon lands for a total of 496,133 acres.

Within the CMPA there are multiple special management and special area designations. Special management designations are: Loop Road, designated as a National Back-Country Byway (BCB) in 1989; the Desert Trail, designated as part of the National Recreation Trails System in September 1992; Riddle Brothers Ranch National Historic District (Riddle Brothers Ranch), designated in 1992; and eight Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)/Resource Natural Areas (RNA) - Kiger Mustang, East Kiger Plateau, Little Blitzen, Little Wildhorse Lake, Rooster Comb, South Fork Willow Creek, Big Alvord Creek, and Fir Groves.

Special area designations within the CMPA are: the Wildlands Juniper Management Area (WJMA); Redband Trout Reserve; 105.4 miles of Wild and Scenic River (WSR); 6 Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) - High Steens, Lower Stonehouse, Stonehouse, Bridge Creek, Blitzen River, and South Fork Donner und Blitzen WSAs; 3 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) - High Steens, Bridge Creek, and Lower Stonehouse LWCs; 4 Herd Management Areas (HMA) - South Steens, Kiger, Riddle Mountain, and a portion of Sheepshead-Heath Lake HMAs; and Steens Mountain Wilderness, which includes a 97,229-acre No Livestock Grazing Area.

During the development of the CMPA Resource Management Plan (RMP), the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) recommended BLM look at all recreational issues on Steens Mountain in a comprehensive manner, rather than planning for piecemeal activities. In the spirit of this recommendation, the Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Record of Decision (ROD) included management actions stating, “Any facilities or actions to accommodate or manage existing or anticipated recreational use will be addressed and analyzed in a Comprehensive Recreation Plan [CRP] that will be prepared after the RMP is completed.” There is a broad array of recreational opportunities in the CMPA and there is a need to develop comprehensive management practices for existing and anticipated recreational activities and associated facilities that promote public health and safety and protect natural and social resources.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This decision has multiple aspects incorporating actions from all alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) in conformance with the CMPA RMP/ROD, Steens Mountain Wilderness and WSRs Plan, and the Transportation Plan (TP). The 2007 Travel Management Plan (TMP) will be amended as indicated below and as indicated in the Decision Record (DR). This CRP concludes the requirement of the Steens Act (Section 112) to complete a comprehensive transportation plan.

Steens Mountain Back Country Byway and Transportation

 Sign or relocate Gate #5 on South Loop Road and expand the turnaround up to 50 feet on public domain land.  Install 2 (new) gates (West Side Spring Gate and Kiger Ridge Road Gate).  Close 11.77 miles of roads and 2.53 miles of obscure routes for a total of 14.3 miles of roads amending the TMP.  Close 2.24 miles of ways and 17.85 miles of obscure ways for a total of 20.09 miles of ways amending the TMP.  Change the terminology from Maintenance Level to Maintenance Intensity.  Designate existing pre-2000, 3.94 miles as roads. Winter Recreation

 Maintain four winter recreational permits on a first-come, first-served basis. The BLM will continue to seek cooperation from local private landowners to further develop the winter recreational program, specifically off North Loop Road near Fish Lake area. If the permitted recreationist is accompanied by a commercial recreation permit holder authorized to operate over-the-snow machines or by a member in good standing of the local snowmobile club, over-the-snow machine use is allowed along Cold Spring Road to Nye Cabin and along Dingle Creek.

Special Recreation Permits

 There is currently no limitation on the number of commercial or organized group Special Recreation Permits (SRP) issued for the CMPA. The existing limit of five hunting and guiding SRPs will continue (as determined in the Needs Assessment, August 2011). Information, Signing, and Interpretation

 Maintain and update information in existing kiosks, brochures, and signs, as needed, for public safety and information.

 Develop and install a kiosk in Fields, Oregon next to the Fields Station Store and a kiosk on South Loop Road. Developed Campgrounds (Fee Campgrounds)

 Page Springs Campground: Replace cottonwood trees with less hazardous trees and/or shrubs.  Fish Lake Campground: Upgrade two campsites with accessible1 facilities including picnic tables, fire rings, and compacted paths leading to restrooms. Designate campsites #21 through #23 as tent camping only. Improve the host site by installing a camping pad, water, and sanitation tanks (below ground). Remove the horse corral located across North Loop Road from Fish Lake Campground.  Jackman Park Campground: Tent camping only (No camping trailers will be allowed within the campground).  South Steens Family Campground: Upgrade two campsites to have accessible facilities including picnic tables, fire rings, and compacted paths leading to restrooms. Upgrade the camp host site to include a camping pad, water, and a buried sanitation tank. Enlarge the day use parking area by approximately 20 feet by 75 feet. Encourage day use visitors to use South Steens Family Parking Area to access Little Blitzen Trail through additional signage. Over time, the Little Blitzen Parking Area will no longer be needed.  South Steens Equestrian Campground: Create a day-use parking area at the front of the campground, eliminating two camping sites. Place new horse corrals (approximately 12 feet by 12 feet) in all existing sites. Add a 50-foot round pen within the campground area. Encourage day use visitors to use South Steens Equestrian Parking Area to access Little Blitzen Trail through additional signage. Over time the Little Blitzen Parking Area will no longer be needed.  New developed campgrounds: North Steens Equestrian Campground and Penland Recreation Site. Dispersed Campgrounds (Non-fee Sites)

 Home Creek Recreation Site: A dispersed recreation site with a parking area. Overlooks and Other Points of Interest

 Kiger Gorge Overlook and East Rim Overlook: Upgrade trails from the parking areas to the overlook areas to accessible paths (see design features). Enlarge parking areas by approximately 20 feet by 75 feet.  Riddle Brothers Ranch: Increase public motorized access from four to five days during the summer months (Wednesday through Sunday). Install three picnic tables and rest benches.  South Steens Loop Road Entrance, WJMA, and Turkey Foot: Install vault toilets.

1 The term "accessible" means in compliance with the Federal Accessibility Guidelines in place at the time the facility or feature was designed, constructed, altered, or leased. 3

 (Re-install) Cold Spring Development: The SMAC, along with Back Country Horsemen, have recommended this spring development be re-installed for the purpose of fostering historical recreational use.  Riddle Brothers Ranch Pipeline Extension and Pump House: Mitigate fire hazards by irrigating the lawns and provide potable water to the volunteer camp host(s) at the Caretaker Cabin at the Riddle Brothers Ranch by means of the Riddle Brothers Ranch Pipeline Extension. The pipeline will extend from the well, near Clemens Place, and follow Riddle Brothers Ranch Road for approximately 4,750 feet. An 8 foot by 8 foot wood frame pump house will be constructed.

Trails and Trailheads (Map B)

 Kiger Gorge Trail: Discontinue maintenance on Kiger Gorge Trail (1 mile); however, continue to show the trail on the BLM Burns District maps.  Nye and Wet Blanket Trails (Maintenance Intensity 3): Reconstruct portions of Nye (1 mile long) and Wet blanket Trails (1.5 miles long).  Three Mile Creek Access Point: Develop a new trailhead parking area (less than 1 acre) providing access to Three Mile Creek and other portions of Steens Mountain Wilderness. Approximately 0.125 mile of fence will need to be redesigned.  Pike Creek Trail Extension 1 (Maintenance Intensity 3): Designate a 0.5 mile, old mining, two-track road as part of Pike Creek trail. This trail would connect Dry Creek Trail to Pike Creek Trail.  Levi Brinkley Memorial Trail (Maintenance Intensity 3): Designate a closed, two-track road, parallel to Little Blitzen River as the Levi Brinkley2 Memorial Trail (approximately 1.25 miles long). A memorial plaque (2 feet by 2 feet) will be placed at the start of the trail.  Kueny Canyon Recreation Site: Develop a new dispersed recreational site named Kueny Canyon Recreation Site (less than one acre). This site will be located on private lands. A public easement is required from the landowner prior to any improvements. Also, an approach permit will be acquired from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to develop an access point off Highway 205. No campsites will be developed; however, overnight camping will be allowed.  Pike Creek Trail Extension 2 (Maintenance Intensity 3 Trail3): Two connector trails will be constructed, each approximately 0.75 mile long. The trails will connect the proposed Pike Creek Parking Area to Pike Creek and Dry Creek Trails. 

2 Levi Brinkley was born and raised in Harney County with his three brothers. After working as a firefighter at Malheur National Forest Service in Burns, Oregon, he went to work for the Prineville Hotshots. He and thirteen others were killed on July 6, 1994, on Storm King Mountain (South Canyon Fire) in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 3Maintenance Intensity 3 Trails – These trails are routes requiring moderate maintenance due to low volume use (e.g., seasonal or year-round for commercial, recreation, or administrative access).

 Fred Riddle Trail (Maintenance Intensity 1): The Fred Riddle Trail will be a loop trail approximately 12.75 miles long. Starting at one of the South Steens Campgrounds, the trail will follow Little Blitzen Trail to the High Desert Trail, then to a closed two-track road to Cold Spring Road, from Cold Spring Road to Nye Trail, from Nye Trail back down Little Blitzen Trail, and then finally back to the campground.  Threemile Creek Trail (Maintenance Intensity 1): The trailhead will provide access to Threemile Creek Trail and other portions of Steens Mountain Wilderness. A public easement or a Cooperative Management Agreement will be required from the landowner for any activities on private land prior to any improvements being made.  Kueny/Black Canyon Trails (Maintenance Intensity 1): The Kueny/Black Canyon Trails will be approximately 7 miles long starting at the Kueny Canyon Recreation Site. From the proposed Kueny Recreation Site, a recreationist will be able to hike up Kueny Canyon or Black Canyon.  Huffman Trail (Maintenance Intensity 1): The Huffman Trail is approximately 2 miles long. The Huffman Trail goes from Threemile Creek Parking Area to South Steens Campgrounds. Starting from the proposed Threemile Parking Area follow Threemile Creek to an old Civilian Conservation Corps Road to the top of Catlow Rim. From Catlow Rim the trail goes cross-country to the head waters of Home Creek, crossing private lands, over to Lauserica Road. From Lauserica Road it drops down to the upper portions of Donner und Blitzen River and ties into Mud/Ankle Creek Trail to South Steens Campground.  Three Springs Bell Trail (Maintenance Intensity 1): The Bell Trail is approximately 13.5 miles long and starts at South Loop Road. The trail follows along the Three Springs Road and the way leading to Donner und Blitzen River. The trail then follows along the Donner und Blitzen River to the next way (motorized route) which leads the recreationist back to the South Loop Road.  Oregon Desert Trail (Maintenance Intensity 1): The trail is approximately 39.5 miles long. The trail is a citizen’s proposed trail primarily following the High Desert Trail, other existing trails, drainages, and closed roads through the CMPA. No new trail construction will occur.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) criteria for significance (40 CFR 1508.27), both with regard to context and intensity of impacts, is described below:

Context

The Proposed Action, No Action, and Alternatives would occur within and adjacent to the CMPA and would have local impacts on affected interests, lands, and resources similar to and within the scope of those described and considered in the CMPA/Andrews Management Unit (AMU) Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (2004). There would be no substantial broad societal or regional impacts not previously considered in the PRMP/FEIS. The actions described represent anticipated program adjustments complying with the CMPA and AMU RMP/ROD (2005), and implementing recreation, lands

and realty, wilderness, and WSA management programs within the scope and context of this document.

Intensity

The CEQ's ten considerations for evaluating intensity (severity of effect):

I. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse.

The EA considered potential beneficial and adverse effects. Design Features for the proposed projects were incorporated to reduce impacts. None of the effects are beyond the range of effects analyzed in the CMPA/AMU PRMP/FEIS, to which the EA is tiered.

A. American Indian Traditional Practices All alternatives describe management actions to recreational sites, facilities, trails, and vehicle use in the project area. Proposed Actions, under any alternative, are not known to be in direct conflict with traditional cultural practices at this time. B. Grazing There would be no changes to grazing systems or Animal Unit Months (AUM). C. Lands and Realty Easements would increase public access throughout the CMPA providing access points to the public along a section of Steens Mountain (the west side that currently has few to no public access points). D. Recreation

1. Steens Mountain BCB and Transportation - Motorized recreational access including Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) would not be affected by the Proposed Action. For further discussion on effects to OHVs see Transportation.

Placing a sign before Gate #5 or relocating Gate #5 on South Loop Road would allow visitors to see the open/closed status of the gate prior to reaching the gate.

Installation of West Side Spring Gate would deter unauthorized vehicles, and Kiger Ridge Road Gate would assist BLM in managing motorized access along Kiger Ridge Road.

2. Winter Recreation - Maintaining four winter recreational opportunities would not affect the wilderness characteristics.

3. Information/Signing/Interpretation - Signing is necessary for safety, providing direction and information, and is essential for implementing an interpretive program.

The addition of kiosks (each four feet by four feet) at Fields, Oregon and along the South Loop Road would display maps and provide additional interpretation and information about recreational opportunities.

4. Developed Campgrounds (Fee Campgrounds) - Providing amenities to camp hosts would aid in maintaining hosts at designated campgrounds.

Constructing a new parking area at South Steens Equestrian Campground would provide for safe parking and access to the new Little Blitzen Trailhead.

Horse corrals would be placed in campsites, where none currently exist. A 50-foot round pen would allow the riders to “take the edge off” the horses before riding on the trails, possibly allowing for increased safety for riders.

Removal of the horse corral across from Fish Lake Campground would have no effect on recreation.

The proposed North Steens Equestrian Campground would provide equestrian camping opportunities off the North Loop Road.

Development of Penland Wilderness and Pike Creek Recreation Sites would provide additional camping sites for visitors on the east side of Steens Mountain Wilderness.

5. Dispersed Campgrounds (Non-Fee Sites) - Maintaining Lily Lake and Mann Lake as dispersed recreation sites would allow existing uses to continue.

Home Creek Recreation Site would increase recreational access along the west side of the CMPA.

6. Overlooks and Other Points of Interest - The existing access paths to Kiger Gorge and East Rim Overlook parking areas would be enlarged to accommodate more vehicles. The overlook trails would be made accessible; this would encourage all visitors to use the accessible trails, thus helping to eliminate user-created trails.

Increasing public motorized access at Riddle Brothers Ranch to five days a week during the summer months provides more opportunities. The Riddle Brothers Ranch Pipeline Extension and Pump House would

provide potable water for the volunteer camp host(s) as well as fire protection for the Riddle Brothers Ranch.

Redevelopment of Cold Spring to a functioning condition would provide equestrian riders with water for recreational stock.

Installing vault toilets at the WJMA area, South Loop Road entrance, and Turkey Foot would mitigate unsanitary conditions along the Loop Road.

7. Trails and Trailheads - The 16 existing trails would continue to be maintained for the health and safety of the public. Designating new trails and rerouting and maintaining trails for recreationists would create hiking and equestrian riding opportunities.

Construction of new parking areas would provide equestrian and hiking recreationists parking areas.

E. Visual Resource Management (VRM)

The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be low and would not attract attention for projects proposed (i.e. recreational sites, vault toilets, trails, and Riddle Brothers Ranch Pipeline Extension and Pump House) in VRM Class I, II, and III areas if mitigation and Project Design Features are applied. Proposed developments would use colors and materials to repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

F. Social and Economic Values

Public lands in and around Harney County, Oregon would continue to contribute social amenities such as open space, scenic quality, and recreational opportunities. These amenities enhance local communities and tourism in Harney County. Improvement to recreational facilities, full development of additional recreational facilities, and better access provide for an expected rise in the number of tourists to the area. An increased number of tourists would be an economic boost to local communities from the purchase of food, gas, motel accommodations, and other amenities. In addition, recreational improvement projects could also bring about increased work for local contractors, further improving the local economy and supporting a well-established, rural-oriented local social fabric. G. Soils and Biological Soil Crusts (BSC)

Closure and rehabilitation of roads would promote natural ecologic functions along routes previously compacted by vehicle use. Upgrading existing campsites

to accessible facilities would increase the amount of soil compaction and remove existing BSCs.

H. BLM Special Status Species Habitat Effects would be only during actual construction and would not have a measurable impact on Special Status Species’ (SSS) use of the habitat. Improvement construction work would occur after sage-grouse nesting season (April 1 to June 15). Once individual projects are completed, SSS would be expected to use the areas again. Improvement and expansion of existing facilities would not be expected to have any effect outside of the already established areas, nor is it expected to increase use to the point where there would be increased SSS fatalities due to road use. Bat habitat may be affected by the removal of old cottonwood trees, but to what extent is unknown as no bat surveys have been completed to date. Overall, one acre of road development would occur in Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and less than two acres in Preliminary General Habitat (PGH). Due to the small number of acres and the locations (not near any leks), parking areas would not have a measurable effect on sage-grouse, nesting habitat, or brood rearing habitat, nor would they provide any impasses to any known connectivity. None of the proposed projects would occur within two miles of a sage-grouse lek. Any additional recreational activities (e.g. snowshoeing, snowmobiles, hiking, cross-country skiing) by visitors are expected to be conducted on existing routes due to the ease of travel. According to Johnson et al., the presence of existing secondary roads has not been found to be a negative influence on lek trends.

I. Upland Vegetation

Closure and rehabilitation of roads would promote a return to natural ecological functions along the routes previously compacted by vehicle use. Upgrading existing campsites to accessible facilities would not impact vegetation; however, increasing path widths to four feet would remove additional vegetation. Upgrading host campsites would have no impacts to vegetation as the areas surrounding the host campsites, as well as regular campsites, are generally devoid of desirable vegetation due to heavy use. The area where the sanitation tank would be installed would initially remove vegetation; however, if the area is rehabilitated and reseeded after the installation, effects would be unnoticeable within 1–2 growing seasons. Project staging areas or access areas would be rehabilitated and reseeded. Impacts would be unnoticeable within 1–2 growing seasons.

Development of new day-use parking areas would remove vegetation over the entire area or in any portion thereof not originally used as a parking area. Development of designated camping sites in dispersed campgrounds would remove vegetation from the use areas of the campsite. Upgrading paths to accessible standards would increase the amount of vegetation loss; however, by increasing the width of the path to four feet, instances of travel off the path would be decreased.

Enlarging parking areas would remove vegetation from the expanded area. Where trail maintenance is used to prevent or correct the effects of soil erosion, there would be short term (1–2 growing seasons) impacts to vegetation directly adjacent to the trail in areas used to stage the proposed maintenance or used as a work area. Soil erosion removes soil, vegetation, and BSC not just in the area susceptible to erosion, but also in the areas above and below the erosion site;by maintaining a trail in order to fix current erosion issues, future vegetation loss would be prevented. J. Wild and Scenic Rivers Designating new trails and maintaining existing trails in the WSR corridors would enhance recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV).

The Riddle Brothers Ranch Pipeline Extension and Pump House would occur in the Little Blitzen WSR corridor. There would be no effect to the ORVs because the pipeline would be within the boundary of Riddle Brothers Road and the pump house would be within the boundary of the BLM’s administrative site (already disturbed).

Roaring Springs Winter Recreation and South Loop Road Winter Recreation Trails cross the Donner und Blitzen WSR System at two locations. There would be no effect to the ORVs since the proposed trails cross the rivers on existing bridges. K. Wilderness

Untrammeled: The proposal to reroute portions of the trails would have no effect to the untrammeled characteristic.

Resetting the headbox at Cold Spring and directing the water flow along natural drainage channels (with the use of a dike) would impair the untrammeled characteristic of the area by manipulating the spring’s ecological system. Developing the spring would allow equestrians and other recreationists to use the spring to water their livestock without entering wilderness.

Undeveloped: Designation of new trails and maintenance and rerouting of existing trails are evidence of the imprint of man’s work and would be effects to the undeveloped characteristic; however, the imprints would be substantially unnoticeable and would serve to guide visitors to existing recreational opportunities.

Home Creek and Threemile Recreation Sites and trails are outside of Steens Mountain Wilderness.

Naturalness: The wilderness ecosystem strives to return the trails back to natural conditions. Humans constructing and maintaining a trail to prevent these natural ecological processes affects the naturalness characteristic; however, not maintaining trails would be expected to result in multiple user-created trails that would decrease naturalness over an area.

Resetting the headbox at Cold Spring would be an unnatural part of the ecosystem.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation: Maintaining trails would affect primitive types of recreation by providing visitors a way to access remote locations.

Construction of new trails and maintaining trails would impair opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation during the actual construction of the trail segments.

The proposal to designate new trails would have no effect on the solitude or primitive recreation characteristic of wilderness.

The proposal to develop recreation sites (e.g. Penland Recreation Site) would provide visitors with additional opportunities to access Steens Mountain Wilderness.

The proposal of redeveloping Cold Spring would allow historic recreational horseback riding to continue in the area.

Supplemental Values: Designating new trails and maintaining existing trails would have no effect on supplemental values.

The proposal of resetting the headbox at Cold Spring and directing the water flow along natural drainage channels (with the use of a dike) would restore the historical supplemental value.

L. Wilderness Study Area

Naturalness: Closing of roads and ways would increase naturalness of the WSAs.

Trails would have no effect on the naturalness characteristic of the WSA because the trails already exist on the ground.

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation: The closing of roads and ways would affect outstanding opportunities for solitude by limiting access to these areas.

Trails would increase visitors’ opportunities for solitude due to additional trail access.

Supplemental values: There would be fewer encounters with wildlife because fewer visitors would be able to access the area.

M. Wildlife

Wildlife in general would be affected by noise and human presence during construction of projects. This disturbance would be localized and temporary in nature, and wildlife would return to these areas after the disturbance ceased. The limited amount of new developments (less than 15 acres) would not cause a measureable use detriment and would have no effect on wildlife species on a population level. N. Steens Mountain BCB and Transportation (including OHVs)

Motorized routes provide a motorized riding experience for those seeking solitude and scenery. There are routes that exist for the person looking to explore.

There are non-motorized routes that also provide a quality experience for those seeking solitude and scenery. There are 16 non-motorized routes that exist for the person looking to explore and 11 new trails would be added.

The proposal of closing and adding motorized routes would only affect the motorized portion of the transportation system by adjusting miles available for such use. The proposal of adding non-motorized trails would affect the non- motorized portion of the transportation system by adding additional miles of trails.

II. Degree to which the Proposed Action affects public health and safety.

The Proposed Action, No Action, or any of the Alternatives would not have any measurable effect on public health and safety.

III. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

Other unique characteristics for the Project Area include Steens Mountain Wilderness, WSRs, WSAs, ACECs/RNAs, HMAs, and Riddle Brothers Ranch. Also, refer to Intensity I, Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse for more discussion.

IV. The degree to which effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

Controversy in this context means disagreement about the nature of the effects, not expressions of opposition to the Proposed Action or preference among the alternatives. Unique or appreciable scientific controversy was not identified during scoping or during SMAC/public meetings regarding the effects of the Proposed Action, No Action, and of the Alternatives. Refer to responses to comments 16 and 58 regarding sage-grouse.

V. Degree to which possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

Analysis has shown there would not be any unique or unknown risks to the human environment nor were any identified in the CMPA/AMU PRMP/FEIS to which this proposal is tiered or during the public scoping period or public/SMAC meetings.

VI. Degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

This alternative neither establishes a precedent nor represents a decision in principle about future actions. The activities described under the Proposed Action and alternatives are common activities on BLM-managed lands throughout the west. Although many of the activities occur within this unique designated area (CMPA), the effects were determined not to be significant as summarized above under Section I. The EA analyzed adaptive management strategies to plan for future considerations. Full development was thoroughly analyzed for these actions and not considered significant as described in the EA.

VII. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.

The environmental analysis did not reveal cumulative effects beyond those already analyzed in the CMPA/AMU PRMP/FEIS which encompasses the CMPA. The EA described the current state of the environment (Affected Environment by Resource, Chapter III) which includes the effects of past actions, and included analysis of reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA) identified in the project area.

Recreational activities and paving of East Steens Road are known RFFAs along with grazing, weed treatments, water developments, juniper treatments, North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project, and the North Steens 230 –kV Transmission Line Project and were addressed under Chapters III & IV of the EA by resource (preceding list is not totally inclusive).

VIII. Degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Other than the Riddle Brothers Ranch, there are no features within the Project Area listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, as part of the Design Features identified in the attached EA, prior to implementation, a cultural resource specialist would determine if site inventory needs to be completed. Heavy equipment would not be utilized within site boundaries. National Register eligible or listed sites containing artifacts or features susceptible to damage or destruction would be protected during implementation through appropriate mitigation techniques. National Register eligible or listed cultural resource properties would be protected or effects mitigated throughout the life of the project.

IX. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat.

There are no known threatened or endangered species (T&E) or their habitat affected by the Proposed Action, No Action, or any of the Alternatives.

X. Whether an action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Neither the Proposed Action, No Action, nor any of the Alternatives violate any law. The Proposed Action is in compliance with the CMPA and AMU RMPs/RODs (2005), which provide direction for the protection of the environment on public lands.

On the basis of the information contained in the EA and all other information available to me, it is my determination that:

1) The implementation of the Proposed Action, No Action, or any of the Alternatives will not have significant environmental impacts beyond those already addressed in the CMPA/AMU PRMP/FEIS (2004);

2) The Proposed Action, No Action, and the Alternatives are in conformance with the CMPA and AMU RMPs/RODs;

3) There would be no adverse societal or regional impacts and no adverse impacts to affected interests; and

4) The environmental effects together with the proposed tenns and conditions, against the tests ofsignificance found at 40 CFR 1508.27, do not constitute a major Federal action having a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact-Statement-EElS) is-not-necessary-and-won't-be prepared.------

' Rhonda Karges Date . Andrews/Steens Resource Area Fie

kfbs)-2-f2JS" . Richard Roy Date ' .lf'C._fr7 Three Rivers Resource Area