Grazing Permit Renewal for the Egli Rim (00420), Oatman Flat (00705), Tuff Butte (00707), and Murdock (00710) Allotments Environmental Assessment
DOI-BLM-L050-2014-0013-EA
Lakeview Resource Area Lakeview District Bureau of Land Management 1301 South G Street Lakeview, Oregon 97630
June 2014
Page 1
CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
Introduction The Lakeview Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential effects of renewing term grazing permit #3601441 for a ten-year period. This permit addresses livestock grazing management for the Egli Rim (00420), Tuff Butte (00707), Murdock (00710), and Oatman Flat (00705) Allotments. This EA analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may result with the implementation of the proposed alternatives. This EA also serves as the analytical basis for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as well as making the determination as to whether any significant impacts to the human environment would result from the proposal.
These allotments are located in the Silver Lake Area between 2 and 10 miles north and south of the town of Silver Lake, Oregon (Map 1). The Egli Rim allotment encompasses about 21,508 public land acres and 374 private land acres. The Oatman Flat Allotment encompasses about 28,256 acres public land and 6,966 acres of private land. The Tuff Butte Allotment encompasses about 8,936 acres of public land and 2,192 acres of private land. The Murdock Allotment encompasses about 4,274 acres of public land and 1,020 acres of private land.
Purpose and Need for Action
The grazing permit for these allotments expired in 2014, at which time the permit renewal application was submitted for consideration by the permittee. The primary purpose of this analysis is to respond to the permittee’s permit renewal application and consider whether or not to reissue or modify the grazing permit for a 10-year period, in accordance with 43 CFR Part 4130. When issued, grazing permits must address appropriate terms and conditions designed to “achieve management and resource condition objectives for the public lands… and to ensure conformance with part 4180” (43 CFR Part 4130.3).
A second purpose of the analysis is to consider whether or not to implement several range improvement projects designed to improve livestock management. The first project proposal would be to construct a well, pipeline, and 3 associated trough locations in the Egli Rim Allotment to improve livestock water availability within 3 pastures of the allotment. The second project would be to construct approximately 3/4 mile of fence in the Tuff Butte Allotment to improve livestock distribution within one pasture.
A third purpose of this analysis is to consider treating noxious weeds and invasive plant species within the four allotments using both approved integrated weed management methods described in the existing weed management plant (BLM 2004b), as well as allowing the use of one new herbicide (imazapic) for treatment of several invasive species, consistent with the management direction contained in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Vegetation Treatment using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon (BLM 2010b).
Page 2
A fourth purpose of this analysis is to consider treating invasive post-settlement1 western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) within several of the allotments to improve habitat for wildlife species and reduce fuel loading. Habitats for sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and pronghorn antelope (Antilopcapra americana) have been degraded by the encroachment of juniper. Decisions to Be Made
The authorized officer will decide whether or not to renew or modify the 10-year Term Grazing Permit, and if so, under what terms and conditions. The authorized officer will decide whether or not to implement the proposed range improvement projects, noxious weeds and invasive species treatments, and western juniper treatments, as well as determine which methods to use or appropriate mitigation measures to apply.
Decision Factors
Decision factors represent criteria used by the decision maker to choose the alternative that best meet the purpose and need for the proposal. These include, but are not limited to:
a) How well does the decision conform to laws, regulations, and policies related to grazing use and protecting other resource values? b) How well does the decision conform to the resource management and allotment management plans? c) How well does the decision promote maintenance of rangeland health standards? d) How well does the decision conform with ODFW 2005 sage-grouse guidelines? e) How well does the decision conform with IM 2012-043 regarding interim sage-grouse management? f) How well does the proposal conform to the existing integrated weed management plan (BLM 2004b) and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatment Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon (BLM 2010b)?
Conformance with Laws and Regulations
This EA has been prepared in conformance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Grazing permits are issued or renewed in accordance with the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act (1934), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 1976), Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978), and applicable grazing regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 4100.
In order for an applicant to lawfully graze livestock on public land, the party must obtain a valid grazing permit or lease. The grazing regulations, 43 CFR 4130.2(a), state “grazing permits or leases shall be issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated as available for livestock grazing through land use plans.” The Lakeview RMP/ROD has designated all four allotments as available for livestock grazing (BLM 2003b). The permit renewal applicant (current
1 “Post-settlement” juniper refers to juniper that was established after or near the time of European settlement or less than 130 year old.
Page 3 permittee) controls the base property associated with the grazing preference on the allotment and has been determined to be a qualified applicant.
A performance review of the permittee’s past use has been completed and BLM found the permittee to have a satisfactory record of performance pursuant to 43 CFR 4110.1(b). This conclusion was based on: grazing utilization at acceptable levels; bills paid on time; actual use turned in annually; permit terms and conditions were adhered to, base property requirements met, and no history of livestock trespass or unauthorized use. The record of performance review is available in the grazing administration file and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Conformance with Land Use Plan
Approved management actions must conform with the appropriate land use plan. The Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision (BLM 2003b, as maintained) is the governing land use plan for the area and provides goals and management direction related to livestock grazing, weed, western juniper, and wildlife habitat management. Conformance with this plan will be discussed further within the proposed decision.
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
The proposed decision must also comply with a number of other existing plans and policies including:
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management for Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the States of Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997a)
Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program, EA#OR-010-2004-03 (BLM 2004b)
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2005)
Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011)
Conformance with these plan/policies will be discussed further within the proposed decision.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
A total of three alternatives were analyzed in detail within this EA. Table 2.1 includes a summary of these alternatives by allotment. In addition, several other alternatives were considered, but were not analyzed in detail for various reasons. The alternatives are described in more detail in the following section.
Page 4
Table 2.1. Grazing Management Alternative Summary for each Allotment Allotment Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Egli Rim 234 cows Permitted 1056 AUMs between 4/1- No Grazing Permit (00420) 4/1-8/15 8/15. Apply carrying capacity limits Issued 1056 AUMs by pasture Table 2.8. Propose well construction and associated three troughs in three pastures. Tuff Butte 216 cows Permitted 536 AUMs between 4/1- No Grazing Permit No (00707) 4/1-7/15 7/15. Apply carrying capacity limits weed Issued 536 AUMs by pasture Table 2.8. Propose two fence projects to assist distribution of livestock. Murdock 179 cows Permitted 403 AUMs between 4/16- No Grazing Permit (00710) 4/16-6/30 6/30. Apply carrying capacity limits Issued 403 AUMs by pasture Table 2.8. Oatman Flat 617 cows Permitted 2082 AUMs between 4/15- No Grazing Permit (00705) 4/15-7/31 7/31. Apply carrying capacity limits Issued 2,082 AUMs by pasture Table 2.8.
Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2
Grazing Permit Terms and Conditions
Terms and conditions will be included within the grazing permits that comply with all applicable policies. This includes requirements such as: timely payment of fees, submission of actual use reports, providing administrative access across private land, continued compliance with Rangeland Health Standards, and maintenance of range improvements.
Grazing Management Flexibility
Knowing that uncertainties exist in managing for sustainable ecosystems, changes to the annual grazing use may be authorized within the limits of the grazing permit for reasons such as, but not limited to:
Adjust the rotation/timing of grazing based on previous year's monitoring and current year's climatic conditions. An example of this would be; to turn livestock out later in the season on a year with a wet cold spring; or to bring livestock off the allotment early as conditions warrant this need.
Dry years that limit water availability; An example would be resting a pasture with low water and shifting livestock use to the pasture that had water. This may change the pasture rotation schedule. Conversely on wet years, livestock could be moved to areas near more dependable water sources. Other options would be to reduce livestock number, shorten the grazing season, or other temporary measures to adjust grazing levels to within the available forage base on that year.
Change in use periods to balance utilization levels in each pasture. An example of this would be to shorten the time period or number of livestock in a pasture that had 65% average utilization and or increase the time period and number of livestock in another pasture that had 30% average utilization if the target utilization in both pastures is 50%.
Flexibility in grazing management would be authorized within the active permitted AUMs and outside permit dates, some of the more common adjustments would be:
Page 5
Increasing livestock numbers while shortening the season of grazing use
Adjustments to the length of time and AUMs of grazing use to meet resource objectives including but not limited to utilization targets
Temporary (1 year) adjustments to pasture use usually dependent on water availability or climate related issues. Sometimes adjustments would be made to reduce conflicts with other resources; such as one time recreational or other activities where livestock or the other resource would benefit from adjusting the livestock use.
Monitoring
Monitoring in all allotments would continue, generally as specified in the Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b, pages 53-55, as maintained). In summary, trend monitoring studies would be conducted and include photo station and observed apparent trend methodologies are used to measure cover, species composition and frequency. Utilization studies would be conducted using the key forage plant method. Utilization is a measure of the amount of the current year’s forage that is consumed by livestock. Monitoring methodology would follow the latest protocol, such as Technical References 1734-3 and 1734-4 (BLM 1996a, 1996b) incorporated herein by reference. Table 2.2 describes the key species and utilization targets identified for each allotment.
Pipeline and Trough, Well, Reservoir, and Waterhole Maintenance
Existing water developments would be maintained in the future on an as-needed basis.
Pipeline maintenance would include, but would not be limited to fixing/replacing leaking sections of pipeline, valves/fittings, and troughs. Air valves may need to be fixed/replaced. Trough maintenance would include repair and replacement. The existing storage tank would be maintained, as necessary.
Well maintenance would include, but would not be limited to, re-plumbing or re-wiring the well, replacing the pump, casing, valves/fittings, and plumbing associated with the well. Maintenance could also include deepening the well, if needed.
Waterhole and reservoir maintenance is not currently needed; however, it would likely be needed during the 10-year permit lifetime. Reservoir maintenance would include the cleaning and maintenance of a given reservoir to ensure continued function. This may include, but is not limited to, the application of a native or natural clay liner or dam reconstruction. Waterhole maintenance would include cleaning the existing waterhole while maintaining its existing size, and placing the removed material on top of existing berms or disturbed areas.
Fence Maintenance
Cooperative agreements have been signed by the permittee and BLM assigning fence and corral maintenance responsibilities within the allotments. Fence maintenance is not currently needed; however, it would likely be needed during the 10-year permit lifetime. Fence maintenance would
Page 6
Table 2.2. Key Species and Target Utilization Levels by Allotment and Pasture Allot- BLM Utilization ment Pasture Key Species Acres Target % No. West Seeding/ 3260 Crested wheatgrass 50 00420 Collins Wee 1448 Crested wheatgrass 50 Pettus 2077 Crested wheatgrass 50 East Native 3684 Idaho Fescue/ Blue bunch wheatgrass 50 West Native 2501 Thurbers Needlegrass/Bluebunch 50
(Bench) wheatgrass/ Sandberg bluegrass West Native (Lake) 1481 Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirrel tail 50 Middle Native 7027 Idaho Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass/ 50
(Sheep dip) Sandberg bluegrass East Ceres Flat 3669 Idaho Fescue/ Squirrel tail/ Thurbers 50 00705 (Hockeman) Needlegrass Oatman East 8471 Crested wheatgrass/ Thurbers Needlegrass/ 50
(Coyote Butte) Squirreltail West Ceres Flat 2658 Idaho Fescue/ Thurbers Needlegrass/ 50
Squirreltail Connely Hills 6466 Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail 50
(Horning Gap) Oatman West 2493 Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail 50 Black Hills 4515 Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail 50 Hayes Butte 2077 Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail/ Idaho 50 00707 Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass West 3160 Crested Wheatgrass/ Thurbers Needlegrass/ 50
Squirreltail Powerline 3064 Crested Wheatgrass 50 East 618 Crested Wheatgrass/ Squirrel tail 50 00710 West 1531 Crested Wheatgrass 50 East 1370 Crested Wheatgrass / Thurbers Needlegrass/ 50
Squirreltail Bunchgrass Butte 666 Idaho Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass/ 50
Crested wheatgrass South 604 Thurbers Needlegrass/ Idaho Fescue 50 be authorized within the existing authorized “footprint” of original project. This could include replacement of posts and wire or reconstruction of corners and H-braces, as well as maintenance or clean-out of cattle guards and replacement of gates.
Alternative 1: No Action
The No Action Alternative would renew the existing 10-year livestock grazing permit (#3601441) for the four allotments with the same terms and conditions, grazing management, and season of use (Tables 2.3 to 2.7). This definition for the No Action Alternative is consistent with BLM (2000) guidance. (This alternative is also consistent with the permittee’s application to renew the grazing permit under the current terms and conditions). All allotments would continue to be grazed under rest-rotation grazing systems (Tables 2.4 to 2.8).
Page 7
Table 2.3. Specified Grazing Use for Alternative 1 Permit # Allotment Livestock # Grazing Period Type Use AUMs Begin Date End Date 3601441 Egli Rim 234 4/1 8/15 Active 1054 Tuff Butte 216 4/1 7/15 Active 534 Murdock 179 4/16 6/30 Active 403 Oatman Flat 617 4/15 7/31 Active 2081
Table 2.4. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Oatman Flat Allotment (00705) Pasture Year 1 in Rotation Year 2 in Rotation Year 3 in Rotation
Hockman/East 4/15-7/31 rest Graze Ceres Flat 4/15-7/31 Ceres Flat West Rest Graze Graze 4/15-7/31 4/15-7/31 Oatman Flat West Rest Graze Graze 4/15-7/31 4/15-7/31 Black Hills Graze Rest Graze 4/15-7/31 4/15-7/31 Coyote Butte/ Graze Graze Rest Oatman East 4/15-7/31 4/15-7/31 Connelly Hills Rest Rest Graze 4/15-7/31
Table 2.5. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Egli Rim Allotment (00420)* Pasture Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
West Seeding/ Graze Graze Rest Rest Collins 4/1-8/15 4/1-8/15 Wee Rest Graze Graze Rest 4/1-6/15 4/1 – 6/15 Pettus Graze Rest Graze Rest 4/1 – 6/15 4/1 – 6/15 East Native Graze Graze Rest Rest 5\15- 8/15 5/15-8/15 West native Graze Rest Rest Graze (Bench) 4/1-7/15 4/1-7/15 West Native Rest Graze Rest Graze (Lake) 4/1-7/15 4/1-7/15 Middle Native Rest Rest Graze Graze 4/1-8/15 4/1-8/15 *This allotment is grazed under a three year rest-rotation grazing system. The Pettus, Wee, and Collins Pastures of the Egli Rim allotment were seeded with crested wheatgrass in the 1980s. These generally are grazed in the spring and all have adequate and reliable water sources. The Bench and Lake Pastures need to be grazed with the Collins Pasture on most years due to a lack of adequate water. In year 6 both pastures could be used while resting the Collins Pasture. This could only occur if there was a good water year. However this is included in the rotation as if any year we get good water this should be the rotation used. The Middle Native Pasture is difficult to use in dry years due to a lack of reliable water. Due to terrain and road conditions these pastures are also difficult to haul water.
Page 8
Table 2.6. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Tuff Butte Allotment (00707)* Pasture Year 1 in Rotation Year 2 in Rotation
Hayes Butte Graze Rest 4/15-7/31 West Graze Rest 4/15-7/31 East Rest Graze 4/15-7/31 Powerline Rest Graze 4/15-7/31 * The Tuff Butte Allotment is grazed on a rest rotation grazing system with pasture rested every other year.
Table 2.7. Rest Rotation Grazing System for Murdock Allotment (00710)* Pasture Year 1 in Rotation Year 2 in Rotation
West Graze Rest 4/16-6/30 East Graze Rest 4/16-6/30 South Rest Graze 4/16-6/30 Bunchgrass Rest Graze 4/16-6/30 * The Murdock Allotment is grazed on a rest-rotation grazing system with pastures receiving rest every other year.
Under this alternative, the existing integrated noxious weed management program would continue within the four allotments (BLM 2004b). Treatment methods could include mechanical, manual, biological, and chemical. Treatments would be limited to noxious weeds only. Only four chemicals would be used.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would renew the grazing permit similar to Alternative 1. In addition, it would include:
1) Constructing new range improvements including a well with associated water tank, approximately ½ mile of underground pipeline, and three associated water troughs in the Egli Rim Allotment (Map 2). The water tank location would be located with the West (Collins) pasture at trough location 3 on Map 2. 2) Constructing 2 short additional fences totaling approximately ¾ of a mile would be constructed in the Tuff Butte Allotment to improve livestock distribution. These fences would be built to wildlife standards and guidelines (BLM Handbook H-1741-1) 3) Implementing juniper treatments in the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments (Map 3). 4) Treating approximately 300 acres of medusahead with the herbicide imazapic.
Proposed Juniper Treatment
Under this alternative, approximately 13,000 acres of rangeland in the Oatman Flat Allotment and 5,000 acres of rangeland in the Tuff Butte Allotment would be treated to reduce the densities of invasive, post-settlement western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) (Map 3).
Page 9
Treatments would consist of cutting, followed by hand-piling or machine piling and single tree or pile burning, or cutting and leaving. Machine piles would be approximately 8 to 12 feet by 16 to 22 feet in size and would be created using grapple equipment during dry or frozen conditions. Piles would be burned when soils are saturated or frozen and there is little danger for the fire to spread. Burning would occur within 2 years of piling. Cut and leave treatments would occur in areas where juniper density is low enough that the down juniper would not pose a risk of fire danger.
Prescribed burning and mechanical treatment operations would concentrate on the Miller et al. (2005) Phase I and Phase II juniper stand types. Phase III stands would not be treated because they would require extensive reseeding and other rehabilitation actions that would be cost prohibitive with little likelihood of success.
Burning would follow the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan in order to limit impacts to air quality and reduce health and visibility impacts on designated areas. Old-growth juniper stands would be left throughout the 2 allotments for diversity and wildlife habitat needs.
Proposed Management of Noxious Weeds and Invasive Non-Native Species
Non-native invasive plant species and/or noxious weeds would be managed using an integrated vegetation management approach that would include manual, mechanical, biological control methods, prescribed fire, and herbicides. Where herbicide applications are determined to be the most appropriate treatment, they would be applied in conformance with label instructions. Herbicide uses and applications would also be constrained by the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and other mitigation measures adopted in the Oregon FEIS ROD (BLM 2007, 2010b) and any additional measures adopted by the Decision Record for this EA. Herbicides would be applied using ground-based methods such as wicks and wipers, backpack sprayers, ATV, UTV, truck-mounted, and aerial (helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft) sprayers, as described in the Oregon FEIS (USDI BLM 2010a: p. 68-73). In addition to the previously analyzed suite of products (2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, and picloram), one additional herbicide, imazapic (Plateau), analyzed in the Oregon FEIS (BLM 2010a) would be used to treat noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant species. Imazapic would be applied at a rate of 6 oz./acre (0.178 lbs./acre of active ingredient Imazapic) in the fall to treat medusahead rye, ventanata, and cheatgrass. Application method would be by either low boom or aerial spray. Aerial spray treatments for medusahead rye would be used on upland infestations 100 acres or greater and/or on smaller infestations which ground equipment cannot access. Surveys Cultural and botanical surveys would be conducted on all juniper treatment areas, as well as any weed treatment areas involving treatment methods that may cause ground disturbance, prior to signing a decision authorizing these treatments.
Page 10 Proposed Forage (AUM) Allocation by Pasture
This alternative would not change the permitted total number of AUMs, season of use, or grazing system for each allotment. However, the BLM would set an upper limit for AUMs in each pasture based on that pasture’s sustainable stocking rate (Table 2.8). Stocking rates were established for each pasture based on actual use, utilization, and carrying capacity.
Table 2.8. Proposed Authorized Use in Each Pasture under Alternative 2 Allotment BLM Acres of BLM Authorized Pasture No. Acres lands/AUM AUMs West Seeding/ 3260 17 acre/ AUM 192 00420 Collins Wee 1448 15 acre/ AUM 97 Pettus 2077 15 acre/ AUM 138 East Native 3684 20 acre/ AUM 185 West Native (Bench) 2501 20 acre/ AUM 125 West Native (Lake) 1481 20 acre/ AUM 74 Middle Native 7027 20 acre/ AUM 351
(Sheep dip) Total 21478 20 acre/ AUM 1056* East Ceres Flat 3669 20 acres/ AUM 184 00705 (Hockeman) Oatman East (Coyote 8471 20 acres/ AUM 423
Butte) West Ceres Flat 2658 20 acres/ AUM 133 Connely Hills 6466 20 acres/ AUM 323
(Horning Gap) Oatman West 2494 20 acres/ AUM 125 Black Hills 4515 20 acres/ AUM 226 Total 28275 1414 00707 Hayes Butte 2077 17 acre/ AUM 123 West 3160 17 acre/ AUM 186 Powerline 3064 17 acre/ AUM 180 East 618 10 acre/ AUM 47 Total 8936 17 acre/ AUM 00710 West 1531 19 acre/ AUM 81 East 1370 19 acre/ AUM 72 Bunchgrass Butte 666 13 acre /AUM 51 South 604 10 acre/ AUM 61 Total 4171 * In the Egli Rim and Tuff Butte Allotments the total use of all pastures actually adds up to more than the allowable AUMs permitted on the allotment. Due to the rest rotation grazing system implemented on the allotment on any given year only the permitted AUMs would be authorized.
Page 11 Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative the current permits would not be renewed and livestock grazing would not be authorized on public lands within the four allotments under consideration of this EA.
Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
Reduction of AUMs - A 50% reduction of AUMs on the allotment was considered as an alternative, but was eliminated from further analysis because the impacts would fall within the range of impacts already analyzed in the No Action (1) and No Grazing/No Vegetation Treatments (3) Alternatives.
Additional Water Developments- This alternative considered increased water developments in the Egli Rim and Oatman Flat Allotments to increase use of those pastures with limited reliable water sources. Additional reliable water sources would be developed in each pasture of the allotments. This alternative was eliminated as the large number of water developments would be cost prohibitive.
CHAPTER III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section presents a description of the current environment within the allotments and a discussion of the potential impacts resulting from implementation of the alternative management actions. An inter-disciplinary (ID) team has reviewed and identified the resources values and uses that could potentially be affected by the alternative actions. Those resources or uses identified as “not affected” or “not present” are listed in Table 3.1 and will not be further analyzed in this EA. The remainder of this chapter describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on resources and resource uses that may result from each alternative.
Climate
Affected Environment:
The climate in the vicinity of the allotments is variable, but typical of the Northern Great Basin or high desert system. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 6-10 inches. Precipitation occurs mostly in the form of snow during December through March with spring rains common. The soil temperature regime is frigid. Mean annual air temperatures range from 40 to 43 degrees F. The frost-free time period is from 50 to 80 days. The period of optimum plant growth is from April through June.
While changes in greenhouse gas levels may affect climate (Forster et al. 2007, NOAA 2010), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has summarized the latest science and concluded it is beyond the scope of existing science to identify a specific source of greenhouse gas emissions and designate it as the cause of specific climate impacts at any specific location (USGS 2008). For
Page 12 Table 3.1 Resources or Uses that Will not be Analyzed in Detail Elements of the Human Rationale Environment Although some burning is proposed as part of Alternative 2, the potential effects to air Not Air Quality (Clean Air Act) quality would be mitigated through following state smoke management plan and, therefore, Affected there would be minimal impacts to air quality. See fire/fuel management section. None of the alternatives would have disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority Environmental Justice Not Present populations or low-income populations as such populations do not exist within or near the (Executive Order 12898) allotments. Fisheries/Aquatic Habitat Not Present No perennial streams, aquatic or fish habitat exists within the allotments. Forest/Woodlands No forested habitats are present within the allotments. However, invasive western juniper Not Present is present and has been analyzed in both the upland vegetation and fire/fuel management sections. Flood Plains (Executive Order Not No construction within, or other modification of flood plains, are proposed under any of the 13112) and Hydrology Affected alternatives. Therefore, there would be no floodplain or related hydrologic impacts. Hazardous or Solid Waste Not Present No such sites or issues are known within the allotments. Not None of the alternatives analyzed would have any effects on current land status or land Lands Affected tenure. Not None of the alternatives analyzed would have any effects on mineral or energy resources or Minerals and Energy Affected uses. Prime or Unique Farmlands Not Present No such lands have been identified in the allotments. The allotments contain limited dispersed recreation opportunities, primarily associated with fall hunting and OHV use. Based on similar analyses contained within several recent Not Recreation permit renewal EAs (BLM 2012c. 2012d, 2013a, 2013b, 2014e, 2014f, 2014g), recreation Analyzed uses and opportunities does not rise to the level of an issue that is likely to have a significant effects or otherwise require detailed analysis. Threatened and Endangered No federally listed plant or animal species or their critical habitat are found within the Plants and Animals/Special Not Present allotments. No special status plants are known to occur within the allotments. Status Plants Visual Resources Not The allotments fall within visual resource management classes II, III, and IV. Based on Analyzed similar analyses contained within several recent permit renewal EAs (BLM 2012c. 2012d, 2013a, 2013b, 2014e, 2014f, 2014g), potential impacts to visual resources does not rise to the level of an issue that is likely to have a significant effects or otherwise require detailed analysis. Wild Horses (Wild Horse and Not Present The allotments are located outside of designated wild horse herd management areas. Burro Act) Water Quality (Clean Water Not Present There are no perennial streams or municipal drinking water sources in the allotment. Act) Wild and Scenic Rivers Not Present There are no Wild or Scenic Rivers within the allotments. Wilderness Characteristics Not Present BLM's original wilderness inventory did not find wilderness characteristics to be present within these allotments (BLM 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1980a, 1980b, 1989, 1991). Since 2007, the BLM has been conducting wilderness inventory updates following current inventory guidance (BLM 2007a, 2008c, 2012c). In this process, an inter-disciplinary team reviewed the existing wilderness inventory information contained in the BLM’s wilderness inventory files, previously published inventory findings (BLM 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1980a, and 1980b), and citizen-provided wilderness information (ONDA 2005, 2007). BLM conducted field inventory, completed route analysis forms, made unit boundary determinations, and subsequently evaluated wilderness character within each inventory unit. BLM has completed wilderness character inventory updates for all lands within the allotments (BLM 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, and 2010d). BLM hereby incorporates these findings and all other inventory information by reference in its entirety. Based upon the results of these inventory updates, there are no lands with wilderness characteristics in any of the allotments. Therefore, there would be no impacts to such values. this reason, the remainder of this discussion focuses on describing the potential changes in greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration associated with the alternatives.
Page 13 Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3
Livestock grazing results in methane emissions as a result of ruminant digestion. Methane is recognized as one source of carbon emissions. Emission rates from cattle vary widely and depend on many variables (Johnson and Johnson 1995; DeRamus et al. 2003). Livestock grazing can also affect rangeland carbon storage levels, through changes in plant community and changes in ecosystem processes, but the effects have been variable and inconsistent among the ecosystems studied (Schuman et al. 2009). Some studies have found that grazing can result in increased carbon storage compared to no grazing, because of increased plant turnover and changes in plant species composition (Follett et al. 2001). Many changes in rangeland carbon from different grazing practices do not result in substantial changes in total ecosystem carbon, but rather simply redistribute carbon, for example, from aboveground vegetation to root biomass (Derner and Schuman 2007).
Based on analyses contained in several recent permit renewal EAs (BLM 2012a, 2012d, 2014d), the utilization of 0 to 4,077 AUMs (total Active AUMs) of forage would result in an extremely small incremental contribution to total regional, national, and global greenhouse gas emissions. None of the alternatives would have any scientifically verifiable effects on regional or global climate, nor would they have any significant effects on either greenhouse gas emissions or carbon sequestration processes. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed further.
Soils and Biological Soil Crusts
Affected Environment:
Soil and biological soil crust (BSC) cover data was compiled using Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) data on file at the Lakeview District Office. This ESI data represents a combination of soil and vegetation data collected by BLM and NRCS (see NRCS 2013). This data is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety and is summarized in this chapter and in Appendix A.
BSCs such as mosses, lichens, micro fungi, cyanobacteria and algae play a role in a functioning ecosystem. In addition to providing biological diversity, BSCs contribute to soil stability through increased resistance to erosion and nutrient cycling (Belnap et al 2001). Lichen species diversity is poorly known in the Pacific Northwest (Root et al. 2011). Further, identification of BSCs at the species level is not practical for fieldwork, as it is very difficult and may require laboratory culturing (Belnap et al 2001). For these reasons, BLM began collecting BSC cover data during the North Lake ESI process. Crust cover data collected in the four allotments is summarized in Table 3.2.1.
Biological soil crust data was also collected in one trend plot in the Egli Rim Allotment and one in the Murdock Allotment. Crust cover (moss) present at these locations constituted less than 1% overall ground cover.
Page 14 Table 3.2.1. Biological Soil Crust (BSC) Cover Classes* Allotment % BSC 0 % BSC 1 % BSC 2 % BSC 4 % BSC 6 % BSC 7 % BSC 8
Egli Rim 6 1 6 56 21 1 0 Oatman Flat 2 0 1 54 31 3 2 Tuff Butte 4 0 0 67 14 0 0 Murdock 8 14 1 47 31 0 0 *0= no crust cover 1= clearly a crust is present 2= just Cyanobacteria present 4= lichens and mosses covering 1-5% of the ground 6= lichens and mosses covering 5-10% of the ground 8= lichens and mosses covering 10-20% of the ground 10= lichens and mosses covering greater than 20% of the ground Values in between are often a reflection of the field observer making a decision to use best judgment to assign a value to crust cover that may not fit into one of the categories but fits between two of the categories.
There are 41 soil series representing 134 soil map units in the allotment collectively (Table A.1. and Map 4). The majority of the allotments have soils that vary in texture from loamy to sandy and variations in between. The majority of the Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments are sandy loam soils, well-drained to excessively drained, and derived from volcanic parent material. The majority (42%) of the Egli Rim Allotment is dominated by very cobbly loam well- drained soils.
The Rangeland Health Assessments found soils in the in all four allotments exhibited infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability appropriate for soil, climate, and land form. Root occupancy for the soil was appropriate, and therefore, Standard 1 was being met (BLM 1999a, BLM 1999b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). Soil surface factor (SSF) data collected during the ecological site inventory (ESI) were used to assign an erosion class rating and the potential susceptibility of soil to accelerated erosion. Within each allotment approximately 75% of the acres are in the slight erosion condition class.
Observed Apparent Trend (OAT) data was used to determine trend indicators correlated to soil stability. These indicators are: surface litter, pedestals, and gullies. OAT data indicates stable soils on the allotment; i.e. surface litter is accumulating in place, there is little evidence of pedestaling, and gullies are absent from the slopes at trend sites and from ESI data. Most all trend sites located on the allotments were stable to upward concerning soil indicators. One trend plot in Tuff Butte Allotment showed a downward trend with some pedestaling of plants and primarily low plant vigor in 2012. This site is heavily dominated and invaded by Juniper which is causing the overall downward trend observations, and is not related to livestock grazing. The invading juniper has created decreased more deeply rooting perennial understory vegetation that typically stabilized soil conditions.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to All Alternatives
Studies by Ponzetti and McCune (2001) examined biotic soil crust cover and composition at several locations in central and eastern Oregon in 1995. The study compared species richness of microbiotic crusts inside and outside of several exclosures to provide a grazed versus ungrazed comparison. Results of the study found that all of the sites had between one and six more taxa
Page 15 inside the exclosures than in the grazed pastures, with one exception, which had three more species in the grazed transect. Generally, total crust cover was inversely related to vascular plant cover, as there was a positive relationship of crust cover to available soil surfaces. Ponzetti and McCune (2001) found the differences in total crust cover and species composition between study sites were most strongly related to soil pH, electrical conductivity, and the relative calcium carbonate content of the soil. Soil chemistry and climate differences were a stronger factor affecting cover and species composition than livestock exclusion. However, the study found a lower cover of biotic crusts, lichens, and species richness in grazed areas. Generally, livestock do not graze on BSCs. The primary impact to BSCs from livestock is associated with hoof trampling. In this respect the impacts to BSCs and soils are generally inter-related. Therefore, BLM assumes, for purposes of this analysis, the impacts to BSCs can generally be quantified by quantifying the associated impacts to soils.
The impacts of livestock grazing on soils and BSCs within the Lakeview Resource Area were analyzed in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003a) and that analysis is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. In summary, livestock use would continue to impact area soils and BSCs due to compaction around waterholes and along livestock trails (pages 4-35 to 4-36). However, the rest-rotation grazing systems utilized in these allotments are designed to reduce or mitigate these impacts.
These existing rest rotation grazing systems would continue under Alternatives 1 and 2 and would provide both soils and BSCs time to recover during rest periods, as would natural processes such as frost-heave and crust recruitment from adjacent areas.
Soils and BSCs would continue to be negatively impacted in livestock concentration areas near water sources and cattle trails under Alternatives 1 and 2. By examining past use pattern maps, and size and volume of the existing water sources (developed springs and dirt tanks), it can be demonstrated that cattle tend to concentrate within about a quarter mile around the existing major water sources (a quarter of a mile buffer around a water source represents approximately 125 acres). There are smaller waterholes and less productive springs with less water available receiving less grazing pressure. The concentrated area of use is 0.1 miles around the source or approximately 25 acres. These estimates of disturbed areas for both major and minor water sources are for the purpose of calculation and comparison and vary depending on topography, yearly precipitation, and location in the pasture.
However, the majority of all four allotments are currently meeting Rangeland Health Standards 1 and 3 (upland watershed health and ecological processes), and would continue to do so under all alternatives.
Soil Effects for Alternatives 1: No Action
Within the 4 allotments there are 28 reliable water sources resulting in an estimated 3,500 acres of concentrated livestock use and 14 intermittent water sources resulting in an estimated 350 acres of additional concentrated livestock use (Map 5). Total concentrated livestock use and impacts associated with water sources is about 3,850 acres. With the rest-rotation grazing system only
Page 16 half the pastures and water sources are used annually. Therefore, on any given year concentrated livestock use would impact about 1,925 acres across the 4 allotments (Table 3.2.1).
Although there are several intermittent streams within the allotments, particularly Egli Rim, they are typically dry most of the year and do not provide reliable water to livestock in most years. These drainages do not support riparian vegetation and are not attractive to livestock any more than the surrounding uplands. Due to a lack of livestock concentration in these areas they were not included in calculations of concentrated livestock use areas.
Cattle trails tend to be located along fence lines and near water sources. These trails are typically less than 5 feet wide. The miles of fence located within an allotment where cattle are known to trail were estimated and using the formula (# mi. x 5 ft. x 5,280 ft. per mi./43,560 ft.2 per acre) the area of potential disturbance associated with past fence construction and livestock trailing was calculated (Table 3.2.1). BLM does not have a quantifiable means of estimating disturbed acres associated with cross-country livestock trailing to water sources, but based on estimates associated with fencing, believes that it represents a very small percentage of the allotments.
Ground disturbance associated with past fence construction and livestock trailing can also be estimated at about 115 acres (Map 5). This estimate includes all BLM lands and private lands occurring within the allotments. Since half of the pastures are grazed on any given year, only half or 58 acres would be impacted by livestock trailing in a given year. Table 3.2.1 summarizes concentrated livestock use by alternative.
Table 3.2.1. Summary of Concentrated Livestock Use in the Four Allotments Total acres of # of livestock % of allotments with Alternative Water Miles of fence concentrated concentrated livestock Sources use (50% for a use year) 1 42 190 1,983 3 2 42 190 2,171 3 3 42 190 0 0
This alternative lacks specific pasture forage allocation upper limits and has the potential to continue to allow grazing in some pastures at moderate to heavy utilization level, causing these pastures to have higher soil impacts while other pastures routinely receive little or none.
Alternative 1 would not treat invading juniper in the Oatman Flat or Tuff Butte Allotments. This would lead to increased acres moving towards late successional juniper woodlands, with an associated decrease in shrub-grass understory and increase in bare soil (Miller et al. 2005). This, in turn, would increase the potential for soil erosion by wind and water. The sandy soils on these allotments have a higher potential risk to wind erosion.
While noxious weeds would continue to be treated under Alternative 1, medusahead and other invasive annual grasses would not be treated (with imazapic), which would allow these invasive grasses a continued advantage for reproduction and recruitment through prolific seed production. Over time, this would decrease native perennial grass diversity and density. The reduction in
Page 17 perennial grasses (which have higher rooting capacity) would lead to an increased potential for soil erosion.
Effects for Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
The impacts of livestock grazing/permit renewal would have generally the same effects on soils and BSCs as Alternative 1. There is the potential to have an additional 375 acres of concentrated livestock use associated with three additional water trough and an additional 3/4 mile of fence (Table 3.2.2). However, these impacts would be offset by a more even distribution of livestock across some areas (Egli Rim and Tuff Butte Allotments). Additional water sources would also reduce impacts near existing water sources within the Egli Rim Allotment.
Some short-term impacts to soils/BSCs from compaction and ground disturbance from livestock and juniper treatments would occur. However, the maximum limits for AUMs allowable per pasture would ensure a more appropriate distribution of livestock and forage use across the allotments, reducing impacts on soils/BSCs within the Egli Rim and Tuff Butte Allotments.
Treatments of weeds and invasive species could also result in some short-term increases in ground disturbance/bare ground exposure. However, as areas repopulate with perennial species, the soil erosion potential would go down over the long-term.
Effects for Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Under this alternative, little change to soils or BSCs would occur on the allotments in the short- term (up to 5 years). Most of the concentrated livestock use areas around water sources and the cattle trails (about 1,983 acres) would reclaim naturally with vegetation and BSCs over the long- term (5-10-years). However, the transition to juniper woodland over large portions of the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments, along with the expansion of weeds and invasive species would lead to a loss of native grasses, shrubs, BSCs and an increase in bare ground. This would result in an increase in soil erosion potential over the long-term.
Wetlands/Riparian Areas
Affected Environment
Although there are several drainages as shown on the map within the allotments, all are intermittent that only flow seasonally during precipitation events or spring snowmelt. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies several of these drainages as “riverine” systems, but due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation.
The 2004 rangeland health assessments identified many acres of palustrine wetlands across the allotments from the NWI dataset. Recently these areas were reassessed and almost all found to be man-made livestock waterholes or water catchment systems that do not support riparian or wetland vegetation (Tables 3.8.1 to 3.8.4). The Murdock and Oatman Flat Allotments do not contain any wetlands.
Page 18 Based on additional field work, the Egli Rim Allotment contains two palustrine wetlands totaling about 6 acres that have recently been assessed and determined to be in proper functioning condition (PFC) with stable trends. One is a 5-acre palustrine wetland adjacent to a reservoir on private land in the northeast corner of the allotment (estimated in the 2014 rangeland health assessment at 2 acres). The other is a shallow 1-acre lakebed (Skeleton) waterhole in the West Native Lake Pasture that supports some wetland vegetation.
Based on the NWI, approximately 15 acres of palustrine wetlands may exist within BLM lands on the Tuff Butte Allotment within the West Pasture associated with the Paulina Marsh. These areas were noted as being in PFC in the 2004 rangeland health assessment. After completion of the rangeland health assessment update, these areas were determined to not be currently capable of supporting wetland or riparian vegetation due to lack of inundation by water and were not included further in this analysis.
Environmental Consequences
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3
The palustrine wetland in the northeast corner of the Egli Rim Allotment is currently excluded from livestock grazing. Therefore, none of the alternatives would have any effect on this wetland. This area would continue in PFC and would continue to meet Rangeland Health Standard 2 over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
Alternative 1: No Action
The wetland area near Skeleton Waterhole has maintained a stable trend under current management and would likely continue to maintain a stable trend under this alternative. This area would continue in PFC and would continue to meet Rangeland Health Standard 2 over the 10- year analysis timeframe.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
The wetland area near Skelton Waterhole could experience an upward trend, due to the implementation of a reduced forage allocation within the pasture. No weed or juniper treatments are proposed specifically in this area and, therefore would have no effects to this wetland. This area would continue in PFC and would continue to meet Rangeland Health Standard 2 over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
The wetland area near Skelton Waterhole would experience an upward trend, due to the removal of grazing within the pasture. This area would continue in PFC and would continue to meet Rangeland Health Standard 2 over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
Page 19 Upland Vegetation
Affected Environment:
Vegetation data was compiled from Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) data on file at the Lakeview District Office. The data for north Lake County was collected by BLM staff between the early 1990s and 2001. This data is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety and is summarized in this chapter and in Appendix A.
There are 46 different vegetation types within the four allotments (Tables A2-A5, Map 6). The dominant vegetation occurring on 41% of the four allotments is low sagebrush grass communities in fair to good condition. The understory grass species within these low sagebrush sites include Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and Blue Bunch Wheatgrass. Dominant vegetation combined for the 4 allotments is summarized in Tables 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.
Table 3.3.2. Dominant Vegetation Communities by Allotment Allotment Dominant Vegetation Community Egli Rim Low sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass seeding Oatman Flat Juniper, low sagebrush, mountain sagebrush Tuff Butte Rabbitbrush, crested wheatgrass seeding Murdock Rabbitbrush, mountain sagebrush, cheatgrass
Table 3.3.3. Dominant Vegetation within the Four Allotments Collectively Green and Low Basin Big Mountain Big Wyoming Gray Rabbit Juniper Sagebrush Sagebrush Sagebrush Sagebrush brush Percent of 4 41% 7% 6% 2% 10% 17% Allotments
Egli Rim Allotment
The dominant vegetation in this allotment is low sagebrush with a dominant understory grass of bluebunch wheatgrass. The majority of this community is in good condition based on the ESI. The Wee, Pettus and West seeding (Collins) pastures were seeded to crested wheatgrass in the mid-1980s. Long term trend plots within these pastures indicate the seedings are stable with sagebrush and rabbitbrush naturally increasing on site through natural successional processes. Some cheatgrass occurs on these sites with very low frequency. Utilization of these pastures has been moderate to high in the last recent years with the drought like conditions. Subsequently those pastures have received one to two years of rest for plants to complete their reproductive cycles completely and to allow the pasture a full recovery. The three other pastures are larger and contain native vegetation in upward long term trend with plants having high vigor. The East Native, Middle Native, Bench, and Lake Pastures all receive less use due to a lack of water in drier years on these pastures. Two weed species are invading and could impact vegetation conditions in the future (see noxious weed section).
Page 20 Tuff Butte Allotment
This allotment is primarily dominated by rabbitbrush and crested wheatgrass seedings on approximately 36% of the allotment. The crested wheatgrass looks to have been planted sometime during the 1960’s. Much of these seedings have benefitted range health by decreasing density of cheatgrass plants in all 5 trend plots on the allotment based on photo trend analysis. Four of the five trend plots were rated in upward trend with vegetation showing good seedling recruitment and vigor. One trend plot in the west pasture looked to have and OAT in 2012 of downward. This pasture was heavily grazed in 2012, showing low vigor of plants with very dry conditions. This pasture was scheduled to be rested in 2013. Some accidental use did occur in 2013 with a lack of gap fences around Tuff Butte itself. West pasture was rested completely in 2014 to allow plants to recover from some use in 2013 and heavy use in 2012. Overall, the long- term-trend looks to be stable with appropriate species diversity and density of perennial plants. Utilization has averaged moderate on the allotment with pastures typically grazed one year and rested the next year, allowing plants a complete year of rest.
The allotment is also dominated by juniper (approximately 33%) with a variety of understory grass vegetation. Post-settlement juniper has increased by approximately 5,000 acres and is out- competing sagebrush and grasses due to a lack of reoccurring fire (see fuels reduction section).
Oatman Flat Allotment
Juniper with an understory of low sagebrush or mountain sagebrush and a variety of grass species is the dominant vegetation on the allotment (approximately 50%). There are approximately 1,300 acres of post-settlement juniper encroaching on this allotment (see fuels reduction section). Otherwise vegetation on the allotment is very diverse including silver, mountain, and basin varieties of big sagebrush, both green and gray rabbitbrush, bitterbrush, juniper, and ponderosa pine with a wide variety of understory species. Utilization has been measured moderate to heavy. In those pastures and years with heavy utilization impacts were mitigated with rest the year following year to ensure recovery of plants allowing them to fully complete their reproductive cycle. There are 9 long-term trend plots located on the allotment. All trend plots are currently rated at stable to upward based on photo analysis. Only one trend plot in 2009 showed a downward OAT due to juniper invasion on site some loss of perennial grass was apparent. This trend plot is due to be reread in 2014. The overall trend is vegetation has moved to a later seral status with increase shrub and juniper cover and decreased perennial grass cover.
Murdock Allotment
Rabbitbrush with and understory of cheatgrass comprises 47% of the allotment with 44% of the allotment comprised of mountain big sagebrush with and understory of crested wheatgrass. This allotment has had moderate utilization levels for the last 10-years. In the South (Mahogany) Pasture did receive 62% use in 2005 which is 12 percent more than the allowable 50% this pasture was rested the following year to mitigate the higher than allowable use levels to allow plants to fully recover from slightly higher use. This occurred again in 2005 where use was again use was 60%. The following year was rested to mitigate slightly higher use levels. Although use
Page 21 was slightly above the 50% use was still considered to be moderate. This pasture is comprised of crested wheatgrass which can receive some higher use.
There are 5 long-term trend plots within this allotment showing stable to upward trend within the allotment. The overall trend of vegetation on the allotment in all pastures is natural successional processes are occurring and increased shrub and rabbitbrush cover is increasing within the crested wheatgrass seedings. Invasion from medusahead rye on the allotment is impacting vegetation conditions (see noxious and invasive species section).
Environmental Consequences:
The impacts of livestock grazing on upland vegetation within the Lakeview Resource Area were analyzed in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS and that analysis is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. In summary, the vegetation composition of key species is expected to be maintained or improved over time under the rest rotation grazing systems utilized in all 4 allotments (BLM 2003a; pages 4-5 and 4-9).
Alternative 1: No Action
The upland vegetation communities would continue to be negatively impacted, primarily in livestock concentration areas near water sources and cattle trails under this alternative. Livestocke use would be concentrated within 0.1 mile around existing water sources (see impact discussion in Soils and Biological Soil Crust section). An estimated 3,908 acres (6% of the allotments) of concentrated vegetation use or trampling would continue around associated water developments (in average years of use), and along fences.
This alternatives would continue to result in moderate to heavy forage utilization (vegetation removal) while continuing to provide for soil health and vegetation productivity across the majority of the allotments. The upland plant community and species composition would be maintained at a stable trend.
Under the current grazing management, the allotments are meeting Rangeland Health Standards 1 and 3 related to upland watershed function and general ecological conditions (BLM 2004b, BLM 2014a, 2014b, 2014c 2014d). Continuing to graze as described in Alternatives 1 would be expected to continue to meet these standards. The rest rotation grazing management would continue to include rest to all pastures every second or third year. This grazing strategy would sustain the current plant cover and species diversity. Grazing under this alternative has resulted in moderate and on occasion heavy use levels on the allotments, but generally would result in continued stable trends across the allotments.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 1. The additional 375 acres of concentrated livestock use would occur associated with the additional 3 water sources and ¾ mile of fence. These impacts are likely to be negated with increased distribution of livestock in pastures and the fence on Tuff Butte keeping livestock within areas scheduled to be used.
Page 22
Alternative 2 would meet Rangeland Health Standards 1 and 3 related to upland watershed function and general ecological condition. Grazing would be adjusted through the flexibility provided in the annual application process when needed to control livestock distribution, grazing utilization levels, and provide rest. The rest rotation grazing management would continue to include rest to all pastures every second or third year. This grazing strategy would sustain the current plant cover and species diversity. The upper use limits applied to each pasture under this alternative would maintain grazing at more moderate intensities resulting in more diversity of residual grass cover heights across the allotment and provide stable to upward trend of long-term monitoring plots on the allotments.
This alternative proposes to treat medusahead invading the allotments within this EA. Control of medusahead with imazapic within the allotments will benefit the vegetation resource and improve rangeland health by decreasing an annual invasive. This will decrease competition for native vegetation to occupy and create appropriate soil moisture while providing the optimum species diversity and health for the vegetative community. Medusahead has the potential to create a monoculture of vegetation which has little value to wildlife, livestock, or any resource use on public lands and has economic disadvantages (see noxious weed section).
The proposal to reduce and treat pre-settlement juniper would improve native plant diversity and improve understory vegetative cover improving overall range health conditions in those areas.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Plant community shifts occur slowly in the high desert climate without the influence of a major disturbance such as fire, weed invasion, or other catastrophic event (Holechek et al. 2006). Under this alternative, there would be little or no noticeable difference in plant communities in the short- term (5 years) and possible some slight shifts in vegetation over the long-term (10 years). The concentrated livestock use areas (3,908 acres) associated with fences and water sources would reclaim naturally over the long-term (10 years).
No herbicide weed treatment would be implemented on the allotment, including the use of the four herbicides authorized for use (2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate and picloram). Without herbicide treatment, noxious weeds would continue to spread and compete or out-compete native vegetation. A loss of native perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs would decrease the root holding capacity within the soil, increasing the chance of erosion. Decreased diversity and cover of native vegetation would decrease the health of the vegetative communities on the allotments. Additionally, treatment of post-settlement juniper would not occur under this alternative causing an increase of late successional juniper decreasing understory perennial vegetation. Compared to the other two alternatives, the allotments under this alternative would likely experience a downward trend in vegetation conditions and overall community health.
Overall, the allotments would generally continue to provide upland plant communities that would continue to meet rangeland health standards 1 and 3 over the 10-year analysis timeframe.
Page 23 Fire/Fuels Management
Affected Environment:
The allotment is located in Desert West Fire Management Unit (FMU). Suppression of wildfires is the primary fire management goal for this FMU. A number of fuel types are present in this FMU. Vegetation within the allotment consists of sagebrush communities that are being encroached by western juniper, in varying degrees. Grasses and shrubs are the primary carriers of fire. Rapid rates of spread exist due to grass and shrub fuels and topography of the FMU.
Western juniper significantly alters fire behavior by adding intensity, holdovers, and increasing spotting potential. These attributes can create containment issues, and cause burns to span multiple burn periods. The timeframe when large fires typically occur is short, commonly spanning August and September.
Fires in this FMU are generally infrequent, but when they occur during August and September there is a high potential for large fire growth (example: Sharp Top Fire 1983). In general, all fires are short in duration (majority of spread occurs within one to three burn periods). The majority of ignitions in this FMU are caused by lightning. However, some large fires have been human- caused when those ignitions coincided with the timeframes that support large fire growth.
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a measurement used to determine how far a geographic unit or plant community has departed from its historical fire regime or plant community structure. A Condition Class 1 represents an area where composition and structure of vegetation and fuels are similar to the natural (historic) regime. In other words, a Condition Class 1 represents what you would expect to find at the site prior to European settlement in the area. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components is low. A Condition Class 2 represents an area where composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are moderately altered from the natural regime. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components is moderate. A Condition Class 3 represents an area where composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are highly altered from the natural regime. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.
Fire Regimes 2 and 4 and Condition Classes 2 and 3 are the most common for this area, illustrating the expansion of juniper across most of the area presently compared to historic estimates. To move the plant communities in the allotment toward a more appropriate fire regime, the vegetation structure and composition over most of the area should be modified.
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1 - No Action
Fuel loadings would not be actively reduced through management actions under the No Action Alternative. Plant communities would continue on a predicted successional transition to fully- developed juniper woodland. Fire fighters would be placed at greater risk during future suppression efforts in environments with elevated fuel loads.
In areas being encroached by juniper, the size of most wildfires would remain small because of
Page 24 the reduced ability of the site to carry fire. This is caused by decreased understory herbaceous plants and shrubs (areas lacking ground fuel connectivity). However, under severe conditions1 the risk of larger fires increases because of increased continuity of crown fuels. Fires under these conditions have potential to burn large areas and are difficult to suppress.
Suppression actions under these conditions would rely primarily on indirect attack. This suppression tactic relies on line constructed (hand, dozer, etc.), or existing fuel breaks such as roads or streams, at some distance from the fire and unburned fuel between the fire line and flaming front is burned as part of the suppression operation. This tactic increases the area burned. Overall, the allotments would remain in a Condition Class 2 or 3, where the risk of large-scale, high-intensity wildfires and risks to human life and the environment reach their maximum.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would reduce intensity and severity of wildfires and risk to fire fighters by altering the continuity of fuels in the allotments. Suppression actions would be able to employ more direct attack strategies minimizing acres burned in wildfires. Firefighters may rely more on natural fuel breaks and changes in fuels. Less fireline may need to be constructed to suppress wildfires.
Implementation of this alternative would lower the risk of a large-scale, high-intensity wildfire event occurring within the allotment. The overall FRCC rating of the allotment would likely change from a Condition Class 3 to a Condition Class 1 or 2 as open, shrublands increase across the landscape where closed-canopy juniper woodland stands are treated. Fire behavior in severely treated areas would be expected to have low rates of spread, low fire intensities, and low flame lengths immediately following fuel treatments.
Fuels reduction projects would produce smoke from pile burning fires and to a lesser degree dust from mechanical treatments. Impacts to air quality from pile burning would range from reduced visibility, to pneumonic irritation, and smoke odor affecting people in proximity to the Project Area when such treatments are underway. These impacts would be short-lived, the greatest impact would occur during the actual ignition or active burning phase, lasting from one to a few days depending on the size or number of piles to be ignited. Residual smoke produced from the burnout of large fuels, or slower burning fuel concentrations would occur, lasting for 1 to 3 days following the ignition phase. Impacts to air quality from mechanical treatments would be airborne dust generated while operating that would reduce visibility in the immediate Project Area, ceasing quickly when such operations stop. The areas of greatest impact from mechanical treatments would be the immediate project area and roads used in association with the project.
Subsequent site-specific burn plans would include a contact list of residents, and/or other places of interest adjacent to the Project Area to communicate potential impacts.
______1 Severe Conditions: Severe conditions could include any or a combination of all of the following: high temperatures, low relative humidity, and high wind speeds.
Page 25 Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Under this alternative, both overstory and understory fuels would increase at a slightly greater rate than Alternative 1. The risk of future wildfires would be the greatest of all alternatives analyzed. Fire fighters would be placed at greater risk during future suppression efforts.
Noxious Weeds and Non-Native Invasive Plant Species
Affected Environment:
Invasive plants (or weeds) are non-native, aggressive plants with the potential to cause significant damage to native ecosystems and/or cause significant economic losses. They successfully compete with native plants for light, water, soil nutrients, and space with the potential to result in their dominance of plan community and the displacement of native plants and the fauna that depends on them. Noxious weeds are a subset of invasive plants that are State or federally listed as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or public or private property.
There are noxious weeds, non-native invasive plant species, and weed spreading vectors within the allotments. The Following noxious weeds species are known to exist across the four allotments: Mediterranean Sage (Salvia aethiopis), Medusahead Rye (Taeniatherum caput- medusa), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. Micranthos), and Whitetop (Lebidium draba). A brief description of life histories for these species follows:
Hoary Cress (Cardaria draba (L.) Desv.)
Hoary cress is an erect perennial. The species reproduces by both seeds and through vegetative means. One plant can produce from 1,200 to 4,800 seeds. The species also reproduce vegetatively, developing new shoots from their extensive systems of vertical and horizontal roots. This is the primary method of spread. The roots can penetrate deep into the soil at depths well over 10 feet. Because of these large and deep underground systems, the three species form hard to control colonel colonies. This species can completely displace desirable vegetation forming dense monocultures. Once established, they can be difficult to control. Hand-pulling is fairly impractical with hoary cress due to its extensive root and rhizome system. Mowing alone will not control Cardaria species due to its extensive root and rhizome system. Their roots can remain alive even when the top-growth has been eliminated for a year. Improper cultivation or disturbance can spread hoary cress by dispersing root fragment. Cattle tend to avoid eating them and those animals that consume it may have tainted milk. In addition, plants containing glucosinolates, which can form toxic compounds in cattle (DiTomaso et al. 2013, Page 76).
Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis L.)
Mediterranean sage is a biennial, sometimes a short-lived perennial. Plants produce only by seed and large plants may produce 50,000 to 100,000 seeds. Seed dispersal occurs when mature plants break near the soil surface and tumble in the wind, spreading seed for long distances. Little is known about seed longevity in the soil, but it is expected that the seeds survive for several years. Mediterranean sage has spread over 1.3 million acres in the western United States with new infestation occurring each year. Between the allotments the Lakeview BLM has estimated 45 acres of Mediterranean sage, with several hundred acres of Mediterranean sage surrounding the allotments.
With small infestations, hand pulling or digging is feasible and effective. The root-feeding biocontrol weevil, Phrydicuchus tau, is present with in the allotments. This species is a promising long-term management strategy for Mediterranean sage. Areas near the allotment have enough Phrydicuchus tau available that the site is used as a nursery site for the State of Oregon. The Phrydicuchus tau larva feeding
Page 26 damages flower shoot buds and root crown. Adults can cause minor defoliation of rosette leaves. The biological control agent has been present near the allotments since the 1980s and would still continue to help manage the Mediterranean sage for all alternatives. The biological control agent works in a cycle. Some years Mediterranean sage plant populations will be high with lower numbers of insects. Over time insect populations will be high and create low densities of Mediterranean sage plants populations and this is a cycle.
Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)
This winter annual grass has a shorter life cycle than most grasses. This weedy grass species flowers in the spring. Winter annual grasses are known to suppress other grasses in rangeland. All are fire promoters. Since they germinate so early they also mature and dry out earlier in the season as well. The lack of moisture in the plant matter allows the species to allow fire to quickly rage across the rangelands.
Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebeL. Ssp. Micranthos (Gugler) Hayek
Spotted knapweed is a bushy biennial to short-lived perennial. It produces both by seed and vegetative from lateral roots just below the soil surface. New rosettes may develop at about 3-cm intervals along lateral root, expanding population peripherally. Seeds can remain in the soil for up to 8 years and have three germination patterns: non-dormant seeds that germinate with or without light exposures, dormant seeds that germinate in response to light and dormant seeds that are not light sensitive. Spotted knapweed has been shown to occasionally hybridize with diffuse knapweed. Spotted knapweed is highly competitive with native vegetation. It forms dense stands that can exclude desirable vegetation and wildlife in natural areas.
Many of these weed infestations are present along roads, right-of-ways, and near disturbed areas such as water developments. However, Medusahead rye has begun to spread out across the rangelands of these allotments. The estimated acres of weeds have been summarized by allotment in Table 3.5.1. These weeds are currently being managed under the Integrated Weed Management Program EA (BLM 2004b). Through this plan, only noxious weed are currently being managed using four herbicides (2, 4-D, picloram, glyphosate and dicamba), biological control, and manual control methods.
However, none of these four herbicides or other available methods effectively controls Medusahead rye. The only existing method that would likely have some effective control on Medusahead rye would be to use glyphosate, but it may currently only be used through selective spot spray applications on BLM rangelands. Medusahead rye is an aggressive winter annual grass species that that is known for having a high silica content which makes it not palatable forage for livestock or wildlife. This is the most troublesome species across the four allotments and is a high priority for BLM control. There are also other non-native invasive species (that are not legally designated by Oregon as noxious weeds) that do or are likely to cause similar impacts, including Africa wiregrass (Ventenata dubia) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).
Environmental Consequences:
Effects of Noxious Weeds/Non-Native Invasive Species Common to All Alternatives
Noxious weeds are present along roads and right-of- ways, near water developments, and are beginning to spread across the rangelands in the allotments. Since the noxious weeds have the potential to spread through wind, water, animals, and humans, weeds would continue to spread without effective control methods. In general, weeds spread at an average rate of 12% per year.
Page 27 Table 3.5.1. Existing Weeds and Proposed Control Methods Allotment Known Noxious Estimated Proposed Rate Type of Weed Species Acres Herbicide Application Egli Rim Mediterranean Sage 30 Acres Picloram 2 Quarts per Broadcast (Salvia aethiopis) Acre Ground Application or Aerial Application Egli Rim Medusahead Rye 50 Acres Imazapic 4-8 Ounces Per Broadcast (Taeniatherum caput- Acre Ground medusa) Application or Aerial Application Murdock Medusahead Rye 200 Acres Imazapic 4-8 Ounces Per Broadcast (Taeniatherum caput- Acre Ground medusa) Application or Aerial Application Oatman Flat Mediterranean Sage 5 Acres Picloram 2 quarts per acre Broadcast (Salvia aethiopis) Ground Application Oatman Flat Spotted Knapweed 5 Acres Picloram 2 quarts per acre Spot Spray (Centaurea stoebe ssp. Micranthos) Tuff Butte Whitetop (Lebidium 5 Acres 2,4-D + draba) Dicamba Tuff Butte Medusahead Rye 10 Acres Imazapic 4-8 Ounces Per Broadcast (Taeniatherum caput- Acre Ground medusa) Application or Aerial Application
The spread of the noxious weed plant populations would likely have harmful effects on livestock. Many studies and repeated landowner experiences show that weeds commonly reduce livestock carrying capacity from thirty-five percent to ninety percent (Hiken 1980, USDA 1994a).
Effects Common to Alternative 1 and 2
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Egli Rim Allotment
The allotment would continue to be grazed during the current grazing period (4/1-8/15) under both alternatives. Mediterranean sage and Medusahead rye are the only weeds currently within the allotment.
Mediterranean sage originally invaded the allotment after a fire. The site has stayed relatively close to the burn scar, which means cattle have not been a major vector of seed spread to date. Since Mediterranean sage would be setting seed while the cattle are in the allotment it would be possible for the cattle to assist in seed spread. However, Mediterranean sage seed has the ability to break off from at the stem and blow in the wind, and it is more likely to be spread by the wind than by livestock.
Page 28
Medusahead can spread from existing sites. Medusahead would also be producing seed during the grazing period. However, livestock often avoid areas that are heavily infested since the plant becomes unpalatable. Medusahead would continue to spread though wildlife, wind and spring runoff vectors.
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Murdock Allotment
The allotment would continue to be grazed during the current grazing period (4/16-6/30) for both alternatives. Medusahead rye is the only known weed in the allotment. The majority of the sites are spreading from a large adjacent site on Forest Service land. During the time the cattle would be in the allotment the medusahead will likely be in the flower stage and starting to set seed. However, it is not likely that seeds would be dropping by the end of June; therefore the cattle would not be a likely vector for the spread. Medusahead would more likely spread through wind, wildlife, and spring water runoff vectors.
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Oatman Flat Allotment
The allotment would continue to be grazed during the same time frame (4/15-7/31) for both alternatives. Currently there are only two weed species: Mediterranean sage and spotted knapweed. Both of these species are located along the Highway 31 corridor. Deschutes County is just north of the Oatman Flat Allotment, and is known for having one of the largest infestations of spotted knapweed. Spotted knapweed is most likely being spread by vehicles traveling from Deschutes County. Since both species are currently being aggressively managed it is not likely that continued grazing would have any effect on weed spread.
Effects of Grazing on Weeds in Tuff Butte Allotment
The Tuff Butte allotment would continue to be grazed during the same time frame (4/1-7/15) for both alternatives. There is a very small amount of invasive plants in the allotment, which demonstrates that grazing is not promoting or actively spreading weeds or invasive plants. The only invasive plants are located along a power line right-of-way, indicating vehicles are a more important vector of seed movement.
Effects of Range Improvement Maintenance
The continued maintenance of pipelines, troughs, wells, reservoirs and waterholes would continue to cause some disturbance at the water development sites. This could lead to additional invasive plant invasion. The fence maintenance would be non-significant to invasive plants.
Alternative 1: No Action
Effects of Weeds/Invasive Plants on Other Resources:
Livestock concentration and associated disturbance to native vegetation and soils around water developments, fences, and within the non-excluded riparian areas would continue to provide an
Page 29 opportunity for weeds to invade these areas. While livestock would continue to serve as a minor vector of seed spread, the majority of new weed infestations in the past 10-years (besides medusahead) have been located along roads/utility lines.
Under Alternative 1, native plant communities would continue to be impacted by cheatgrass and medusahead and may be invaded by Africa wire grass in the future. These species would decrease plant diversity, habitat quality and productivity, and reduce forage available for livestock and wildlife. There is a large amount of cheatgrass and medusahead that is invading these allotments, except for a very few weeks early in the season, it is unpalatable. Noxious weeds would continue to expand at their current rate.
Effects of Herbicides:
Although herbicides would be applied to fewer acres under this alternative than in Alternative 2 the potential toxicity of the four existing herbicides would be higher than the proposed herbicides in Alternative 2. The 2,4-D and glyphosate present risks to mammals from direct spray and consumption of contaminated grass at the typical and maximum application rates. Inadvertent spraying of grass and other forage near treated invasive weeds, as well as drift and other avenues, could result in increased risk of exposure. Picloram also presents low to moderate risks under some exposure scenarios, and dicamba presents a low to moderate risk under food contamination scenarios for typical and maximum rate respectively. Effects of these four herbicides on other resource values are summarized in Table 3.5.2.
According to the analysis in Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicide on BLM Lands in Oregon EIS (BLM 2010a), treatments that maintain or reduce the cover of noxious weeds and restore native and other forage vegetation on grazed lands would benefit livestock and wildlife by increasing the quantity and the quality of forage. Decline in range condition from invasive weeds would be proportional to the acres projected to become infested over time. The difference between the alternatives could be expected to have differing effects of grazing capacity over the long-term (BLM 2010a: p. 4).
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
Effects of Weeds/Invasive Species:
This alternative would allow for an effective control method of non-native winter annual grass species (medusahead rye, cheatgrass, and African wiregrass) by allowing more effective herbicides. The reduced populations of annual grass species would allow the native grasses to grow or recover with less competition.
Effects of Herbicides on Weeds/Invasive Species:
The use of the 4 existing herbicides (2,4-D, Dicamba, Glyphosate, and Picloram) would generally be similar to Alternative 1 (see Table 3.5.2). In addition, under Alternative 2 imazapic would be used to control invasive winter annual grasses. The non-native invasive winter annual
Page 30 Table 3.5.2. Environmental Effects of Existing Herbicides Resource 2,4-D Dicamba Glyphosate Picloram Soils and 2,4-D would have a very short half-life Dicamba would be moderately Glyphosate would binds tightly Picloram would break down primarily Biological that averages 10 days in moist soil. 2,4- persistent in soil. The half-life of to soil particles. This binding through photolysis and biodegradation Crusts D would be readily broken into simpler dicamba in soil is typically 1 to 4 would increase with increasing mechanisms of dissipation (USDA components soils which are typical on weeks. Under conditions suitable clay content, organic matter and 2000b). Picloram adsorbs to clay (BLM 2010a: the Allotments, but the break-down for rapid metabolism, the half-life decreasing soil pH. Glyphosate particles and organic matter, but if the p. 182-184) would be slower in acidic soils. would be less than 2 weeks. would biodegraded by soil soil contains little clay or organic matter, Furthermore, most studies of the effects Metabolism by soil organisms and many use it as a picloram would easily move by water. of 2,4-D on microorganisms concluded microorganisms would be the source of carbon. Currently no Picloram has been reported to remain that the quantity of 2,4-D reaching the major pathway of loss under most information that indicates that active in soil at levels toxic to some soil from typical applications would soil conditions. The rate of glyphosate would be harmful to plants for more than 1 year at typical probably not have a serious negative biodegradation would increase soil microorganisms and may application rates (SERA 2003b). The effect on most soil microorganisms with temperature and increasing benefit some (Busse et al. 2004). half-life of picloram in soil has been (Bovey 2001). soil moisture, and tends to be reported to vary from 1 month under faster when soil is slightly acidic. favorable environmental conditions to Dicamba would slowly break more than 4 years in arid regions (USDA down in sunlight. It would be 2000b). Picloram can be persistent in stable to water and other plants. When plant parts containing chemicals in the soil. Dicamba picloram degrade, they may release it into does not bind to soil particles and the soil, where it can kill other plants. would be highly soluble in water. It would therefore highly mobile in the soil. Water 2,4-D: Some salt forms of 2,4-D are Dicamba would only be used Glyphosate, registered for Picloram can move off site through Quality registered for use in aquatic systems. outside of the riparian areas. aquatic use, and would be surface or subsurface runoff, and has 2,4-D has been a known groundwater applied to wetland and emergent been detected in the groundwater of 11 (BLM 2010a: contaminant38 although potential for Dicamba: Dicamba has been a aquatic vegetation. Strong states (Howard 1991). Picloram does not p. 184-185) leaching into groundwater would be known groundwater contaminant, adsorption to soil particles and bind strongly with soil particles and moderate by its being bound to organic and has a high potential to leach organic matter slows microbial would not degrade rapidly in the matter and its short half-life. into groundwater. The EPA has degradation, allowing environment (Tu et al. 2001). set health advisory concentration glyphosate to persist in aquatic Concentrations in runoff have been In terrestrial applications, most levels for dicamba (e.g., 300 μg/L environments in bottom reported to be great enough to damage formulations of 2,4-D would not bind for 1-day exposures sediments (half-life of 12 days to crops, and could cause damage to certain tightly with soils, and therefore would 10 weeks) (Goldsborough and submerged aquatic plants (Forsyth et al. have a moderate potential to leach into Brown 1993, Extension 1997 cited in Tu et al. 2001). the soil column and to move off site in Toxicology Network 1996a, all surface or subsurface water flows cited in Tu et al. 2001). Picloram would only be used in the (Johnson et al. 1995 cited in Tu et al. uplands where runoff into the stream 2001 While glyphosate is very water would not be an issue, because of the soluble it would be unlikely to potential negative effects described enter waters through surface above. runoff or subsurface flow because it binds strongly to soils, except when the soil itself would
Page 31 washed away by runoff; even then, it would remain bound to soil particles and generally unavailable (Rueppel et al. 1977, Malik et al. 1989, all cited in Tu et al. 2001). Riparian 2,4-D (aquatic): The principle hazard Dicamba: Not for use in Riparian Glyphosate would be used along Picloram: Not for use in Riparian Areas. Vegetation would be unintended spraying or drift Areas. banks to control grasses, and to non-target plants; spot treatments herbaceous weeds and would be (BLM 2010a: applied according to the labeled rate do approved for emergent aquatic p. 211-212) not substantially affect native aquatic vegetation in riparian areas. It vegetation or significantly change has potential to move into species’ diversity (USDA 2005a, WA surface water with eroded soil Dept of Ecology c). particles (although it would be unlikely it will dislodge from the Only Aquatic formulations will be used particles and become active) with in the riparian areas. where it rapidly dissipates from surface water by biodegradation and adsorption. Freshwater aquatic macrophytes and algae are reported to be susceptible to low amounts (20 mg/l concentrations). Upland 2,4-D (salts and esters) would be used Dicamba would be used as a Glyphosate would prevent plants In the Pesticide Re-registration Fact Vegetation as a selective herbicide that kills selective, systemic herbicide that from synthesizing three aromatic Sheet–Picloram (1995), the EPA noted broadleaf plants, but not grasses. The can affect some annual, biennial, amino acids including a key that picloram poses very substantial risks (BLM 2010a: selectiveness would allow for weeds or perennial broadleaf and woody enzyme, EPSP (5- to non-target (broadleaf and woody) p. 146-147) control and native grass communities to species as well as annual grasses. enolpyruvylshikimate-3- plants. The EPA also noted that picloram flourish. 2,4-D would have a long Susceptible plants would phosphate). Glyphosate would would be highly soluble in water, history of use and would be relatively potentially be damaged by direct be a non-selective, systemic resistant to biotic and abiotic degradation inexpensive. Direct spraying of non- sprays and drift. The greatest risks herbicide that would damage all processes, and mobile under both target plant species would be the to aquatic plants would be groups or families of non-target laboratory and field conditions. They highest potential for damage due to 2,4- associated with runoff, but are plants to varying degrees, most stated that there would be a high potential D application. Drift could damage non- highly site specific. Wind erosion commonly from off-site drift. to leach to groundwater in coarse target broadleaf species close to the may cause impacts in arid regions Plants susceptible to glyphosate textured soils with low organic material. application site (much less than 100 (SERA 2004g). Drift would have would be damaged by drift up to Plant damage has potential to occur from feet). potential to cause damage to 100 feet from the application site drift, runoff, and off-site where ground susceptible species at distances at the highest rate of application water is used for irrigation or is less than 100 feet from the proposed. Species that are more discharged into surface water (EPA application site. Vaporized or tolerant are likely to be damaged 1995). volatilized dicamba can affect at distances up to 25 feet (SERA Because picloram persists in soil, non- non-target plants. Dicamba vapor 2003a). Non-target species are target plant roots can take up picloram has been known to drift for not likely to be affected by (Tu et al. 2001), which would affect several miles following runoff or absorption from soil. revegetation efforts. Lym et al. (1998)
Page 32 application at high temperatures Glyphosate strongly adsorbs to recommended that livestock not be (Cox 1994). soil particles, which would transferred from treated grass areas onto prevent it from being taken up susceptible broadleaf crop areas for 12 Dicamba would be applied early from the soil by plant roots (Tu months or until picloram would in the day to prevent valorization. et al. 2001, SERA 2003a). disappeared from the soil without first allowing seven days of grazing on an Glyphosate may only be applied untreated green pasture. Otherwise, urine though spot spray application on may contain enough picloram to injure rangelands which allows for susceptible plants. control of small populations of invasive grasses and broadleaf weeds. Wildlife 2,4-D is one of the more toxic Dicamba: No adverse effects on Glyphosate would be a low Picloram: Studies on birds, bees, and herbicides for wildlife of the foliar-use mammals would be plausible for toxicity herbicide, widely used snails generally support picloram as (BLM 2010a: herbicides. The ester form would be either acute or chronic exposures for terrestrial applications and relatively nontoxic to terrestrial animals. p. 246-247) more toxic to wildlife than the salt of dicamba. At the highest tested would be approved for aquatic The few field studies indicated no change form. Ingestion of treated vegetation rate, there would be adverse use. Toxicity to most wildlife to mammal or avian diversity following would be a concern for mammals, reproductive effects possible for groups is very low, so much so picloram treatment. Variations in particularly since 2,4-D can increase acute scenarios consuming that NOAEL levels are used different exposure assessments would palatability of treated plants (USDA contaminated vegetation. because the LD50 were not have little impact to risk through 2006b) for up to a month following found at high doses in many ingestion, grooming or direct contact. treatment (Farm Service Genetics cases. Maximum rates have higher risk to 2008). Mammals would be more mammals due to contaminated grass or susceptible to toxic effects from 2,4-D, insects. No information was found in the and the sub-lethal effects to pregnant literature about picloram’s effect on mammals were noted at acute rates reptiles (SERA 2003b). below LD50. Birds are less susceptible to 2,4-D than mammals, and the greatest risk would be ingestion of contaminated insects or plants. The salt form would be practically non-toxic to amphibians, but the ester form would be highly toxic. It would present low risk to honeybees but little information was available for other terrestrial invertebrates. Livestock 2-4,D would present a low to moderate Dicamba: The ingestion of food Glyphosate would present a low Picloram would pose a low to moderate Grazing acute risk to livestock under several of items contaminated by direct to moderate acute risk to risk for application at the typical and the direct spray, ingestion, and spill spray of dicamba at the typical livestock under several of the maximum application rates for 100 (BLM 2010a) scenarios, and a moderate chronic risk and maximum application rate direct spray, ingestion, and spill percent absorption of direct spray by a for large mammals for consumption of would pose a low to moderate scenarios, and a low chronic risk small animal would stand acute exposure on-site contaminated vegetation under acute risk to large mammalian for large mammals for through consumption of contaminated both typical and maximum rate (SERA herbivores respectively, and no consumption of on-site vegetation by a large mammal (SERA 2006). The Risk Assessment suggest chronic risk. Dicamba would be contaminated vegetation under 2003b). Picloram is registered for use in
Page 33 that because large livestock eating proposed for use in rangelands the maximum rate (SERA rangeland and would be available to be larger quantities of grass and other and does have moderate residual 2003a). Ingestion of treated applied over large areas heavily infested vegetation would be at risk from routine activity, livestock may be at risk. grasses has potential to represent with weeds, as its primary targets are exposure to 2, 4-D and because 2,4-D However the use of dimamba will a risk, but glyphosate is non- broadleaf and woody species. Therefore, is considered for use in rangeland, it be minimal within the Allotments. selective and kills grass, in might be used to manage certain would not be applied over large suggesting that spot applications broadleaved plants without impacting application areas where livestock would in the allotments would be the native or other desirable grasses, but with only consume contaminated food. The most appropriate use of this the potential to expose livestock. majority of the 2,4-D applications herbicide. Spot applications Picloram has a number of restrictions on within the four allotments will be spot would reduce risk associated use in areas grazed by livestock. In spraying or along roadsides. Due to with consumption of general, livestock should not be grazed this the small areas where 2,4-D is contaminated vegetation, as on treated areas for 2 weeks after applied would not affect the livestock fewer non-target areas would be treatment. Herbicide treatments using grazing. impacted by direct spray or picoloram would be coordinated with the spray drift. Based on label Range Staff to make sure the cattle are Meat animals should be removed from direction, there are no restricts not in the allotment during application if treated areas 3 days prior to slaughter on livestock use of treated areas. large scale treatment is needed. Since the allotments are such large areas small scale spot spraying should not affect the grazing animals.
Page 34 grass species to be targeted with the imazapic application are medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and African Wiregrass (Ventenata dubia). Imazapic would allow control to be achieved on winter annual grass species. Imazapic would limit damage to native grasses present in the allotments, if applied at the proposed rate (0.09375 1b. a.i). This would lead to containment of plants at existing sites and limit spread of new populations. Removing the current infestation would allow the native grasses to recover through both natural and assisted restoration measures. The potential effects of imazapic on other resource values are summarized in Table 3.5.3.
Effects of Range Improvement Projects:
The well, pipeline, and associated troughs in the Egli Rim Allotment would have short-term ground disturbances associated with construction and about 75 acres of additional concentrated livestock use surrounding the 3 troughs. Overall, better distribution would allow the existing water developments to have less total use and more recovery time. This would allow the native plants time to out-compete the invasive plant that are often common to water development sites. The two small additional fences (approximately ¾ of a mile constructed in the Tuff Butte Allotments would also have some construction and trailing related ground disturbance (0.12 ac.), but would not represent a significant effect to the non-native plants in the allotment.
AUM Allocation by Pasture
The proposed AUM allocation by pasture would lead to more evenly distributed utilization across the allotments and less concentrated grazing disturbance at a given water source compared to Alternative 1. While the pastures with new water sources would see an increase in dispersed grazing use, the other pastures would receive more rest. Overall, the existing native plant communities can support this level of distributed grazing use and would be expected to remain in a healthy condition capable of out-competing potential new weed invasions across the majority of the allotments.
Western Juniper Removal in Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments
This alternative would generally have more ground disturbances associated with juniper treatments compared to Alternative 1. The ground disturbance associated with removal of the juniper and burning of the piles has the potential to encourage spread of non-native invasive plant species, especially winter annual grass species which seem to thrive or expand into newly burned areas. Prescribed burning would increase the risk of annual grass invasion or spread. However, there are no documented invasive winter annual grass species within the Oatman Flat Allotment so risk of invasion in that allotment is low. In addition, the condition of native shrubs and grasses would be expected to improve in vigor and spatial extent following treatment, making it more difficult for invasive species to establish.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under Alternative 3, no measures would be taken to control noxious weeds, invasive annual reduced. However, if noxious weeds were already present they would likely continue to spread.
Page 35 Table 3.5.3 Potential Effects of Imazapic Resource or Proposed Herbicide: Imazapic Target Target Use Vegetation Areas Soils Imazapic would be moderately persistent in soils and has not been found to Medusahead Road move laterally with surface water. Most imazapic would be lost through rye, sides, (BLM 2010a, p. biodegradation. Sorption to soil increases with decreasing pH and increasing African Range 182-184) organic matter and clay content. Sorption would be low within these wiregrass, lands, allotments. Cheatgrass ROWs Water Quality Imazapic has low potential to leach into the groundwater. Imazapic would have very high water solubility and negligible to slight potential for (BLM 2010a, p. transport in surface runoff, due to its adsorption potential with soil and 188-208) organic matter. It would be moderately toxic to fish, but is not proposed for aquatic use. In addition, imazapic is rapidly degraded by sunlight in aqueous solution, with a half-life of one or two days. Due to these characteristics and the SOPs that would be employed by the BLM, water resources impacts would not be anticipated to be significant from proposed imazapic applications. Fish, Riparian, No effects would occur as there are no perennial streams or fish habitat in and Wetlands the allotments and no treatment will take place with this herbicide within riparian areas or wetlands. Wildlife and Imazapic, an ALS-inhibitor, would be used as selective, systemic herbicide. Special Status Direct spray of imazapic would not likely pose a risk to terrestrial animals. Wildlife Therefore, use of imazapic would primarily affect wildlife through habitat Species modification. The Allotments do not have any documented sites of African wiregrass. Therefore, the only areas planned for the use of imazapic would be areas with planned range improvements. These areas would already have (BLM 2010a, p. temporary habitat modification and the use of imazapic would not add to the 240-258) habitat disturbance. The use in rangeland and other wildlife habitat areas would benefit wildlife by controlling invasive plant species, especially annual grass species. And would promoting the establishment and growth of native plant species that provide more suitable wildlife habitat and forage. Grazing Risk quotients for terrestrial animals were all below the most conservative LOC of 0.1, indication that direct spray or drift of imazapic would be (BLM 2010a, p. unlikely to pose a risk to livestock (Table 3-14; ENSR 2005h.) Based on 258-268) label direction, there would be no restrictions on livestock use of treated areas, and since Imazapic will be applied in the fall there should be no effects the livestock that use the allotment. Special Status Imazapic would work by inhibiting the activity of an enzyme called Plant Species acetolactate synthase (ALS), which is necessary for plant growth. Imazapic and Upland would be applied at a very low dose (6 ounces per acre). Because of the Vegetation high potency and longevity, this herbicide can pose a particular risk to non- target plants. Off-site movement of even small concentration of this herbicide can result in extensive damage to surrounding plants. Since (BLM 2010a, p. imazapic would be applied early fall most of the native vegetation would be 144-146) dormant from the long dry summers season. The key grass species listed above for the Cahill Allotments are Thurbers needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), squirreltail (Elymus elymodies), Sandberg’d bluegrass (Poa sandergii), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), basin wildrye (Elymus cinereus), and Inland saltgrass (Distichlis stricta). These species would be tolerant to Imazapic up to a rate of 12 ounces per acre (which is double the rate we would be applying in the Cahill Allotment). grasses, or invasive juniper. The disturbance around the water developments and trails would be Even with the grazing removed, the native grasses and forbs would not be able to out-compete with weeds where established. In particular, it is likely that medusahead and would continue to spread across the allotments.
Page 36 Wildlife
Affected Environment:
Wildlife habitat is defined largely by the existing soils, topography, and vegetation communities within the allotments. The allotments contain various vegetation communities which provide a variety of wildlife habitats (see Table 3.3.2). The Rangeland Health Assessments for the allotments determined that Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 (which relate to ecological processes and wildlife habitat) were met in 2004 (BLM 2004a) and are still being met at the present time (BLM 2014a). Water for wildlife within the allotments is available from a few natural sources and livestock water developments (waterholes, reservoirs, and developed springs). Competition for water can occur between wildlife and livestock in areas where water is scarce.
The Egli Rim Allotment falls within the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wagontire big game habitat management unit, the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments within Fort Rock unit, and the Murdock Allotment falls within and Silver Lake unit. The mule deer and elk populations are relatively stable within these units, but below the current management objectives. While elk densities are low in the Fort Rock and Silver Lake units, elk cause significant damage on private lands adjacent to Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments. Elk herd range is not present on the Egli Rim Allotment. Pronghorn antelope herds range across all four allotments and populations are stable to increasing, except within the Egli Rim Allotment where trend data has indicated a declining population. The allotments comprise a small percentage of the big game habitat units, but provide habitat capable of supporting mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk. Habitat quantity and quality do not appear to be limiting big game population size or health within the units. The area within the allotments provides year round habitats for mule deer, including fawning habitat. There are currently 31 AUMs allocated for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife species within the Egli Rim, 908 allocated AUMs for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, and other wildlife species within the Oatman Flat, 520 AUMs allocated for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, and other wildlife species within the Tuff Butte, and 132 AUMs allocated for mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and other wildlife species within the Murdock Allotments (BLM 2003b, pages A-48, A-95, A-97, and A-100, as maintained). Based on previous consultation with ODFW biologists, these forage allocations are adequate to support wildlife populations within the allotments.
Other mammals expected in the general area may include jackrabbits, cottontails, coyotes, ground squirrels, chipmunks, marmots, bobcats, mountain lions, badgers, and other common shrub-steppe mammal species. The allotments also provide habitat for numerous nongame birds common to the Great Basin. There are many amphibian and reptile species that likely occur within the allotments including fence lizards, sagebrush lizards, gopher snakes, rattlesnakes, horned-lizards, and other common shrub-steppe reptile/amphibian species. Table 3.6.1 contains a list of wildlife species with special management designation(s) (excludes common migratory species except where otherwise designated) potentially occurring on the allotments. Common names for avian species have been standardized and are used for avian species throughout this document; taken from the ABA Checklist of birds available at: http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~bbowman/birds/updates/abalist1.html (accessed 8/29/2013).
Page 37 Table 3.6.1. Wildlife Species with Special Designations
Habitat Species Concern Eagle Act Eagle Actions In Focal Species Migratory Birds Migratory with Allotments Preferred Habitat Preferred Desired Condition Desired Game Birds Below Below Birds Game Known or Potential or Potential Known Affected by Proposed Proposed by Affected Birds of Conservation Special Status Species Status Special Avian Species American Wide range of habitats, x x x Peregrine Falcon nests on cliff ledges, (delisted) 420, 705, no bridges, quarries. 707, 710 Bald Eagle Associated with large x x x x 420 no bodies of water, forested (delisted) areas near the ocean, along rivers, and at estuaries, lakes and reservoirs. Brewer’s Sagebrush obligate x x x 705, 707 yes Sparrow found in shrublands of contiguous big sagebrush, greasewood, rabbitbrush, and shadescale habitats. Burrowing Owl Sagebrush steppe, x x 420, 705, no grasslands, pastures, 707, 710 roadsides where vegetation is sparse and terrain is level Golden Eagle Inhabits shrub-steppe, x x x 420, 705, no grassland, juniper and 707, 710 open ponderosa pine and mixed conifer/deciduous habitats preferring areas with open shrub component for foraging. Greater Sage Sagebrush obligate, x x x x 420, 705, Grouse found E. of the (FC) 707, 710 yes Cascades. They require OR-SEN large expanses of sagebrush with healthy native understories of forbs. Loggerheaded Inhabits grasslands, x x x 705, 707 yes Shrike pastures with fence rows, ag. fields, sagebrush with scattered juniper and open woodlands. Requires elevated perches throughout for hunting and nesting. Sage Sparrow Found in se. and c. OR x x 705, 707 yes Associated with semi- open evenly spaced shrubs 1-2 m high in big sage up to 6,800 ft. Sage Thrasher A sagebrush obligate x x x 705, 707 yes dependent on large patches and expanses of sagebrush steppe and bitterbrush with shrub heights in the 30 -60 cm height. Prefers bare ground over grassy understories. Mammal Species
Page 38 Kit Fox Desert scrub and x 420, 705, no grassland communities OR-SEN 707, 710 Pygmy Rabbit Sagebrush with deep x 707,705, no soils OR-SEN 707, 710 Fringed myotis Trees, snags, buildings, x 420, 705, no caves, cliffs, and OR-SEN 707, 710 bridges. Pallid Bat Arid regions/rocky x 420, 705, no outcroppings 707, 710 Spotted Bat Cliff Habitat x 420, 705, no OR-SEN 707, 710 Townsend’s Big- Lava fields/Rocky Cliffs x 420, 705, no eared Bat /Abandoned Structures 707, 710 Insects Western Areas with appropriate x 420, 705, no Bumblebee flowering plants OR-SEN 707, 710 FC – Candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act FE – Federal Endangered Species FT – Federal Threatened Species OR-SEN – State of Oregon Sensitive Species Delisted – formerly federally listed species
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 identifies migratory birds regardless of their status as common or rare. Common migratory species observed or expected to occur based on species range and vegetation in the allotments include American robin, dark-eyed junco, mourning dove, Townsend’s solitaire, and the mountain bluebird. Other bird species suspected to occur within the allotments include the great horned owl, barn owl, short-eared owl, American Kestrel, chukar partridge, California quail, common raven, various waterfowl and shorebirds, and other common shrub-steppe bird species. The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USFWS 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. While all of these bird species are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing. The goal of this act is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions. In accordance with Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” the appropriate Bird Conservation Plan and BCC species list for the project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the project area are incorporated and effects disclosed in this analysis. Game birds identified by the ODFW and USFWS that are below desired condition (GBBDC) represent species whose population is below long-term averages or management goals, or for which there is evidence of declining population trends. Table 3.6.1 displays a list of the Migratory BCC and GBBDC in the allotments that are known or likely to be present in the area.
Partners in Flight use the focal species approach to set biological objective and link priority species with specific conservation recommendations. It is a multi-species approach in which the ecological requirements of a suite of focal species are used to define an “ideal landscape” to maintain the range of habitat conditions and ecological processes required by land birds and many other species. Focal species are considered most sensitive to or limited by certain
Page 39 ecological processes (e.g. fire or nest predation) or habitat attributes (e.g. patch size or snags). The requirements of a suite of focal species are then used to help guide management activities. Golden and bald eagles are given special protection under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended). Special Status Species
BLM policy on special status species (listed in Table 3.6.1) is to conserve those species and the ecosystems upon which they depend (BLM 2008c). While there are no wildlife species classified as federally-listed Threatened or Endangered or proposed or designated critical habitat within the project area, the Greater Sage-grouse is a Federal Candidate Species and is currently managed as a special status species.
Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons have been observed in the general area in all 4 of the allotments, possibly due to releases from the Summer Lake hack site and may be an occasional visitor to the area. However, no nesting habitat or actual nesting activity has been documented within the allotment. For this reason, none of the alternatives would likely have any measurable impacts on peregrine falcons or their habitat and are not carried forward for further analysis.
Bald Eagle
No bald eagle nesting habitat occurs within the 4 allotments. The closest known bald eagle nest is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Oatman Flat Allotment boundary; however, the nesting tree is suspected to have fallen, according to a 2012 survey report and subsequent sites visits through 2014. Bald eagle foraging may occur within the allotment, however it is probably restricted to road killed deer adjacent to the major roadways or occasional carrion scattered through the allotment.
Ferruginous Hawk/Burrowing Owl
While potential habitat for ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl was identified in all 4 of the RHA assessments, these species have not actually been confirmed within the allotments to date. There have been no inventories or incidental sightings indicating ferruginous hawks or burrowing owls. For this reason, none of the alternatives would likely have any measurable impacts on ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl or their habitat and are not carried forward for further analysis.
Golden eagles
Golden eagles (BOC species) have been observed within the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, and Tuff Butte Allotments. The Egli Rim Allotment has one known nest with 1 successful young observed in 2013. The Oatman Flat Allotment has four known nests of which two have known nesting outcomes. Two successful young (less than 7 weeks old) were observed in one nest in 2013, and one successful young observed (2013) in the remaining nest. Nest sites have been identified along the western and northern boundary of the Egli Rim Allotment, as well as one
Page 40 nest located on the northern boundary of Tuff Butte and eastern boundary of Oatman Flat Allotments where suitable cliff habitat exists. No known golden eagle nest or nesting habitat has been identified in the Murdock Allotment, and eagles are likely only occasional visitors.
Bats
Four Bureau Sensitive Species of bats are known to occur within the Lakeview Resource Area. These include the fringed myotis, pallid bat, spotted bat, and the Townsend‘s big-eared bat. However, spotted bats and fringed myotis rarely occur in the area and are not known to occur on the 3 allotments. Intensive range use can lead to altered invertebrate densities and species abundance which could reduce availability of habitat for certain bat species, but causality is speculative and research would be required to draw conclusions (BCME 2008). Research on activities that may change landscapes to benefit or adversely affect different bat species are poorly represented in the literature (Chung-MacCoubrey 1996). Chapman et al. 1994, suggest that it is possible that grazing may physically enhance foraging opportunities, for pallid bats, by reducing vegetative cover. The effects of grazing, fire suppression, urbanization, etc. can only be speculated based on the effects of these activities on known resource requirements of bats.
Roosting and wintering (hibernacula) habitat for these species is limited or lacking throughout the 4 allotments. There are no known caves, adits, shafts, or outbuildings on the BLM portions of the 4 allotments capable of providing hibernacula for bats. Use of the area by these species of bats is likely limited primarily to foraging activities. Fringed myotis are rare across their distribution, but can be locally abundant. Fringed myotis are reported to use a variety of structures as day roosts including caves, mines, trees, and buildings. A telemetry study conducted in portions of Washington and Klamath and Lake counties of Oregon (Lacki and Baker 2007) showed 93% of day roosts were in rock substrates suggesting that tree roosts were of lesser importance to fringed myotis than are crevices in rocks. No fringed myotis were located in snags in Klamath or Lake County during the study. As noted with songbird abundance (Earnst et al. 2005) cavity nesters tend to be less affected by grazing, similarly it could be expected that grazing has little effect on snag roosting bats species. Townsends big-eared bat summer roosts and wintering habitat have been observed in the adjacent lava flow.
Due to the low potential or lack of roosting/resting habitat in the 4 allotments, none of the alternatives would likely have any measurable impacts to these bat species, and therefore, they are not carried forward for further analysis.
California Bighorn Sheep
California bighorn sheep range does not occur within the four allotments; however scattered broken rims may provide habitat across the Egli Rim Allotment. Bighorn sheep may be occasional visitors to the allotment. Bighorn sheep generally do not compete for forage with cattle due to differences in habitat use patterns (ODFW 2003). For this reason, none of the alternatives would likely have any measurable impacts on bighorn sheep or their habitat and are not carried forward for further analysis.
Page 41 Greater Sage-Grouse
The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a Bird of Conservation Concern for the Great Basin Region and a USFWS candidate species. In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued its 12-Month Findings which noted that that listing the greater sage- grouse range-wide is warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. The major risk factors in the western portion of their range that are relevant to the area include habitat conversion due to fire, invasive plants such as cheatgrass, medusahead, and juniper, and West Nile virus. Grazing was evaluated as a risk factor in the 12-Month Findings with both positive and negative effects to sage-grouse being reported (USFWS 2010, p. 13939-13942). USFWS noted that “the impacts of livestock operations on sage-grouse depend upon stocking levels, season of use, and utilization levels” (USFWS 2010, p. 13941). The 12-Month Findings also determined that destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat pose a major risk to sage- grouse across its range.
Collision Risks Associated with Existing Fences
Additional risks to sage-grouse exist to a lesser extent including the risk of fence collisions under certain conditions, as identified by research conducted in Idaho by Stevens (2011). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2012) recently applied the Stevens’ model to all sage- grouse habitat in Oregon creating a fence collision risk model for sage-grouse for the entire state. High risk as defined in the Stevens’ model is equal to >1 sage-grouse collision per lek per year and is not dependent on the actual number of miles of fence occurring in the vicinity of the lek. Naturally some amount of fence must occur for a collision event to take place. The results of that modeling effort did not identify existing fences within or along the boundaries of 4 allotments as a collision risk to sage-grouse.
West Nile Virus Risk Associated with Existing Water Developments
Another risk factor identified in the Monograph, the Oregon Strategy, and the 12-Month Finding is West Nile virus spread by mosquitoes around standing water (Knick and Connelly 2011, ODFW 2011, USFWS 2010). Sage-grouse are susceptible to West Nile Virus (Clark et al. 2006) and mortality may be as high as 100 percent (Naugle et al. 2004) in certain areas. The virus is primarily transmitted by infected mosquitoes, and was first detected in southeastern Oregon near Burns Junction in 2006, and then later near Crane and Jordan Valley that same year. From 2006-2010, ODFW provided each successful sage-grouse hunting permit applicant with 2 Nobuto strips to collect blood samples from each harvested grouse to be assayed for west nile virus. A total of 1,839 samples were assayed with 1 positive detection of the virus in the Beulah WMU harvest in 2008 (letter from ODFW dated July 28, 2014). For these reasons, the risk of virus spread or associated mortality associated with existing water developments would be low and identical under all alternatives.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment
BLM’s sage-grouse interim management policy requires evaluating potential impacts to preliminary priority habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat (PGH) (BLM 2011a). PPH
Page 42 comprises areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations. PPH includes over 90% of Oregon’s breeding sage-grouse populations and 84% of occupied leks. Low Density Areas reflect lek density strata, connectivity corridors, and winter use areas. Low Density Areas combined with the remaining Occupied Habitat outside of PPH are classified as PGH in Oregon.
The policy also states that site-specific information should be incorporated for PPH using the Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; see Stiver et al. 2010), when available, to characterize sage-grouse habitat quality (BLM 2011a). HAF data represents third order (fine-scale) habitat suitability and indicators. Sage-grouse select seasonal habitats (third order) within their home ranges: breeding, summer, fall and winter periods (Connelly et al. 2004). Third order habitat selection at the fine scale describes the physical and geographic area within home ranges. At this level (third order) habitat descriptions (breeding, summer, and winter) map habitat indicators that influence use of or movements between seasonal ranges which can be examined to determine if limiting factors for habitat use exist.
The use and movement patterns typically observed of non-migratory sage-grouse indicate that large areas of sagebrush habitat in good condition are important to sage-grouse. In better habitat conditions, birds may not need to range as far to meet lek and seasonal use requirements. In a study conducted in the northwestern portion of Lake County, Hanf et al. (1994), found that sage- grouse showed non-migratory movement patterns. Connelly et al. (2004) found most sage- grouse nest within 4 miles of a lek. Females typically distribute their nests spatially in relation to the location of leks with >80% of nests located within a 6.4 km (4.0 mi) radius of lek sites. Sage-grouse leks are located within or near the Egli Rim and Murdock Allotments, but are not located within or near the Oatman Flat or Tuff Butte Allotment, based on the 4-mile proximity criterion (Map 7).
Egli Rim Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are 6 known leks within the Egli Rim Allotment and 1 occupied lek within 3.6 miles of the eastern allotment boundary (Table 3.7.1). The allotment contains approximately 15,548 acres (71%) of PPH, as well as 6,171 acres (28%) of PGH (Map 7). HAF was conducted on BLM-administered lands only and found that approximately 42% of the allotment is currently yearlong habitat (Table 3.7.2).
Table 3.7.1. Egli Rim Sage-Grouse lek location Lek Name Status Location Muddy Waterhole (LA0906-02) Occupied within allotment Upper Sheeplick Draw #1 (LA0906-01) Occupied within allotment Upper Sheeplick Draw #2 (LA0906-03) Occupied within allotment Sheeplick Lake (LA0905-01) Unoccupied-Pending within allotment Egli Rim North (LA0912-01) Occupied within allotment Egli Rim (LA0912-02) Occupied within allotment Upper Sheep Corral (LA0904-01) Occupied not within allotment Picture Rock Pass (LA0910-01) Occupied not within allotment
Page 43 Table 3.7.2 Sage-Grouse Assessment Framework (HAF) for Egli Rim Allotment Habitat Assessment Acres Percent Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Marginal 1826.2 8.5 Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Marginal 463.1 2.2 Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Suitable 275.1 1.3 Breeding-Suitable_Winter-Suitable 2886.6 13.4 Unsuitable-All 7018.6 32.6 Yearlong-Suitable 9038.9 42.0 Total 21508.48 100.00
Oatman Flat Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are no known leks found within the allotment or within 4 miles of allotment boundary. The allotment does not contain PPH, but does contain approximately 2,240 acres (6%) of PGH (Map 7).
Tuff Butte Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are no known leks found within the allotment or within 4 miles of allotment boundary The allotment does not contain PPH, but the does contain approximately 8,420 acres (76%) of PGH (Map 7).
Murdock Allotment
Based on ODFW’s most recent sage-grouse lek data, there are no known leks found within the boundary of the Murdock Allotment; however, there are 4 leks found within 4 miles of the allotment boundary (Table 3.7.3). The allotment does not contain PPH, but does contain approximately 4,124 acres (78%) of PGH (Map 7). HAF was conducted on BLM-administered lands only and found that approximately 25% of the allotment is currently breeding- suitable_summer marginal habitat (Table 3.7.4).
Table 3.7.3. Murdock Sage-Grouse Lek Locations Lek Name Status Location Silver Creek Silver Lake (LA0906-02) Unoccupied-Pending not within allotment Dry Creek Duncan (LA0906-01) Unoccupied-Pending not within allotment Duncan (LA0906-03) Unoccupied not within allotment East Duncan (LA0905-01) Unoccupied not within allotment
Insects
The western bumblebee may occur in the 4 allotments. This species is suspected to occur on the Lakeview Resource Area, but no records documenting their occurrence exist. Therefore, this species will not be carried forward for further analysis.
Page 44 Table 3.7.4. Sage-Grouse Assessment Framework (HAF) for Murdock Allotment Habitat Assessment Acres Percent Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Marginal 414.8 9.7 Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Suitable 305.1 7.1 Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Marginal 186.4 4.4 Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Suitable 483.4 11.3 Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Marginal 1059.9 24.8 Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Suitable 164.6 3.8 Breeding-Suitable_Winter-Suitable 47.8 1.1 Summer-Marginal 398.7 9.3 Summer-Marginal_Winter-Marginal 93.0 2.2 Unsuitable-All 46.0 1.1 Yearlong-Suitable 644.8 15.1 Yearlong-Marginal 429.9 10.1 Total 4274.4 100
Environmental Consequences:
Alternatives 1: No Action
Bald and Golden Eagle
Stable trends for vegetation on the allotments should continue to provide adequate forage for bald and golden eagle prey species resulting in an adequate food supply for nestling and adult eagles.
Sage-Grouse
Currently there is little direct evidence linking grazing practices to population levels of greater sage-grouse. However, testing the effects of livestock grazing at large spatial scales is confounded by of the lack of control areas sufficiently large to include landscape testing of impacts of grazing important to sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2011). As noted by Stohlgren et al. 1999, ranching as a land use generally supported greater biodiversity, as measured by native plant species and shrub/grassland nesting birds than exurban development or reserves. Stohlgren et al. (1999) research led to five generalizations regarding grazing impacts: (1) grazing probably has little effect on native species richness at landscape scales; (2) grazing probably has little effect on accelerated spread of most exotic plant species at landscape scales; (3) grazing affects local plant species and life-form composition and cover, but spatial variation is considerable; (4) soil fertility, climate, and other factors may have a greater effect on plant species diversity than does grazing; and (5) few plant species show consistent, directional responses to grazing or cessation of grazing.
Stohlgren et al. 1999, found no evidence that grazing led to a loss in plant species richness or diversity at landscape scales in the vegetation types and management areas that were studied. The continuation of rest rotation grazing systems in the allotments would promote healthy sagebrush communities and the production of native grasses, and thus would maintain suitable breeding and nesting habitat for sage-grouse. The timing of livestock turn out and trailing would not contribute to livestock concentrations on leks during the breeding season.
Page 45
Nesting
Nesting sage-grouse consistently select areas with more sagebrush canopy cover and taller grasses compared to available habitats (Hagen et al. 2007); tall, dense herbaceous cover—includ- ing residual grasses—in selected dense sagebrush stands increases the probability of a successful hatch. Sage-grouse initiate nesting in April, prior to production of new herbaceous cover; thus, residual grasses left from the previous year represent the initial cover available for nesting sage- grouse (Hausleitner et al. 2005, Holloran et al. 2005).
Residual vegetation cover, especially grass and litter, has often been noted as essential for concealment during nesting and brood-rearing (Sveum et al. 1998a; Sveum et al. 1998b), suggesting opportunities to improve herbaceous cover (without sacrificing safety of sagebrush cover) may benefit fecundity. Nest predation has been linked to low herbaceous cover (Gregg et al. 1994; Delong et al. 1995; Braun 1998; Coates and Delehanty 2010; Hagen et al. 2011). Sage- grouse select nesting sites specifically based on the amount of grass and forb cover (Hagen et al. 2007) because it is needed to conceal the nest from predators. Reduction of grass height due to livestock grazing has been shown to negatively affect nest survival (Gregg et al. 1994). However, abundant cover has also been shown to facilitate badger predation because it attracts small mammals, the primary prey of badgers (Coates and Delehanty 2010). Adequate grass and forb cover provides valuable hiding cover for young chicks (Schroeder and Baydack 2001), a life stage during which mortality due to predation has been estimated to be highest, at 82% (Gregg et al. 2007). To support maintenance of suitable grass and forb cover and minimize associated predation risks, careful monitoring of grazing allotments within sage-grouse nesting habitat may be coupled with livestock management to ensure suitable grass and forb cover is reserved.
Resting pastures from livestock grazing during periods of fastest growth of dominant grasses and forbs in intermountain sagebrush-steppe generally enhances herbaceous plant growth and reproduction and increases culm height, long-term tiller production, and flower and seed pro- duction (Pyke 2011) improving range conditions and habitat. Repeated grazing during this time tends to favor sagebrush growth (Pyke 2011) through reduced competitive ability of grasses.
Brood Rearing/Breeding Behaviors
Spring or livestock grazing, as practiced in all 4 allotments, can be used as a tool to address seasonal preferences for riparian plant species exhibited by livestock such as forbs, many of which are important food sources during the brood rearing life history stage of sage-grouse. Sage-grouse may avoid meadows where dense stands of grasses are dominant, controlled grazing is recommended as a tool to prevent grass stands from becoming too dense. Thermal cover, predator protection, and food availability are important for chick survival during the early brood- rearing period with tall grasses and sagebrush creating this habitat structure. Brood-rearing habitats having a wide diversity of plant species tend to provide an equivalent diversity of insects that are important chick foods.
Page 46 Summer Habitat
According to Neel (1980), sage-grouse prefer grazed to ungrazed wet meadows where protective cover conditions were otherwise equal, and rest-rotation grazing provided the best effects on sage-grouse summer habitat through moderate stocking levels and a rest of a minimum of every 3 years. With few exceptions, ensuring adequate residual herbaceous cover through the nesting season (through June in most areas) will provide for long-term resilience with plant communities that include healthy bunchgrass understories and adequate residual grass cover and height to support annual objectives (Pyke 2011).
Winter Habitat
Regionally relevant information (Hagen et al. 2011), found low sagebrush types are used equal to or in higher proportion than their availability, which suggests these areas are important wintering areas for sage-grouse and may also be important for other parts of sage-grouse life history. Spring grazing may benefit sage-grouse winter range because grass reductions can increase sagebrush densities (Wright 1970; Beck and Mitchell 2000) suggesting an opportunity to graze winter habitats in spring when brood-rearing habitats would be avoided, and vice versa. Winter diet of sage grouse consists almost exclusively of sagebrush, and winter habitat must provide adequate amounts of sagebrush exposed above snow level.
General Wildlife Habitat
Under this alternative there would be very little change in the existing quality of wildlife habitat for most wildlife species including big game, nongame bird and mammals, raptor, and migratory bird habitats over the short-term (5 years). All of the allotments would continue to provide adequate quality wildlife habitat that is capable of supporting an appropriate assemblage of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 would continue to be met in the Egli Rim and Murdock Allotments over the 10-year analysis timeframe. However, juniper encroachment would continue and over the long-term (10 or more years) would suppress native shrub, grass and forb species that many sagebrush obligate wildlife species depend upon. In addition, even though integrated weed management actions would occur, invasive species would continue within the allotments and would likely expand over the long-term. The effects of herbicide use on wildlife are discussed further in Table 3.5.2. This would have a negative effect on wildlife habitats, particularly within the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments and could lead to Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 not being met in the future. In addition, even though integrated weed management actions would occur under this alternative, invasive species would continue within the allotments and would likely expand over the long-term which would have a negative effect on wildlife habitat quality. The effects of herbicide use on wildlife are discussed further in Table 3.5.2. Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
In general, the effects of renewing the grazing permit and continued grazing across the four allotments under this alternative would be similar to Alternative 1. However, the existing integrated weed management program would be expanded under this alternative which would constrain or reduce invasive species across the allotments and over the long-term which would
Page 47 have a positive effect on wildlife habitat quality. The effects of herbicide use on wildlife are discussed further in Tables 3.5.2 and 3.5.3. Effects that are specific to each allotment are discussed below. Egli Rim Allotment
The construction of water developments can increase the uniformity of grazing by improving the distribution of grazing (Laycock 1983). Hart et al. (1993) showed that decreasing pasture size and reducing distance from water were more important for improving forage utilization patterns than implementing intensive rotational grazing systems.
As discussed earlier, West Nile virus can be spread by mosquitoes around standing water, but the virus has not been detected near the allotments or in southeast Oregon since the first observations in 2006 (DeBess 2009). For these reasons, construction of the proposed new water development project in this allotment would have little to no increased risk of spreading the virus.
Oatman Flat Allotment
Under this alternative, juniper treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. However, if left unchecked, juniper would continue to suppress native shrub, grass and forb species that sagebrush obligate wildlife depend upon. Removal of post-settlement juniper would maintain or restore sagebrush steppe habitats to proper functioning condition. The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat (ODFW 2011), and the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative Plan (ODFW 2009), support this need for sage-grouse and mule deer habitat restoration, respectively.
Four bird species identified as Birds of Conservation Concern are associated with healthy sagebrush habitats. They include sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Taylor et. al. (2005) identified management goals for these species, including increasing the amount of healthy sagebrush habitats across the historic distribution, maintaining existing high quality sagebrush habitats, and restoring or enhancing degraded and converted sagebrush habitats where feasible and appropriate. Taylor et al. (2005) also identified additional bird species that depend on old-growth or mature juniper woodlands with management goals for these species, that include protection of existing old-growth juniper woodlands and managing lands to maintain current distribution of mature and old-growth habitats at existing levels over time.
Sage-grouse rely heavily on sagebrush systems throughout the year for foraging, cover and forbs when available during the green-up periods of the year (Connelly et. al. 2011). They also require residual herbaceous cover around nesting sites to conceal them from nest predators each spring (Gregg et. al. 1994, Holeran et. al. 2005, Connelly et. al. 2011). Sage-grouse also require open areas each spring for use as strutting grounds with adequate visibility to detect predators both aerial and terrestrial. Sage-grouse avoid juniper communities for strutting, nesting and winter use (Doherty et al. 2008; Freese 2009); however they occasionally use open juniper communities for shade during hot summer afternoons. The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitats (Oregon Strategy) (ODFW 2011) represents the most current and comprehensive sage-grouse
Page 48 management guidelines for Oregon. The Oregon Strategy identifies juniper invasion as a problem in the local area and recommends management actions at the local, project level scale that include the removal of juniper by mechanical or prescribed fire means, as long as the activities promote the return of sagebrush, native grasses, and forbs.
Negative impacts from disturbance, juniper treatments and prescribed burning on wildlife species including big game, nongame bird and mammals, raptor, and migratory bird habitats would be minimal and short-term. Removing juniper and burning the slash would remove some of the bitterbrush browse currently available over the short-term. However, retention of most shrubs within the area would retain foraging habitats while reducing competition between forage species and juniper. Removing juniper would improve food and shrub cover for small mammals by increasing shrub and herbaceous recruitment and seed production.
There is an increased threat of noxious weeds being introduced into the area by administrative vehicles associated with conducting the prescribed burns and other mechanical activities.
Tuff Butte Allotment
The construction of fences can increase the uniformity of grazing by improving the distribution of grazing (Laycock 1983). Hart et al. (1993) showed that decreasing pasture size and reducing distance from water were more important for improving forage utilization patterns than implementing intensive rotational grazing systems.
ODFW (2011; page 13) cites two unpublished studies that documented sage-grouse mortality associated with fencing as a risk factor in winter habitat in Wyoming and near lek sites in Idaho. IM No. 2012-043 based on the “Steven’s” model identified in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2012) guidelines recommend marking high risk fences within 1.25 mile of occupied or occupied pending leks with anti-strike markers (reflectors). Neither of the 2 proposed fences in the allotment fall close enough to require anti-strike markers or were otherwise identified as a high risk fence. For this reason, the risk of collision-related mortality associated with the new fences would be very low.
Murdock Allotment
Under this alternative, the effects of juniper treatments on wildlife habitats, including sage- grouse, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, and loggerhead shrike habitat, would be similar to those described in the Oatman Flat Allotment.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
Under this alternative there would be very little change in the existing quality of wildlife habitat, including big game, nongame bird and mammals, raptor, migratory bird, or special status species habitat in the short-term (5 years) compared to Alternatives 1 or 2. All of the allotments would continue to provide wildlife habitat that is capable of supporting an appropriate assemblage of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. The existing sagebrush habitat formerly impacted by livestock trailing and concentration near existing water sources would improve over the long-
Page 49 term. This would provide some increased forage availability for many wildlife species, as well as increased nesting habitat for ground nesting birds; however, forage availability does not appear to be limiting these species populations at this time.
A previous review of literature discussed positive and negative impacts of grazing on sage- grouse habitats (Beck and Mitchell 2000) and indicated that simple modifications (such as removing livestock) may not have the desired consequences for habitat conditions. According to Lousia et al. (2013), models indicate that passive management, such as the removal of livestock grazing, would not restore sagebrush communities that were cheatgrass-dominated or juniper- encroached. Livestock removal does not necessarily result in large changes to sage-grouse populations. For example, livestock have been excluded at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge since 1995, where abundance of sage-grouse have fluctuated similarly as they have elsewhere in Oregon (Hagen 2011). The effects of this alternative on sage-grouse habitat would be similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, as the allotments would continue to provide adequate habitat for sage-grouse over the short-term (5 years).
Stable trends for vegetation on the allotment should continue to provide forage for bald and golden eagle prey species resulting in an adequate food supply for nestling and adult eagles over the short-term.
However, in the absence of juniper and weed treatments, a gradual decline in wildlife habitat diversity is expected, including loss of native understory shrubs, forbs, and grasses. While Rangeland Health Standards 3 and 5 would likely continue to be met over the 10-year analysis timeframe in the Egli Rim and Murdock Allotments, as juniper continues to increase habitat conversion is likely to have a substantial, negative impact on sagebrush obligate wildlife habitats within the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments over the long-term (10 or more years) similar to Alternative 1.
Livestock Grazing Management
Affected Environment:
One, 10-year permit (#3601441) authorizes livestock use on the four allotments with a total of 4,077 AUMs by one permittee. Each allotment is discussed individually below.
Affected Environment: Egli Rim Allotment
This allotment is located 10 miles east of Silver Lake Oregon and has a total of 21,508 acres of BLM-administered lands and 374 acres of private land. The 10-year permit authorizes 1,056 AUMs to be used between 4/1 and 8/15. There are 20 AUMs allotted for big game 11 AUMs allotted for other wildlife. This allotment contains 7 pastures grazed in a rest-rotation system where each pasture is grazed every other year generally. The Pettus, Wee, and West Seeding pastures were seeded with crested wheatgrass while the East Native, Middle Native, West Native Bench, and West Native Lake Pastures are primarily native grass vegetation.
Page 50 Following the Lakeview Grazing Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1982) allotments were placed in management categories (maintain, improve, or custodial) based on the following factors:
1- present resource conditions 2- potential productivity 3- presence of resource conflicts or controversy 4- present management situation 5- opportunity for positive economic return 6- appropriate local factors
The Egli Rim Allotment is categorized as a “maintain” (M) category. This category was determined by a set of criteria:
• Present range condition satisfactory • Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential, and are producing near their potential (trend is moving in that direction) • No serious resource-use conflicts exist • Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investments • Present management appears satisfactory • Other criteria appropriate to area An interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in 2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards. The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In 2004 and 2014, RHA all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of the conditions are contained in Table 3.8.1 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004a, 2014a).
Environmental Consequences: Egli Rim Allotment
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the Egli Rim Allotment. Trend photos on 7 long-term trend transects indicate stable and upward trend and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The average actual use for the last 10-years has been 613 AUMs. This is substantially lower than the permitted 1,056 AUMs allowable on the allotment. Due to some years of dry climate conditions on the allotment several pastures were not able to be used due to a lack of water in them. These pastures include the bench, lake, and sheep dip pastures. Use would continue in pastures with reliable water regularly and use would occur in pastures with less reliable water during more wet years. Existing range improvements would be maintained as needed to support continued livestock management objectives. The number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to fluctuate based on forage and water availability. Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Page 51 Table 3.8.1. Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Egli Rim Allotment (00420) Standard 2004 2014 Comments Assessment Assessment Update Upland soils in the Egli Rim Allotment exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability appropriate for soil, climate, and land form. Root occupancy for the soil is appropriate. The plant composition and community structure is defined by the soil type and precipitation zone. The Soil Surface Factor is slight in the majority (73%) of the allotment. Approximately, 6% of the 1. Watershed allotment was rated as stable and 21% of the allotment was rated as moderate for soil surface factor rating. Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. Available trend Met Met Function – data show that plant cover and the amount and distribution of bare ground is within the range of variability expected for the ecological Uplands sites found in the majority of the allotment. Overall a diverse plant community exists to provide root systems throughout the soil profile, providing soil stability and water storage within the plant and soil systems. The most abundant plant composition is low sagebrush with bluebunch wheatgrass as the dominant perennial grass occurring on 53% of the allotment. This vegetation was rated to be in good condition and in late ecological status. There are no perennial streams in the Egli Rim Allotment. There are a number of intermittent drainages that seasonally flow into the Christmas Valley basin during precipitation events or during spring snowmelt. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies several of these drainages as “riverine” systems, but due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation. 2. Watershed Function The NWI also identifies 11 small palustrine wetlands and 3 lacustrine systems scattered across the allotment totaling about 80 acres. The 3 largest areas sit along in the southern boundary of the allotment and actually represent seasonally flooded playa lakebeds that do Met Met Riparian/ not support wetland or riparian vegetation. Wetland Areas There is one permanent lake in the northeast corner of the allotment that provides about 2 acres of palustrine wetland habitat along the shore. However, this area is not currently grazed, so livestock have no potential to impact this wetland.
The rest of these areas represent livestock water developments and are not wetlands. Plant production is appropriate and organic matter is accumulating in the form of litter and is being incorporated into the soil. Trend photos indicate good vigor of perennial vegetation and trend is stable to upward within the allotment. No special status plant species have been documented in the allotment.
3. Ecological Noxious weeds that have been previously noted in the area and have been controlled near Highway 31 and the allotment boundary Met Met include musk thistle and diffuse knapweed. The 2004 RHA mentioned possible populations of medusahead rye and Mediterranean sage Processes occurring in small isolated areas. Currently these weed populations have increased and threaten the natural vegetation community. The Mediterranean sage population is estimated at 30 acres and growing. There are also larger infestations of medusahead rye. Both species are being managed by the current integrated weed management plan, but effective control methods have not yet been approved.
Overall, this standard continues to be met across the allotment. 4. Water This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams which must comply with State water quality NA NA standards. While there is one permanent lake in the northeast corner of the allotment, this area is not currently grazed, so livestock Quality have no potential to impact water quality. The allotment contains an appropriate assemblage of wildlife species and wildlife habitat expected for the shrub-steppe ecosystem.
5. Native, Special status wildlife species or habitats potentially present within this allotment may include bighorn sheep, bald eagle, ferruginous T/E, and hawk, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, sage-grouse, Townsends big-eared bat, fringed bat, pallid bat, spotted bat, kit fox, and pygmy Locally Met Met rabbit. There are also several species with high public interest or concern. These include golden eagle, mule deer, pronghorn, and elk. Important There are no known resource conflicts between current livestock grazing management activities and existing wildlife species (including Species special status species) or their habitat within the allotment. For these reasons, this standard is being met. See discussion of Standard 5 below for more details.
Page 52 Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain the permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing system, and current grazing management. A new well and pipeline would be constructed providing additional water to three pastures, which would increase distribution of livestock and reduce grazing pressure at existing water sources. This would provide a reliable water source in the Middle Sheep Dip Pasture which is currently limited to use in only high water years provided by livestock dugouts. This alternative incurs maximum stocking rates on a per pasture basis across the allotment to ensure the 50% utilization standard would not be exceeded. Rangeland Health Standards would continue to be met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the 1,051 AUMs of lost forage in the allotment. The additional cost to replace this forage would be at the permittees expense. These costs are discussed further in the social and economic section.
Existing range improvement projects on public land within the allotments would not be maintained. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent pastures. Although there is 374 acres of private land within the allotment the permittee does not own this land and those acres are not included in the forage allocation on this allotment. Those private lands could still be grazed by privately owned livestock, but the owner would be required to keep his livestock off of public lands through the construction of a fence or other means. It is possible that some unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment. Regardless, Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Affected Environment: Oatman Flat Allotment
This allotment is located about 4 miles northwest of Silver Lake, Oregon. The Oatman Flat Allotment has a total of 28,256 acres of BLM-administered lands and 6,966 private land acres. The 10-year permit authorizes 2,082 AUMs to be used sometime between 4/15-7/31. This allotment contains 6 pastures grazed in a rest rotation grazing system during the spring and summer months.
The Oatman Flat Allotment is categorized as an “Improve” (I) category allotment. The allotment has low forage production potential and historically has had some conflict between livestock grazing in the winter within deer winter range. Livestock grazing was changed from winter grazing to spring-summer grazing, eliminating the conflict between livestock and wildlife. An allotment management plan was drafted up sometime in the early 1980s, but is out of date with current management. An allotment management plan (AMP) was drafted up in the early 1980s. Some of the management goals were implemented and included vegetation treatments of juniper and establishment of a rest rotation grazing system. Other portions of the AMP are currently considered out of date and have not been implemented.
Page 53 An interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in 2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards. The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In 2004 and 2014, all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of these assessments are contained in Table 3.8.2 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004b, 2014b).
Environmental Consequences: Oatman Flat Allotment
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the Oatman Flat Allotment. Trend photos on 9 long-term trend transects indicate stable or upward trends and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The average actual use for the last 10-years has been 672 AUMs. This is substantially lower than the permitted 2,082 AUMs. Due to some years of dry climate conditions, several pastures were not used due to a lack of water. Under this alternative, regular use would continue in those pastures with reliable water, while those pastures with less reliable water would be used only during more wet years. Existing range improvements would be maintained, as needed to support continued livestock management objectives. The number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to fluctuate based on forage and water availability. There would potentially be a decline in forage production over the long-term as western juniper would continue to expand into the area in the absence of wildfire. Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing system, and most aspects of current grazing management. This alternative would incur maximum stocking rates on a per pasture basis within the allotment, while ensuring that the 50% utilization standard would not be exceeded within each pasture. Rangeland Health Standards would continue to be met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would be limited to wildlife species and grazing on the allotment would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the 2,082 AUMs of lost forage in the allotment. The additional cost to replace this forage would be at the permittees expense. These costs are discussed further in the social and economic section.
Existing range improvement projects on public land within the allotments would not be maintained. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent pastures. Although there is 6,966 acres of private land within the allotment the permittee does not own this land and those acres are not included in the forage allocation on this allotment. Those private lands could still be grazed by privately owned livestock, but the owner would be required to keep his livestock off of public lands through the construction of fencing or other
Page 54 Table 3.8.2 Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Oatman Flat Allotment (00705) Standard 2004 2014 Comments Assessment Assessment Update The 2004 rangeland health assessment (RHA) found Soil Surface Factor for the majority of the allotment (71%) was in the slight category and 16% of the allotment in the stable category. Plant composition and community structure of grasses, forbs, and shrubs were what was expected for the area. There was good plant vigor and plants able to complete their reproductive cycle following the grazing rotation. Organic matter in the form of litter was accumulating and being incorporated into the soil. 1. Watershed Function – Met Met Trend data shows that plant cover and the amount of distribution of bare ground is within the range of variability expected for the Uplands ecological sites found in the allotment. Due to the diverse vegetation within the allotment, the most abundant vegetation type only comprises 20% of the allotment and is dominated by juniper, mountain big sagebrush, with an Idaho Fescue understory. Some cheatgrass occurs in the allotment. Juniper is continuing to encroach into the allotment and is having a negative impact on watershed function. Some successful juniper treatments have occurred in recent years in the Hockeman/East Ceres Flat and Black Hills Pastures totaling 1300 acres. There are no perennial streams in the allotment. There are a number of intermittent drainages that seasonally flow during precipitation events or during spring snowmelt. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies several of these drainages as 2. Watershed “riverine” systems, but due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation. Function The NWI also mis-identifies about 535 acres of forested/shrub wetlands on BLM-administered lands within the allotment. Based Met NA Riparian/ on examination of digital orthophotos, these areas actually represent playa lakebeds that do not support wetland/riparian Wetland vegetation or are alkaline shrublands that do not meet the definition of a wetland. The NWI also identifies about 28.7 acres of Areas palustrine, emergent wetlands and 3 acres of freshwater ponds scattered across BLM-administered lands. Virtually all of these acres represent livestock water developments and are not wetlands. For these reasons, this standard is not applicable to the allotment. Most plant reproduction is appropriate for site conditions and organic matter is being incorporated in the soil. Trend photos indicate appropriate vigor of vegetation species with trends stable to upward within the allotment. Noxious weeds mentioned in 3. Ecological the 2004 RHA update are a few small historic patches of musk thistle and diffuse knapweed. These species are being managed Met Met Processes through the more up to date IPM invasive plant management program. Current noxious weeds occurring in the allotment are Mediterranean sage and spotted knapweed. Other likely invasive plants to invade the allotment are bull thistle, Canada thistle, and medusahead rye. 4. Water This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams or other water sources in this allotment NA NA Quality which must comply with State water quality standards. The allotment supports an appropriate assemblage of sagebrush-steppe wildlife habitat and populations. There are 730 AUMs of 5. Native, forage allocated for deer and pronghorn, another 150 AUMs of forage allocated for elk, and 28 AUMs allocated for other wildlife. T/E, and These forage allocations are adequate to support currently wildlife populations.
Met Met Locally Special Status wildlife species or their habitats that may be present within the allotment include bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, Important peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, kit fox, sage-grouse, and pygmy rabbit. Species of high public interest in the allotment are mule Species deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope. About 2,240 acres of sage-grouse preliminary general habitat (PGH) occurs within the Connelly Hills/Horning Gap pastures of the allotment.
Page 55
Table 3.8.3 Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Tuff Butte Allotment (00707) Standard 2004 2014 Comments Assessment Assessment Update The 2004 rangeland health assessment (RHA) states that Soil Surface Factor (SSF) for the majority of the allotment (74%) was in the slight category with 10% being stable and 4% in the moderate SSF rating. Plants communities were stable with some juniper encroachment noted as impacting watershed function and ecological conditions. 1. Watershed Some invasion of cheatgrass was previously documented. Some long-term trend photos showed a decrease in cheatgrass with the Met Met Function – introduction of crested wheatgrass on some sites. Cheatgrass is still a component in the allotment today, but has decreased in total Uplands cover.
Organic matter, in the form of litter, is accumulating and being incorporated into the soil. For these reasons, the allotment continues to meet this standard. There are no perennial streams on BLM lands within the allotment. There are a few intermittent drainages that seasonally flow during precipitation events or spring snowmelt. Due to their intermittent nature, these drainages do not support wetland or riparian vegetation. As a result, there are no lotic wetlands or associated riparian areas. 2. Watershed Function The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) shows about 350 acres of palustrine, emergent wetland along the western boundary of the allotment associated with the Paulina Marsh. The majority of these acres are on private land. The few acres located on BLM- Met Met Riparian/ administered lands were found to be in proper functioning condition (PFC) during the 2004 RHA and are assumed to still be in Wetland PFC. Areas There are another 10 acres of freshwater ponds in this same area. Based upon a comparison with the digital orthophotos, these areas represent livestock water developments or playa lakebeds that do not support wetland vegetation or otherwise do not meet the definition of a wetland. The dominant vegetation community (36%) on the allotment is rabbitbrush with crested wheatgrass or cheatgrass as the understory. Juniper/sagebrush/grass community is the next most abundant vegetation type on the allotment (33%) of the allotment. Most plant reproduction is appropriate and organic matter is being incorporated in the soil.
3. Ecological Long-term trend monitoring photos generally indicate a stable to upward trend across the allotment. However one long-term Met Met Processes monitoring site does show a decrease in trend due to an increase Juniper causing a decrease in perennial grasses on the site. Grazing is not a causal factor in the downward trend at this one site.
Juniper has increased across the allotment and is impacting ecological community diversity and processes of energy flow. Known noxious weeds species located on this allotment include whitetop and medusahead. 4. Water This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams or other water sources in this allotment NA NA Quality which must comply with State water quality standards. No special status plant species have been documented within the allotment. 5. Native, T/E, and The allotment supports an appropriate assemblage of wildlife species and populations.
Met Met Locally Special status wildlife species or their habitat that may be present in the allotment include the bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, Important peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, kit fox, sage-grouse, and pygmy rabbit. Species of high public concern may include mule deer, Species elk, and pronghorn antelope.
Page 56 No conflicts have been identified between any wildlife species and livestock grazing at this time. For these reasons, this standard continues to be met.
Page 57 means. It is possible that some unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment. Regardless, Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Affected Environment: Tuff Butte Allotment
This allotment is located about 9 miles northeast of Silver Lake, Oregon. An allotment management plan was drafted up sometime in the early 1980s, but is out of date with current management. The allotment has a total of 8,936 acres of BLM-administered lands and 2,192 private land acres. A 10-year permit authorized 536 AUMs to be used sometime between 4/1- 7/15. Five hundred and twenty AUMs are allocated for wildlife. This allotment contains 4 pastures grazed in a rest rotation grazing system during the spring and summer months. An interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in 2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards. The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In both the 2004 and 2014, all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of the conditions are contained in Table 3.8.3 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004b, 2014c).
The Tuff Butte Allotment is categorized as a Maintain (M) category allotment. This was based on forage production being near potential. No serious resource conflicts have been identified, some positive economic returns exist, and the present management is satisfactory. An allotment management plan was drafted that outlined range improvements. Some improvements were implemented, including pipelines providing water and fences to improve pasture rotations.
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the Tuff Butte Allotment. Trend photos on 6 long-term trend transects indicate stable or upward trends and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The average actual use for the last 10-years has been 330 AUMs. This is lower than the permitted 536 AUMs allowable on the allotment. Dry climate conditions have decreased some available water on the allotment and the permittee has decreased livestock use accordingly. Use would continue to be less than the 536 AUMs on the allotment with continued dry conditions. This level of use, along with managed grazing, would provide a sustainable forage base. Existing range improvements would be maintained as needed to support continued livestock management objectives. The number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to fluctuate based on forage and water availability. There would potentially be a decline in forage production over the long-term as western juniper would continue to expand into the area in the absence of wildfire. Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing system, and current management. In the past livestock occasionally drift over tuff butte into private lands causing some difficulty with mixing of livestock, or livestock grazing off the allotment. This alternative would build two small drift fences to ensure livestock stay within the
Page 58 West Pasture of the allotment. This alternative would incur maximum stocking rates on a per pasture basis within the allotment, while ensuring that the 50% utilization standard would not be exceeded within each pasture. Rangeland Health Standards would continue to be met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the 536 AUMs of lost forage. The additional cost to replace this forage would be at the permittees expense. These costs are discussed further in the social and economic section.
Existing range improvement projects on public land within the allotments would not be maintained. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent pastures. There is 2,192 acres of private land within the allotment. Some of these lands are owned by the permittee and some are not. Those lands owned or controlled by the permittee could continue to be grazed, but the permittee would be required to keep his livestock off of public lands through the construction of fencing or other means. It is possible that some unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment. Regardless, Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Affected Environment: Murdock Allotment
The Murdock Allotment is located approximately 2 miles southeast of Silver Lake, Oregon, and has a total of 4,274 acres of BLM-administered lands and 1,020 private land acres. A 10-year permit authorized 403 AUMs to be used sometime between 4/16-6/30. This allotment contains 4 pastures grazed in a rest-rotation grazing system during the spring and summer months. In 1960, this area was burned and 1,306 acres were reseeded with crested wheatgrass. Private lands originally considered to be within the allotment have sold and since been fenced out of the allotment.
An interdisciplinary team conducted a Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) in the allotment in 2004 to determine if grazing management was in conformance with the applicable standards. The RHA was reviewed again as part of this environmental analysis in 2014. In both 2004 and 2014, all rangeland health standards were met. A summary of the assessments are contained in Table 3.8.4 and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (BLM 2004b, 2014d).
The Murdock Allotment is categorized as an I category allotment. The Key Rating form in 1986 rated the allotment as “improve” with moderate production potential and forage conditions that could be improved with treatment. No serious other resource conflicts exits with good opportunity for positive economic returns, and improvement on forage conditions. In the past this included seeding and treatments to sagebrush. Management in 1986 was unsatisfactory due to inferior fencing and no rotation of grazing established. Since that time four pastures have been created and a rest-rotation grazing system implemented.
Page 59 Table 3.8.4. Summary of Rangeland Health Assessment Murdock Allotment (00705) Standard 2004 2014 Comments Assessment Assessment Update Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and 1. Watershed landform. Trend data show that there has been a shift from early seral grass and shrub species to later seral shrub dominated vegetation. Some decline in forage for livestock has occurred over time. However, current livestock management has Met Met Function – continued to be appropriate to maintain healthy upland vegetation and stable soils. The most dominant vegetation on the Uplands allotment is mountain big sagebrush with an understory of crested wheatgrass. Medusahead rye is invading the allotment and, if not treated in the near future, will start negatively effecting upland function. There are no perennial streams in the allotment. There are a number of intermittent drainages that seasonally flow during 2. Watershed precipitation events or during spring snowmelt. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies these drainages as Function “riverine” systems, but due to their intermittent nature, they do not support wetland or riparian vegetation. Therefore, there Met NA Riparian/ are no lotic wetlands or riparian areas within the allotment. The NWI also identifies four small freshwater ponds on BLM- Wetland Areas administered portions of one drainage. All four represent livestock water developments and are not wetlands. For these reasons, this standard is not applicable to the area. Plant reproduction is appropriate for the area and organic matter is being incorporated into the soil. Trend photos indicate appropriate vigor of vegetation species with trends stable to upward across the allotment. The most dominant vegetation on the allotment is mountain big sagebrush with an understory of crested wheatgrass. Plant composition and community structure are appropriate for this allotment. 3. Ecological Met Met Processes The 2004 RHA update noted are a few small historic patches of musk thistle and diffuse knapweed. These weed species are being managed under the current integrated weed management program. Current noxious weeds occurring in the allotment are Mediterranean sage, medusahead rye, and spotted knapweed. Over 100 acres of medusahead are currently found the allotment. Other likely invasive plants to invade the allotment are bull and Canada thistle. 4. Water This standard is not applicable to the assessment area. There are no perennial streams or other water sources in this allotment NA NA Quality which must comply with State water quality standards. The allotment supports an appropriate assemblage of sagebrush-steppe wildlife habitats and populations. There are 60 AUMs of forage allocated for deer and pronghorn, another 60 AUMs of forage allocated for elk, and 12 AUMs allocated for other 5. Native, T/E, wildlife in the allotment. These forage allocations are adequate to support currently wildlife populations. and Locally Met Met Important There are no known special status plants located within the allotment. Special status wildlife species or their habitats that Species may be present within the allotment include bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, kit fox, sage- grouse, and pygmy rabbit. Species of high public interest in the allotment include mule deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope. About 78% of the allotment contains sage-grouse preliminary genera habitat (PGH).
Page 60 Environmental Consequences: Murdock Allotment
Alternative1: No Action
Actual use, utilization, and climate data have been summarized in the allotment monitoring file and indicate livestock grazing levels are sustainable at the current forage allocation for the Murdock Allotment. Trend photos on 5 long-term trend transects indicate stable or upward trends and the current rest-rotational grazing system is meeting management objectives. The average actual use for the last 10-years has been 174 AUMs. This is lower than the permitted 403 AUMs allowable on the allotment. Some dry climate conditions have decreased available water on the allotment and the permittee has decreased use accordingly. Use would continue to average 174 AUMs on the allotment under this alternative. This level of use, along with managed grazing, would continue to provide a sustainable forage base. Existing range improvements would be maintained as needed to support continued livestock management objectives. The number of AUMs used in each pasture would continue to fluctuate based on forage and water availability. Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
This alternative would maintain permitted AUMs for the allotment, the rest-rotation grazing system, and current grazing management. This alternative would incur maximum stocking rates on a per pasture basis within the allotment, while ensuring that the 50% utilization standard would not be exceeded within each pasture. Rangeland Health Standards would continue to be met.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized. The permittee would need to replace the 403 AUMs of lost forage. The additional cost to replace this forage would be at the permittees expense. These costs are discussed further in the social and economic section.
Existing range improvement projects on public land within the allotments would not be maintained. However, the allotment boundary fences would still need to be maintained by the BLM or adjacent permittees to prevent livestock trespass into the allotment from adjacent pastures. There are about 1,020 acres of private land within the allotment. Those private lands owned or controlled by the permittee could be grazed by the permittee, but the permittee would be required to keep his livestock off of public lands through the construction of fencing or other means. It is possible that some unauthorized livestock use could occur within the allotment. Regardless, Rangeland Health Standards would likely continue to be met.
Page 61 Traditional Practices and Cultural Resources
Affected Environment: Traditional Practices
The 4 allotments are within an area which would have been used by either the Klamath or the Yahooskin Band of the Northern Paiute or both. These groups may have used the area at the same time or at separate times.
There are two sites with known Traditional Use areas within the Egli Rim Allotment in the form of rock cairns. Rock cairns were made as part of personal religious practices and are considered sacred by the Klamath Tribes. Several sites within the area have rock art present which is considered to be sacred by Tribes of the region. Often this rock art is found within the context of other site types and materials. The two rock cairn sites are associated with occupation sites. No Traditional Cultural Properties have been identified within the other 3 allotments at the present time. However, the lack of knowledge of such sites does not mean that they are not present within the allotment. The two tribes have been contacted and provided an opportunity to provide BLM with information regarding the presence of these values, if they exist.
Affected Environment: Cultural Resources
None of the 4 allotments have been comprehensively surveyed for the presence of cultural or historic resources. Some surveys have been done on portions of the allotments around water developments, right-of-ways, and other ground-disturbing projects in the area. This represents a resource for which there is “incomplete or unavailable information”. According to the CEQ’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1502.22), when an agency is evaluating impacts and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency must make clear that such information is lacking. Further, if the information “cannot be obtained because the cost of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the agency shall include…. (1) a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts….; (3) a summary of the existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant impacts… and (4) the agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community…”.
The DOI NEPA regulations state that these costs are not just monetary, but can also include “social costs, delays, opportunity costs, and non-fulfillment or non-timely fulfillment of statutory mandates” (43 CFR Part 46.125). The costs of obtaining a comprehensive survey of cultural resources across the allotments is estimated at $800 to $1080 per acre based upon current costs for contract survey work. Surveying the remaining 51,883 unsurveyed acres within the allotments would cost approximately $41.5-56 million and is considered to be exorbitant. Nevertheless, the following section describes what is known about existing cultural/historic resources in each allotment based on past surveys, followed by a discussion of potential impacts to those resources.
Page 62 Egli Rim Allotment
Only about 15% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for cultural resources. Sixty (60) cultural resources sites have been recorded in the allotment to this date. Recorded sites within the allotment include small to large lithic scatters some of which have projectile points present, small to large occupation sites which may also have stone house rings present, rock cairn sites, rock art sites and historic rock walls. The time range for these sites is early archaic (10,000 to 7500 BP) through middle Archaic (7,500 to 4,500 BP) and Late Archaic (4,500 to 200 BP). Some of the sites represent all three of these time period, others may have only one or two time periods represented. The Two historic stone walls which have been identified are probably from the early 1900s to 1940s time period when livestock grazing was brought into this area.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of obsidian in the area, it is likely that many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the allotment were to be made. Sites expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Oatman Flat Allotment
Only about 20% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for cultural resources. Eleven cultural sites have been recorded to date. Recorded sites within the Oatman Flat #705 Allotment are all listed as lithic scatters. The time range for these sites ranges from early Archaic from 8,000 BP to mid Archaic at around 4,500 BP.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of sites in other local areas, it is likely that many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the area were to be made. Sites expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Tuff Butte Allotment
Only about 20% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for cultural resources. Eight cultural sites have been recorded to date. Recorded sites within the allotment include seven (7) lithic scatters and one (1) historic stone wall. The time range for these sites has not been determined due to the lack of time diagnostic artifacts on the sites. The historic stone wall which has been identified is probably from the early 1900s to 1940s time period when livestock grazing was brought into this area.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of sites in other local areas, it is likely that many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the area were to be made. Sites expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation
Page 63 sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Murdock Allotment
Less than 10% of the BLM-administered portion of the allotment has been surveyed for cultural resources. One cultural site has been recorded to date. The single recorded site in the allotment is recorded as an occupation site. The time range for this site has not been determined due to the lack of time diagnostic artifacts on the site.
Due to the nature of the environment and the occurrence of sites in other local areas, it is likely that many more sites would be recorded if a complete survey of the area were to be made. Sites expected to be found in the area would include lithic scatters, temporary campsites or occupation sites, obsidian quarry sites, stone house rings, rock art, and rock cairns. Often sites will have more than one type of site or feature present. It is not uncommon in this area for a rock art site to be part of an occupation site which also has stone house rings and a large lithic scatter.
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative would continue grazing at its present level and timing. There would be no impact to known Traditional Cultural Properties under this alternative.
It is unknown to what extent livestock may currently be impacting cultural sites within the 4 allotments. There have been few, if any, studies of livestock trampling impacts to cultural resources, but based on field observations by BLM cultural resources staff, concentrated livestock use can impact cultural materials located in the soil profile. These effects could include ground cover removal, surface scuffing, and hoof shear. Cultural materials within the top 12 inches of soil are the most susceptible to exposure and trampling damage, potentially resulting in reduced site integrity. The deepest disturbance is typically seen at wet sites near water sources and trailing areas where livestock tend to congregate and concentrated hoof shear and soil layer mixing is common. Artifacts can be mixed between layers of the soil profile, moved both vertically and horizontally, or broken and chipped. In addition, removal of vegetation, especially within concentration areas can lead to erosion by wind and water, further exposing cultural materials near the surface. Dispersed grazing, on dry uplands, away from water sources, may cause light hoof shear and surface scuffing to sites over time.
The treatment of weed sites using an integrated approach includes methods (mechanical, manual, biological, and chemical) that vary in the amount of ground disturbance that could potentially affect cultural sites. The use of herbicides applied with backpack sprayer, ATV, or aerial methods would not cause substantial additional ground disturbance in the four allotments and, therefore, would not have any impacts on cultural resources. Noxious weed treatments that involve methods that cause ground disturbance would be surveyed for cultural resources before treatments are implemented. National Register quality sites would be avoided or other non-
Page 64 ground-disturbing treatment methods would be substituted to eliminate potential impacts to cultural resources.
Maintenance of existing range developments would have little or no additional impact on cultural resources beyond those that may have occurred when the improvement was originally
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
Effects Common to All Four Allotments
The effects of re-issuing the permit and continued livestock grazing across the 4 allotments would generally be similar to Alternative 1. Some pastures would receive more evenly distributed grazing, while others would receive more rest.
The treatment of weed sites using an integrated methodology would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. The use of one additional herbicide (imazapic) applied with backpack sprayer, ATV, or aerial methods would not cause substantial additional ground disturbance in the four allotments and, therefore, would not have any impacts on cultural resources.
Egli Rim Allotment
The proposed well, pipeline, and trough locations have been surveyed for cultural resources and no cultural resources were found, thus there would be no impacts to cultural resources associated with project construction or use.
Oatman Flat Allotment
The proposed fence locations have been surveyed for cultural resources and no cultural resources were found, thus there would be no impacts to cultural resources associated with project construction or subsequent livestock trailing along the new fences.
The cutting of juniper by hand crews would not generally impact cultural resources. However, machine cutting/piling and burning this material could have an impact upon sites, if present. Treatment areas would be surveyed for cultural resources prior to implementation. Cut material would be hand-piled and burned away from National Register quality sites and would, therefore avoid or eliminate potential impacts to cultural resources.
Tuff Butte Allotment
The impacts of implementing juniper treatments would be similar to those described in the Oatman Flat Allotment.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
This alternative would eliminate all ground disturbance associated with livestock trampling and weed treatments. This would eliminate the potential for damage to cultural sites which may be present near the surface within the allotments.
Page 65
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Research Natural Areas (ACEC/RNA)
Affected Environment:
The Connley Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)/Research Natural Area (RNA) is located within the Oatman Flat Allotment (Map 3). This area was designated as an ACEC/RNA in 2003 to protect important botanical, cultural, and ecological values (BLM 2003a; 2003b). The area supports 4 Oregon Heritage Plant Community cells associated with the Basin and Range Ecosystem including:
(4) western juniper, big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass (7) western juniper, bluebunch wheatgrass (8) western juniper, Idaho fescue (11) big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1: No Action
The ACEC/RNA remains open to grazing use. The potential environmental effects of renewing the permit and continuing to authorize grazing use on the relevant and important ACEC values (cultural, wildlife, ecological values) would generally be the same as those already described for the Oatman Flat Allotment under Alternative 1 within the vegetation, cultural resources, and wildlife habitat sections of this EA. The reader should refer to those sections of this document for details.
Alternative 2: Range Improvement and Vegetation Treatments
Since the range improvement and juniper treatment projects are located outside of the ACEC/RNA, the potential environmental effects to the relevant and important ACEC values (cultural, wildlife, ecological values) would generally be the same as those already described for the Oatman Flat Allotment under Alternative 1 within the vegetation, cultural resources, and wildlife habitat sections of this EA. The reader should refer to those sections of this document for details.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
The potential environmental effects to the relevant and important ACEC values (cultural, wildlife, ecological values) that would result from not issuing the permit or continuing weed treatments would generally be the same as those already described for Alternative 3 for the Oatman Flat Allotment in the vegetation, cultural, and wildlife habitat sections of this EA. The reader should refer to those sections of the document for details.
Page 66 Visual Resources
Affected Environment:
The BLM-administered lands within the allotments are managed according to Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) II, III and IV. Portions of the allotments also fall along scenic travel routes (State Highway 31 and County Road 5-14F) where RMP management direction requires “all developments, land alterations, and vegetation manipulations within a 3 mile buffer… be designed to minimize visual impacts (unseen areas within these zones will not be held to this standard)… All projects will be designed to maximize scenic quality and minimize scenic intrusions” (BLM 2003a, page 88, as maintained) (Table 3.10.1).
Table 3.10.1. Visual Resource Management Classes and Scenic Corridors in the Allotments* Allotment VRM II VRM III VRM IV Scenic Corridor (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Egli Rim 6,452 / 30% - 14,958 / 70% 16,868 / 79% Oatman Flat 1,722 / 6% 4,866 / 17% 21,434 / 77% 18,844 / 67% Tuff Butte - 2,410 / 27% 6,457 / 73% 666 / 8% Murdock 2,111 / 50% 2,124 / 50% - 1,032 / 24% • VRM II is managed to “retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to landscape characteristics should be low. Management activities can be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer.” • VRM III is to “partially retain the existing character of the landscape, moderate levels of change are acceptable.” • VRM IV is managed to allow for “major modifications to the landscape,” though “every effort should be made to … minimize disturbances and design projects to conform to the characteristic landscape” (BLM 2001, page 290).
Observable developments/disturbances/alterations in the allotments include:
• Egli Rim Allotment : 49.5 miles of motorized routes, 51 miles of fence, 1.25 miles of pipelines, 2 large wildfires (4,804 acres), 1 prescribed fire (3,101 acres), 1 seeding (1,135 acres), 10 reservoirs, 8 waterholes, 3 troughs, 3 cattle guards, and a 1 acre mineral pit. • Oatman Flat Allotment: 99 miles of motorized routes, 7 miles of Highway 31, 64.5 miles of fence, 2.5 miles of distribution lines, several seedings/chainings (2,456 acres), several prescribed burns (1, 655 acres), 3 mineral pits (12 acres), 7 reservoirs, 6 waterholes, 3 wells, 1 trough, 6 cattle guards, and 3 guzzlers. • Tuff Butte Allotment: 28 miles of motorized routes, 23 miles of fence, 5 miles of pipelines, 3.5 miles of major BPA utility lines, juniper thinning (100 acres), prescribed fire (100 acres), wildfire (25 acres), 9 troughs, 1 water tank, and 1 well. • Murdock Allotment: 23.5 miles of motorized routes, 4 miles of cat lines, 20 miles of fence, 3.5 miles of minor distribution lines, prescribed fire (2,060 acres), seeding (1,806 acres), 2 wells, 1 developed spring, and 1 waterhole.
Environmental Consequences:
Alternative 1: No Action
The No-Action Alternative would result in minimal to no effects on existing visual quality. Current visual objectives for VRM Classes II, III and IV, as well as the scenic corridor management direction would continue to be met.
Page 67 Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
The proposed water developments within the Egli Rim Allotment would have low to moderate negative impacts to visual quality in a very small portion of the 5-14F corridor due to construction of the pipeline, well, water tank, troughs, and the resulting cattle-trampled areas around them, as most of these would be visible to the average user traveling on only about 4 miles of County Road 5-14F. The project would have no impacts on the majority of this corridor. The visual setting near these developments would shift toward a more agricultural characteristic, away from the current predominantly pastoral appearance.
Placement of the project in this location would have high visual impacts in a localized area with a high scenic quality rating (VRM II). However, these potential impacts would be greatly mitigated by utilizing a low profile water tank and painting the tank and troughs to blend into the background in accordance with the BLM’s Standard Environmental Color Chart (CC001). The Outdoor Recreation Planner would assist in proper selection of paint color and hue. These measures would reduce visual contrast by blending in developments with surrounding colors and forms of the landscape to prevent structures from being seen from a distance. With these mitigation measures applied, the proposed water developments would meet visual resource objectives for VRM Class II.
The two, short proposed fences in Tuff Butte Allotment would have minimal negative impacts to visual resources (VRM III) in that portion of the allotment.
The proposed juniper treatments in the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments could have moderate to substantial impacts to visual quality, depending upon how visible they are from Highway 31. Treatments would occur within VRM Class III and IV areas and less than half of these treatment areas would fall within the visible portions of the Highway 31 scenic corridor buffer.
The proposed invasive species treatments would likely have low to moderate negative impact to visual quality in the immediate vicinity of a given treatment areas. Impacts could be mitigated by adopting appropriate Best Management Practices or Standard Operating Procedures from the Oregon FEIS ROD (BLM 2007, 2010).
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatment
This alternative would moderately enhance visual quality across the allotments by eliminating the occurrence of viewing non-native animals on the landscape and by minor improvements/recovery of esthetically pleasing upland plant communities along old cattle trails and around water sources. However, the visual impacts of observable developments (motorized routes, fences, and water developments, etc.) scattered across these allotments would likely remain until such time that they either deteriorate or funds and resources are made available to facilitate their removal. Overall, visual objectives for VRM Classes II, III, and IV, as well as the scenic corridor management direction, would be met.
Page 68 Social and Economic Values
Affected Environment:
The economy of Lake County is based primarily on agriculture, timber, livestock, and government sectors. Livestock grazing and associated feed production industries are major contributors to the economy of Lake County. The most common is the raising of cattle and calves for beef. In 2012, an estimated 54,000 cow/calves were in Lake County Oregon (Pete Schreder, Personal Communication, Lake County Agricultural Extension Agent, November 14, 2012). In 2012, Lake County ranchers sold an estimated $38,000,000 worth of cattle and calves or related beef products from public lands. The allotment accounts for a total of 4,077 AUMs which the permittee uses for 5 months of the year. This calculates to providing forage for about 815 cows for 5 months. The cows would produce an average of 647 calves for market, assuming 54 are bulls and 85% calf crop each year.
Environmental Consequences:
Effects Common to Alternatives 1-3:
Public lands in and around the allotment would continue to contribute social amenities such as open space and recreational opportunities. These amenities encourage tourism in the surrounding region and provide economic benefits to the nearby community of Silver Lake, though the specific contribution of these allotments cannot be accurately estimated.
Effects Common to Alternatives 1 and 2:
Under Alternative 1 and 2 the Federal Government would continue to collect grazing fees (4,077 AUMs X $1.35) which amounts to a maximum amount of about $5,503 in annual revenue. The permittee would continue to produce about 647 calves each year providing continued economic stability for the livestock operator. This would contribute less than 1% of the total county-wide annual cattle production.
Alternative 2: Range Improvements and Vegetation Treatments
Alternative 2 would include additional costs to both the Federal Government and permittee associated with constructing and maintaining the new water developments and fences. These estimated costs range from $25,000 to $100,000. The cost of weed treatments could cost approximately 100,000 to treat 100 acres of imazapic on medusadahead within the allotments.
Alternative 3: No Grazing or Vegetation Treatments
A loss of possible maximum amount of $5,503 would occur to the Federal Government due to the loss of grazing fees collected from the permittee. This alternative would also result in the loss of suitable grazing land for the local rancher who would then need to find suitable pasture or hay elsewhere. The current cost of hay is approximately $153/ton (Oregon-Washington weekly hay report). It would take approximately 0.23 tons of forage to feed one 600 pound stocker calf
Page 69 for one month (based on a cow eats approximately 2.5% of their body weight each day). This equals to approximately $34 of feed per cow per month for hay. It would cost the rancher $138,550 in hay to feed his 815 cows for 5 months not including transportation cost of transporting hay to his ranch.
The average pasture rate for private land forage in Oregon is $15 AUM (DOI price for non- willful grazing charge based on current private land pasture rate). The additional cost to the rancher for renting private pasture land for those 5 months would be approximately $61,155.
If the permittee wishes to graze on private lands within the allotments it may take up to a rough estimate of 34 miles of fencing off private lands which could possible cost 170,000.
Cumulative Effects
Analysis Scale and Timeframe
For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative impacts are addressed at the collective allotment scale. The reasons for choosing this analysis scale include the fact that issuing a permit is a decision that affects all five allotments, and BLM has a good idea of other potential reasonably foreseeable actions that may occur within the pastures due to management direction identified in the Lakeview RMP/ROD (Appendix E, BLM 2003b). However, the analysis spatial scales could vary somewhat depending upon the resource value/use being addressed. The timeframe of analysis is defined as the same 15-20 year expected life of the Lakeview RMP/ROD. The reason for choosing this timeframe is because this represents the same analysis timeframe considered in the Lakeview Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2003a) and portions of that analysis may be appropriate for tiering purposes.
Known Past Activities
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued cumulative impact guidance on June 24, 2005, that states the “environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking,” and review of past actions is required only “to the extent that this review informs agency decision- making regarding the proposed action.” Use of information on the effects of past action may be useful in two ways: one is for consideration of the proposed action’s cumulative effects, and secondly as a basis for identifying the proposed action’s direct and indirect effects.
The CEQ stated that “[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” This is because a description of the current state of the environment (ie. affected environment section) inherently includes the effects of past actions. Further, the “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions.” Information on the current environmental condition is more comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a useful starting point for a cumulative effects analysis than attempting to establish such a starting point by adding up the described effects of individual past actions to some environmental baseline
Page 70 condition in the past that, unlike current conditions, can no longer be verified by direct examination.
The second area in which the CEQ guidance states that information on past actions may be useful is in “illuminating or predicting the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action. The usefulness of such information is limited by the fact that it is anecdotal only, and extrapolation of data from such singular experiences is not generally accepted as a reliable predictor of effects”.
The Department of Interior issued some additional guidance related to past actions which state, “when considering the effects of past actions as part of a cumulative effects analysis, the Responsible Official must analyze the effects in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and in accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, such as ‘‘The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis’’ dated June 24, 2005, or any superseding Council on Environmental Quality guidance (see 43 CFR 46.115)”.
Based on this guidance, BLM has summarized known disturbances that have occurred within the allotments as part of past or on-going management activities. These include: livestock grazing and management, road construction and maintenance, prescribed fire, wildfire suppression, wildfire restoration and seeding, juniper treatment, and range improvement project construction and maintenance.
The allotments have historically been grazed by cattle. Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1935, grazing on public lands was essentially uncontrolled. After the Taylor Grazing Act, allotments were established, tied to private base property owned by a permittee, and were initially under the management responsibility of the Grazing Service. Under the Grazing Service and then under the BLM in 1946, the number of grazing livestock was generally higher and the pattern of grazing use was generally more intense than what occurs today.
Based on a GIS analysis of current data, approximately 190 miles of single-lane constructed roads representing about 276 acres of road disturbance. There are approximately 7 miles of double-lane roads within the allotments representing another 17 acres of road disturbance.
Although a major two-lane State highway does go through the Oatman Flat Allotment, the highway and associated right-of-way are fenced separate from the allotment and, therefore, this total was not included in this analysis.
Seven miles of pipelines exist representing about 4 acres of ground disturbance. Approximately 10,238 acres have been treated in the past via wildfire, prescribed fire, sagebrush removal using herbicide, chaining, and/or seeding. A total of 48 acres of weed sites have previously been treated within the allotments. An estimated 1,983 acres of concentrated livestock disturbance currently occurs across the allotments that is associated with trailing along fence lines and congregating near constructed water developments and natural water sources (Map 5). All of these past disturbances represent an estimated total of about 12,518 acres of past or on-going ground disturbance (Tables 3.14.1).
Page 71 All of these past activities have affected or shaped the landscape within the allotment into what it is today. Current resource conditions are described further in the “Affected Environment” portions of Chapter 3 earlier in this document, as well as in the Rangeland Health Assessment(s) for the allotments (BLM 2004b, 2004c, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d).
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Foreseeable future actions in these allotments include continued road and range improvement maintenance comparable to what has gone on in the recent past. Hunting, and other dispersed recreation activities may also occur.
While there is also a risk of a future wildfire within the allotment, it is impossible to predict how much area would likely burn, how intensely the area would burn, how much fire suppression would be employed, and how much area may need to be actively rehabilitated after the fire. For this reason, fire disturbances are not considered further in this analysis.
Environmental Consequences
For purposes of this analysis, total acres of concentrated ground surface disturbance or potential for surface recovery served as the main indicator of cumulative impacts.
Road maintenance activities would occur on an as needed basis and generally would not cause additional surface disturbance beyond what already exists on the ground. Further, such activities are considered to be so minor as to be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis (BLM 2008b). Total road maintenance related ground disturbances under all alternatives would be similar and is estimated to remain at about 293 acres (Table 3.14.1).
Table 3.14.1 . Cumulative Acres of Ground Disturbance by Alternative Alternative 1- No Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Action Roads and Trails 293 293 293 Pipelines 4 4.3 4 Juniper Treatment 4,875 22,875 4,875 Seedings 5,363 5,363 5,363 Weed Treatment 48 148 48 Concentrated Livestock Use* 1,983 2,171 0
Cumulative Total 12,518 30,854 10,583 *Includes areas around constructed water developments, near natural water sources, and trailing along fences; see also Table 3.2.2.
Table 3.14.1 lists the total acres of ground disturbance associated with each alternative. Alternative 1 represents the amount of ground disturbance associated with past and present management activities.
Alternative 2 would increase ground disturbance by about 18,336 acres compared to Alternative 1. Although Alternative 2 would increase total disturbance (associated primarily with additional juniper treatments) this disturbance would be dispersed, short-term and provide long-term
Page 72 benefits to soils, native sagebrush steppe plant communities, sagebrush wildlife habitats, and ecological diversity. The three new water sources and fences would also provide for more dispersed livestock grazing use across the majority of the allotments. Alternative 3 would incrementally reduce concentrated livestock related disturbance on about 1,983 acres compared to Alternative 1.
CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
The EA was made available for a 30-day comment period. Interested public, groups, agencies, and tribal interests were notified of this review opportunity. A mailing list is contained in the file.
List of Preparers
Range Management Specialist Lori Crumley Assistant Field Manager (Range) Theresa Romasko Natural Resource Specialist (Weeds) Grace Haskins Botanist Ian Grinter Wildlife Biologist John Owens Cultural Resource Specialist Bill Cannon Outdoor Recreation Planner Chris Bishop Fisheries Biologist Jimmy Leal Planning and Environmental Coordinator Paul Whitman
Review Opportunity
The EA and FONSI were made available for review on BLM’s website. A legal notice was also published in the Lake County Examiner announcing the availability of the documents for review and the comment period end date. Agencies, Native American Tribes, permittees, and members of the public with a known interest in grazing management activities within the allotments were notified by mail of the availability of the EA for review. This mailing list is contained in the allotment file.
CHAPTER 5 - REFERENCES
Beck, J.L., and Mitchell, D.L. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 28, p. 993–1002.
BCME. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Victoria, B.C.
Belnap, J., J. Kaltennecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. USDI, BLM and USGS Technical Reference TR-1730-2.
Page 73 BLM. 1979a. Wilderness proposed initial inventory. Roadless areas and islands which clearly do not have wilderness characteristics, Oregon and Washington. April 1979. USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM. 1979b. Wilderness review. Initial inventory. Final decision on public lands obviously lacking wilderness characteristics and announcement of public lands to be intensively inventoried for wilderness characteristics. August 1979. USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM. 1979c. Wilderness review. Intensive inventory. Proposed decision on the intensive wilderness inventory of selected area, Oregon. October 1979. USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM. 1980a. Wilderness Review Intensive Inventory—Final Decision on 30 Selected Units in Southeastern Oregon and Proposed Decisions on Other Intensively Inventoried Units in Oregon and Washington. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 1980b. Wilderness Inventory— Oregon and Washington Final Intensive Inventory Decisions. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. . USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM 1982. Lakeview Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. . USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM 1985. BLM manual Handbook Fencing. Rel. 1-1419 . USDI, BLM, Oregon and Washington State Office. Portland, OR.
BLM. 1989. Oregon Wilderness Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. Four Volumes.
BLM. 1991. Wilderness Study Report. OR-EA-91-45-8561.6. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR. 3 volumes.
BLM. 1996a. Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. Technical Reference 1734-3 USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 1996b. Sampling Vegetation Attributes. Technical References 1734-4. USDO, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 1997a. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2000. Instruction Memorandum No. 2000-022, Change 1. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – Addressing Alternatives for Livestock Grazing Permit Renewals. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2001. Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 3 volumes.
BLM. 2003a. Lakeview Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 4 volumes.
Page 74 BLM. 2003b. Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 3 volumes.
BLM. 2004a. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Program. EA#OR-010-2004-03. USDI, BLM Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR.
BLM. 2004b. Rangeland Health Assessment for the Silver Lake Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 13 p.
BLM 2004c. Rangeland Health Assessment for the Saint Patricks and Egli Rim Allotments. USDI, BLM, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 9 p.
BLM. 2007a. H-6300-1-Wilderness Inventory Maintenance in BLM Oregon/Washington. April 2007. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2007c. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Record of Decision September 2007. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2008a. H-6300-1-Wilderness Inventory Maintenance in BLM Oregon/Washington. 4-18-08 Current Edition. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
BLM. 2008b. BLM. H-1790-1 - National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2008c. Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC. 48 p.
BLM. 2009. Wilderness Character Inventory. Black Hills Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 43 p. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010a. Wilderness Character Inventory. Bell Rim Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 7 p. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010b. Wilderness Character Inventory. Hager Mountain, Duncan Reservoir, and Egli Rim Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 20 p. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010c. Wilderness Character Inventory. Hayes Butte Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 21 p. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2010d. Wilderness Character Inventory. Oatman Flat Area. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview District, Lakeview, OR. 13 p. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
Page 75
BLM. 2012a. Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (Public). USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2012b. Manual 6330 – Management of Wilderness Study Areas (Public). USDI, BLM, Washington Office, Washington, DC.
BLM. 2012c. Rosebud Allotment #00421 Livestock Grazing Permit Renewal Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2012-0028-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 52 p.
BLM. 2012d. Peter Creek Allotment #00100 Livestock Grazing Permit Renewal Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2012-0014-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 135 p.
BLM. 2013a. Cahill Grazing Permit Renewal for Round Mountain (00211), Rahilly Gravelly (00212), Burro Springs (00213), Hill Camp (00215) and FRF Cahill (00219) Allotments. Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0030-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 160 p.
BLM. 2013b. Grazing Permit Renewal for Flagstaff Bench and Swamp Lake Pastures of the Warner Lakes Allotment. Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0019-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 71 p.
BLM. 2014a. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update. Egli Rim Allotment. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. 10 p. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014b. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update. Oatman Flat Allotment. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. 9 p. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014c. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update, Tuff Butte Allotment. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014d. Rangeland Health Standards Assessment Update, Murdock Allotment. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area, Lakeview, OR. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/inventas.php.
BLM. 2014e. Buck Creek – Bridge Creek Allotment Grazing Permit Renewal. Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0038-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 51 p.
BLM. 2014f. Dicks Creek Allotment Grazing Permit Renewal. Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM- L050-2013-0045-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 73 p.
BLM. 2014g. Grazing Permit Renewal for the Fremont, North Webster, and Wastina Allotments. Environmental Assessment. DOI-BLM-L050-2013-0043-EA. USDI, BLM, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR. 91 p.
Page 76 Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on Neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 296 - 309 in Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds, D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (Eds). Gen Tech. Rep. RM-229, Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 422 pp.
Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 78: p. 139–156.
Chapman, K., K. McGuiness, and R. M. Brigham. 1994. Status of the pallid bat in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report Number WR-61. British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Chung-MaCoubrey, A. L. 1996. Grassland bats and land management in the Southwest. Pp. 54-63 in D.M. Finch (ed.) Ecosystem disturbance and wildlife conservation in western grasslands. USFS, GTR- RM-285.
Clark, L., J. Hall, R. McLean, M. Dunbar, K. Klenk, R. Bowen, and C.A. Smeraski. 2006. Susceptibility of greater sage-grouse to experimental infection with West Nile virus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 42(1):14-22.
Coates, P. S. and Delehanty, D. J. 2010. Nest Predation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Relation to Microhabitat Factors and Predators. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74: 240–248.
Connelly, J.W., and Braun, C.E. 1997. A review of long-term changes in sage grouse populations in western North America: Wildlife Biology, v. 3, p. 229–234.
Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Cox, M., D. W. Lutz, T. Wasley, M. Fleming, B. B. Compton, T. Keegan, D. Stroud, S. Kilpatrick, Derner, J.D. and G.E. Schuman. 2007. Carbon sequestration and rangelands: a synthesis of land management and precipitation effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62(2): 77.
Crawford, J.A., Olson, R.A., West, N.E., Mosley, J.C., Schroeder, M.A., Whitson, T.D., Miller, R.F., Gregg, M.A., and Boyd, C.S. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat: Journal of Range Management, v. 57, p. 2–19.
DeBess, E. 2009. State of Oregon West Nile virus summary report 2008. Oregon Department of Human Services. Portland, OR.
Delong, A.K., Crawford, J.A., and Delong, D.C., Jr. 1995. Relationships between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 59, p. 88–92.
DeRamus, H.A., T.C. Clement, D.D. Giampola, and P.C. Dickison. 2003. Methane emissions of beef cattle of forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 32:269-277.
Drut, M.S. W.H. Pyle, and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Technical note: diets and food selection of sage grouse chicks in Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 47:90-93.
Page 77
Doherty, K., J. Tack, J. Evans, and D. Naugle. 2010. Mapping Breeding Densities of Greater Sage- Grouse: A Tool for Range-wide Conservation Planning. Prep. For Bureau of Land Management, Interagency Agreement #L10PG00911.
Earnst, S.L., Ballard, J.A., and Dobkin, D.S., 2005. Riparian songbird abundance a decade after cattle removal on Hart Mountain and Sheldon National Wildlife Refuges In Ralph, C.J., Rich, T., eds., Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference: General Technical Report PSW- GTR-191, Albany, CA, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, p. 550-558.
Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal. 2001. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil carbon. Chapter 16 in R.F. Follett, J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal, eds. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press LLC. Boca Raton, Florida.
Forster, P. et al. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Freese, M. T. 2009. Masters Thesis. Linking Greater-Sage Grouse Habitat Use and Suitability across Spatiotemporal Scales in Central Oregon.
Gray, K., J. Carlson, L. Carpenter, K. Urquhart, B. Johnson, and C. McLaughlin. 2009. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Intermountain West Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Gregg, M.A., Crawford, J.A., Drut, M.S., and DeLong, A.K. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 58, p. 162–166.
Gregg, M.A., Dunbar, M.R., and Crawford, J.A. 2007. Use of implanted radiotransmitters to estimate survival of Greater Sage-Grouse chicks: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71, p. 646–651.
Gregg, M.A. and J.A. Crawford. 2009. Survival of greater sage-grouse chicks and broods in the Northern Great Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(6):904-913.
Hagen, C.A., Connelly, J.W., and Schroeder, M.A. 2007. A meta-analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nesting and brood-rearing habitats: Wildlife Biology, v. 13, p. 42–50.
Hagen, C.A., Willis, M.J., Glenn, E.M., and Anthony, R.G. 2011. Habitat selection by Greater Sage- Grouse during winter in southeastern Oregon: Western North American Naturalist, v. 71, p. 529–538.
Hagen, C.A. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Hart, R.H., J. Bissio, M.J. Samuel, and J.W. Waggoner, Jr. 1993. Grazing systems, pasture size, and cattle grazing behavior and gains. J. Range Manage. 46:81–87.
Hausleitner, D., Reese, K.P., and Apa, A.D. 2005. Timing of vegetation sampling at Greater Sage-Grouse nests: Rangeland Ecology & Management, v. 58, p. 553–556.
Page 78 Holechek, Baker, Boren, and Dee Galt. 2006. Grazing Impacts on Rangeland Vegetation: What we Learned.
Holloran, M.J., Heath, B.J., Lyon, A.G., Slater, S.J., Kuipers, J.L., and Anderson, S.H. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 69, p. 638–649.
Johnson, K.A. and D.E. Johnson. 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73(8):2483-2492.
Knick and Connelly. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of the Landscape Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology Series (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Lacki, M. J., and Baker, M. D. 2007. Day roosts of female fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) in xeric forest of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy. 88(4):967-973.
Laycock, W.A. 1983. Evaluation of management as a factor in the success of grazing systems. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157.
Louisa B. E, R. F. Miller, P. S. Doescher, M. Hemstrom, and R. P. Neilson. 2013. Simulating Current Successional Trajectories in Sagebrush Ecosystems with Multiple Disturbances Using a State-and- Transition Modeling Framework. Rangeland Ecology and Management 66:313-329.
Miller, R., J. Bates, L. Eddleman, F. Pierson, and T. Svejcar. 2005. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Western Juniper. Technical. Bulletin 152, Oregon State University. Agricultural. Experiment. Station. 77 p.
Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, T.E. Cornish, B.J. Moynahan, M.J. Holloran, K. Brown, G.D. Johnson, E.T. Schmidtmann, R.T. Mayer, C.Y. Kato, M.R. Matchett, T.J. Christiansen, W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R.D. Falise, E.T. Rinkes, and M.S. Boyce. 2004. West Nile virus: pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704-713.
Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage Grouse Response to Grazing Management in Nevada. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Nevada, Reno. Reno, Nevada.
NOAA. 2010. A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming. A Final Word. Accessed 2/26/2010. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html.
NRCS. 2012. Sage-Grouse Initiative Oregon Implementation Strategy 2013-2017. USDA, NRCS, October 2012 – Draft.
NRCS. 2013. Official Soil Series Descriptions . USDA. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [Accessed November 2013].
ODFW. 2003a. Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat Management Plan. Salem, OR.
ODFW. 2003b. Oregon’s Mule Deer Management Plan. February 2003. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.
ODFW. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation strategy assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
Page 79
ODFW. 2011. Greater sage-grouse conservation strategy assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
ODFW. 2012a. 2012 Aerial Pronghorn Population Trends (January – March 2012). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
ODFW. 2012b. 2012 Mule Deer Spring Fawn Survival Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
ONDA. 2005. Wilderness Inventory Recommendations: Lakeview BLM District. Bend, OR. 214 p.
Oregon-Washington Weekly Hay Report. 2013. Accessed April, 2013. http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ml_gr310.txt.
Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats, in Knick, S.T., and Connelly, J.W., eds., Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitats: Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, Cooper Ornithological Union, p. 531–548.
Ponzetti, J. M., B. McCune. 2001. Biotic soil crusts of Oregon’s Shrub Steppe: community composition in Relation to Soil Chemistry, Climate and Livestock Activity The Bryologist 104: 212-2225.
Root, H.T., Miller J.E.D., McCune B. 2011. Biotic soil crust lichen diversity and conservation in shrub- steppe habitats of Oregon and Washington. The Bryologist 114(4): 796-812.
Schroeder, M.A., and Baydack, R.K. 2001. Predation and the management of prairie grouse: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 29, p. 24–32.
Schmidt 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Townsend’s Big Eared Bat in the Black Hills National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, WY.
Schuman, G.E., L.J. Ingram, P.D. Stahl, J.D. Derner, G.F. Vance, and J.A. Morgan. 2009. Influence of management on soil organic carbon dynamics in northern mixed-grass rangeland. Chapter 11 in Soil Carbon Sequestration and the Greenhouse Effect. 2nd Edition. SSSA Special Publication 57. Madison, Wisconsin.
Stevens, B.S. 2011. Impacts of fences on Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho: Collision, Mitigation, and Spatial Ecology (Masters Thesis). University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Stiver, S., E. Rinkes, and D. Naugle. 2010. Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework. Multi-scale habitat assessment tool. Unpublished Report. USDI, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, ID. 135 p.
Stohlgren, T. J., L. D. Schell, B. Vanden Heuvel. 1999. How grazing and soil quality affect native and exotic plant diversity in Rocky Mountain grasslands. Ecological Applications 9:45-64.
Stockmans Journal. 2013. Central Oregon Livestock Auction, Madras, OR. Vol. 14 Issue 8 June, 8, 2013.
Sveum, C.M., Crawford, J.A., and Edge, W.D. 1998a. Use and selection of brood-rearing habitat by sage grouse in south-central Washington: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 58, p. 344–351.
Page 80 Sveum, C.M., Edge, W.D., and Crawford, J.A. 1998b. Nesting habitat selection by sage grouse in south- central Washington: Journal of Range Management, v. 51, p. 265–269.
Taylor, B. et. al. 2005. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Eastern Oregon. Oregon Habitat Joint Venture. 43pp.
USGS. 2008. The Challenges of Linking Carbon Emissions, Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, Global Warming, and Consequential Impacts. Memorandum to Director, USFWS.
USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 p.
USFWS. 2010. 50 CFR Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 75:13909-14014.
Page 81 APPENDIX A
Table A1. Collective Summary of Soils on the Allotments Percent of Soil Map Unit Soil Series Acres allotments ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES Abert 399 1 ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES Abert 353 0 ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES Abert 5 0 ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES Abert 4 0 ANAWALT GR-CL, 1-12% SLOPES Anawalt 1003 1 ANAWALT-FREZNIK CMPLX, 1-5% Anawalt 150 0 SLOPES BONNICK GR-A-LS, 1-5% SLOPES Bonnick 1768 2 BONNICK-KUNCEIDER CX, 1-10% Bonnick 1625 2 SLOPES BONNICK-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-8% Bonnick 578 1 SLOPES BONNICK GR-A-SL, 0-4% SLOPES Bonnick 289 0 Borobey 550 1 Borobey 503 1 Borobey 159 0 Borobey 97 0 BUNYARD A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES Bunyard 213 0 CHANCELAKES-SWALESILVER (TAXA) Chancelakes 25 0 CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES CONNLEYHILLS A-COSL, 2-15% SLOPES Connleyhills 3132 4 CONNLEYHILLS A-COSL, 2-15% SLOPES Connleyhills 852 1 CRACKEDGROUND CB-A-LS, 1-6% Crackedground 1705 2 SLOPES DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES Dunres 2722 4 DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20% Dunres 2145 3 SLOPES DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES Dunres 424 1 DUNRES-NINEMILE CMPLX, 2-20% Dunres 382 1 SLOPES DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES Dunres 203 0 DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES Dunres 153 0 DUNRES-MURLOSE-NUSS TAXA Dunres 145 0 CMPLX, 1-20% SLOPES DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES Dunres 84 0 DUNRES CB-A-SL, THICK SURF, 1-8% Dunres 25 0 SLOPES DUNRES-MOONBEAM-NUSS CMPLX, 1- Dunres 18 0 20% SLOPES
Page 82 DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20% Dunres 16 0 SLOPES DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20% Dunres 5 0 SLOPES ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S Erakatak 461 1 SLOPES ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S Erakatak 243 0 SLOPES ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S Erakatak 76 0 SLOPES FLAGSTAFF CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES Flagstaff 35 0 FORT ROCK-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-8% Fort Rock 881 1 SLOPES FORT ROCK A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES Fort Rock 28 0 FORT ROCK-MOREHOUSE CMPLX, 0-2% Fort Rock 13 0 SLOPES FORT ROCK-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-8% Fort Rock 6 0 SLOPES FORT ROCK-LAPHAM CMPLX, 0-2% Fort Rock 2 0 SLOPES GLENCABIN GR-A-L's, DRY, 15-35% Glencabin 6341 9 SLOPES GLENCABIN GR-A-L's, DRY, 15-35% Glencabin 101 0 SLOPES GLENCABIN GR-A-L, 30-65% N SLOPES Glencabin 97 0 GOODTACK A-FSL, LOW PPT, 1-5 % Goodtack 1077 1 SLOPES GREENMOUNTAIN-JACKSPLACE Greenmountain 1220 2 CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES GREENMOUNTAIN-JACKSPLACE Greenmountain 353 0 CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES HENKLE-WANOGA CMPLX, 1-15% Henkle 1462 2 SLOPES HENKLE-WANOGA CMPLX, 1-15% Henkle 95 0 SLOPES KUNCEIDER-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-5% Kunceider 1061 1 SLOPES KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES Kunceider 346 0 KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES Kunceider 260 0 KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES Kunceider 213 0 KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES Kunceider 115 0 KUNCEIDER-RO CMPLX, 0-15% SLOPES Kunceider 48 0 KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES Kunceider 33 0 KUNCEIDER-RO CMPLX, 0-15% SLOPES Kunceider 2 0 LAPHAM GR-A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES Lapham 1646 2 LEGLER, TAXA-CHANCELAKES, TAXA Legler, taxa 110 0 ASSOC, 0-2% SLOPES LOCANE-ANAWALT CMPLX, 2-15% Locane 105 0 SLOPES LUDI GRV-A-SL, 15-35% SLOPES Ludi 374 1
Page 83 LUDI GR-A-SL, LOW PPT., 15-30% S Ludi 220 0 SLOPES MILLENIUM SIL, 0-2% SLOPES Millenium 321 0 MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES Moonbeam 2645 4 MOONBEAM-CONNLEYHILLS CMPLX, Moonbeam 929 1 1-8% SLOPES MOONBEAM-GOODTACK CMPLX, 1-8% Moonbeam 753 1 SLOPES MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES Moonbeam 279 0 MOONBEAM CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES Moonbeam 34 0 MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES Moonbeam 31 0 MOONBEAM CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES Moonbeam 11 0 MOREHOUSE A-S, 2-20% SLOPES Morehouse 869 1 MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES Morehouse 223 0 MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 0-2% SLOPES Morehouse 19 0 MURLOSE CB-A-L, 2-20% SLOPES Murlose 950 1 MURLOSE GR-A-COSL, 1-6% SLOPES Murlose 491 1 MURLOSE CB-A-L, 2-20% SLOPES Murlose 4 0 NINEMILE CBV-L, LOW PPT, 2-15% Ninemile 9272 13 SLOPES NINEMILE CBV-L, LOW PPT, 2-15% Ninemile 44 0 SLOPES NORCROSS GR-A-L, 1-15% SLOPES Norcross 482 1 NORCROSS CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES Norcross 150 0 PAULINA-CHINARISE CMPLX, 0-4% Paulina 340 0 SLOPES PERNTY,TAXA-CHESEBRO-RO CMPLX, Pernty (Tax) 301 0 15-30% SLOPES PERNTY,TAXA-CHESEBRO-RO CMPLX, Pernty (Tax) 261 0 15-30% SLOPES PITCHERANCH-CHINARISE CMPLX, 0- Pitcheranch 1 0 4% SLOPES PLAYAS Playas 51 0 POORJUG-RO CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES Poorjug 351 0 RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES Rock outcrop 48 0 RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES Rock outcrop 43 0 RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES Rock outcrop 31 0 RO-XERIC HAPLOCAMBIDS-RBL Rock outcrop 20 0 CMPLX, 50-90% SLOPES SENRA-GOODTACK-SUCKERFLAT Senra 364 1 COMPLX, 1-4% SLOPES SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES Suckerflat 4014 6 SUCKERFLAT CB-A-L, 2-10% SLOPES Suckerflat 1027 1 SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES Suckerflat 758 1 SUCKERFLAT CB-A-L, 2-10% SLOPES Suckerflat 385 1 SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% N Suckerflat 33 0 SLOPES SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% S Suckerflat 9 0 SLOPES
Page 84 SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES Suckerflat 1 0 SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% S Suckerflat 0 0 SLOPES SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 8-15% Suckerflat 0 0 SLOPES SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 426 1 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 34 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 31 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 30 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 26 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 21 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 10 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 8 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 6 0 SLOPES (taxa) SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% Swalesilver 3 0 SLOPES (taxa) THORNLAKE A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES Thornlake 343 0 THORNLAKE A-SIL's, 0-2% SLOPES Thornlake 76 0 THORNLAKE A-SIL's, 0-2% SLOPES Thornlake 1 0 TONOR A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES Tonor 59 0 TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES Tuffcabin 113 0 TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES Tuffcabin 12 0 TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES Tuffcabin 1 0 WANOGA-HENKLE CMPLX, DRY, 0-15% Wanoga 297 0 SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, 0-3% Wegert 3043 4 SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 0- Wegert 2220 3 15% SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 0- Wegert 1278 2 15% SLOPES WEGERT CBV-A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES Wegert 457 1 WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 0- Wegert 375 1 15% SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH Wegert 170 0 PPT, 0-15% SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, 0-3% Wegert 168 0 SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH Wegert 116 0 PPT, 0-15% SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH Wegert 8 0 PPT, 0-15% SLOPES
Page 85 WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH Wegert 4 0 PPT, 0-15% SLOPES WEGLIKE-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-3% Weglike 218 0 SLOPES WILDCATBUTTE-SUCKERFLAT-ROCK Wildcatbutte 513 1 OUTCROP COMPLX, 15-40% SLOPES WILDCATBUTTE-RO CMPLX, 15-30% S Wildcatbutte 70 0 SLOPES XEROLLS-RO CMPLX, 30-65% N SLOPES Xerolls 34 0 XEROLLS-RO CMPLX, 30-65% N SLOPES Xerolls 7 0
Table A2. Dominant Vegetation in the in Egli Rim Allotment (00420) Percent of Vegetation Type Acres Allotment Low sagebrush/grass ARAR8/POSE4 low sagebrush/ Sandberg’s bluegrass 105 4 ARAR/PSSP low sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass 10896 50 Total 11001
Silver sagebrush/Grass ARCA12/ELEL5 silversage/ squirrel tail 110 0 ARCA13/MURI silversage/ mat muhly 31 0 Total 141
Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass ARTRT/AGCR basin big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass 899 0 ARTRT/BRTE basin big sagebrush/ cheatgrass 2177 1 ARTRT/LECI4 basin big sagebrush/ great basin wildrye 33 0 ATRT/PSSPS basin big sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass 67 0 Total 3176
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass ARTRV/FEID mountain big sagebrush/ Idaho fescue 319 0
Wyoming Sagebrush/ Grass ARTRW8/AGCR Wyoming sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass 991 0 ATRTW8/POSE4 Wyoming sagebrush/ Sandberg’s bluegrass 620 0
Rabbitbrush/Grass CHNA2/BRTE gray rabbitbrush/ cheatgrass 1932 1 CHVI8/AGCR green rabbitbrush/ crested wheatgrass 10 0 Total 1942
Spikerush/poverty weed 25 0
Greasewood/Grass SAVE4/BRTE greasewood/cheatgrass 0
Page 86 Juniper/Sagebrush/Grass JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS juniper/mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch 463 0 wheatgrass Total
TOTAL VEGETATION Rockland/ Rubble Inclusions** ALLOTMENT TOTAL 20,461 * The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at http://www.plants.usda.gov). ** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped) vegetation communities.
Table A3. Dominant Vegetation in the in Tuff Butte Allotment (00707) Percent of Vegetation Type Acres Allotment Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass ARTRT/AGCR basin big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass 90 1 ARTRT/BRTE basin big sagebrush/ cheatgrass 573 5 Total 663 6
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass ARTRV/BRTE mountain big sagebrush/ cheatgrass 167 1 ARTRV/PSSPS mountain big sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass 693 6 Total 860 7
Rabbitbrush/Grass CHNA2/AGCR gray rabbitbrush/ crested wheatgrass 2101 19 CHNA2/BRTE gray rabbitbrush/ cheatgrass 1774 16 CHNA2/ LETR5 gray rabbitbrush/ beardless wildrye 15 0 CHNA2/STCO4 gray rabbitbrush/ needle and threadgrass 127 1 Total 4017 36
Greasewood/Grass SAVE4/BRTE greasewood/cheatgrass 99 1 SAVE4/DISPS2 greasewood/saltgrass 245 1 Total 344 2
Juniper/Sagebrush/Grass JUOC/ARTRT/BRTE juniper/basin big sagebrush/cheatgrass 1220 11 JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS juniper/mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch 64 19 wheatgrass JUOC/ARTRV/STCO4 juniper/mountain big sagebrush/needle and thread 169 2 grass JUOC/CHNA2/BRTE juniper/grey rabbitbrush/cheatgrass 123 1 Total 1576 33
TOTAL VEGETATION 9,444 85
Rockland/ Rubble 0 0 Inclusions** 1,709 15 ALLOTMENT TOTAL 11,153
Page 87 * The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at http://www.plants.usda.gov). ** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped) vegetation communities.
Table A4. Dominant Vegetation in the in Oatman Flat Allotment (00705) Percent of Vegetation Type Acres Allotment Silver sagebrush/ Grass 508 3
Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass 2825 8
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass 3833 12
Gray Rabbitbrush/Grass 2743 8
Green Rabbitbrush/Grass 437 1
Bitterbrush/Grass 2211 7
Juniper/Grass 2509 8 Juniper/low sagebrush/grass 727 2 Juniper/Mountain Big Sagebrush 12732 39 Juniper/Gray Rabbitbrush 248 1
Ponderosa Pine/ Mountain big sagebrush/ Idaho Fescue 986 3 Ponderosa Pine/ Green Rabbitbrush 466 1.4
Rockland/ Rubble Inclusions** 2116 6 ALLOTMENT TOTAL 33161 * The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at http://www.plants.usda.gov). ** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped) vegetation communities.
Page 88 Table A5. Dominant Vegetation in the in Murdock Allotment (00710) Percent of Vegetation Type Acres Allotment Low Sagebrush/Grass ARAR8/POSE4 Low sagebrush/Sangbergs bluegrass 693 13
Basin Big Sagebrush/Grass ARTRT/BRTE basin big sagebrush/ cheatgrass 8 0
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grass ARTRV/BRTE mountain big sagebrush/ cheatgrass 424 8 ARTRV/AGCR mountain big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass 1786 44 ARTRV/ELEL5 mountain big sagebrush/ squirreltail 58 1 ARTRV/POSE4 mountain big sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass 47 1 ARTRV/ STTH2 mountain big sagebrush/ needle and threadgrass 334 7 Total 2225
Rabbitbrush/Grass CHNA2/BRTE gray rabbitbrush/ cheatgrass 9 47
Juniper/Sagebrush/Grass JUOC/ARAR8/AGCR juniper/ low sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass 150 3 JUOC/ARAR8/POSE4 juniper/ low sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass 364 7 JUOC/ARAR8/PSSPS Juniper/ low sagebrush/ bluebunch wheatgrass 31 1 JUOC/ARTRV/AGCR Juniper/ mountain big sagebrush/ crested wheatgrass 119 2 JUOC/ARTRV/FEID Juniper/ mountain big sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass 491 10 JUOC/ARTRV/POSE4 juniper/mountain big sagebrush/ sandburg bluegrass 178 3 JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS juniper/mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch 34 wheatgrass 1 JUOC/PUTR2\PSSPS Juniper/bitterbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 163 3 Total 1530
TOTAL VEGETATION 4892 Inclusions** 227 ALLOTMENT TOTAL 5119 * The plant codes represent genus-species abbreviations adopted by USDA-NRCS; see also Plants Database available at http://www.plants.usda.gov). ** Every Site Writeup Area (SWA) has a 10-15% portion of that area that is considered inclusions of different (often unknown or unmapped) vegetation communities.
Page 89 Deschutes County Map 1 - General Vicinity Lake County
Fort Rock
Christmas Valley
Silver Lake
Summer Lake Alkali Lake
Legend
Lakeview Resource Area County Boundary Cities Major Roads Paisley Allotments
04.5 9 18 Miles
Valley Falls
Lake County Lake Plush
Klamath County Klamath
Lake County Lake Harney County Harney Lakeview Adel
Westside
New Pine Creek Map 2 - Proposed Range Improvements
5-14F
UNALLOTED WEE
MOSTLYProposed Well Location and Trough1 14 15 PRIVATE
5-14F Proposed Pipeline
28S 16E EGLI RIM
Proposed Trough 3 Proposed Trough 2
MIDDLE NATIVE
22 WEST 23 SEEDING
Legend
Allotment 27Sownership 27S private 32 33 34 36 ownership 31 14E 15E BLM Ü Ï proposed_fences proposed_water_developments proposed_pipelines TUFF
BUTTE Ï
Ï Proposed Fences
Proposed4 Fences 3
6 Ï 1 Ï
28S 28S 5 Ï
14E 15E Ï
9 10 8 12 Miles7 00.04 0.08 0.16 Map 3 - Proposed Juniper Treatment Areas µ
Moderate Density 2,158 ac
Connley Hills Research Natural Area
High Density 11,580 ac
OATMAN OATMAN FLAT FLAT
TUFF BUTTE High Density 4,720 ac
TUFF
BUTTE
P 31 O Legend State Highway 31 Allotment Soil Series
ABERT A- LS, 0-2% SLOPES ANAWALT GR-CL, 1-12% SLOPES ANAWALT-FREZNIK CMPLX, 1-5% SLOPES BONNICK GR-A-LS, 1-5% SLOPES BONNICK GR-A-SL, 0-4% SLOPES BONNICK-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-8% SLOPES BONNICK-KUNCEIDER CX, 1-10% SLOPES BUNYARD A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES CHANCELAKES-SWALESILVER (TAXA) CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES CONNLEYHILLS A-COSL, 2-15% SLOPES CRACKEDGROUND CB-A-LS, 1-6% SLOPES DUNRES CB-A-SL, 1-15% SLOPES DUNRES CB-A-SL, THICK SURF, 1-8% SLOPES DUNRES-HENKLE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES DUNRES-MOONBEAM-NUSS CMPLX, 1-20% SLOPES DUNRES-MURLOSE-NUSS TAXA CMPLX, 1-20% SLOPES DUNRES-NINEMILE CMPLX, 2-20% SLOPES ERAKATAK-RO CMPLX, 20-60% S SLOPES FLAGSTAFF CMPLX, 0-1% SLOPES FORT ROCK A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES FORT ROCK-LAPHAM CMPLX, 0-2% SLOPES FORT ROCK-MOREHOUSE CMPLX, 0-2% SLOPES FORT ROCK-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-8% SLOPES GLENCABIN GR-A-L's, DRY, 15-35% SLOPES GLENCABIN GR-A-L, 30-65% N SLOPES GOODTACK A-FSL, LOW PPT, 1-5 % SLOPES GREENMOUNTAIN-JACKSPLACE CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES HENKLE-WANOGA CMPLX, 1-15% SLOPES KUNCEIDER CB-A-LS, 0-15% SLOPES KUNCEIDER-FORT ROCK CMPLX, 1-5% SLOPES KUNCEIDER-RO CMPLX, 0-15% SLOPES LAPHAM GR-A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES LEGLER, TAXA-CHANCELAKES, TAXA ASSOC, 0-2% SLOPES LOCANE-ANAWALT CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES LUDI GR-A-SL, LOW PPT., 15-30% S SLOPES LUDI GRV-A-SL, 15-35% SLOPES MILLENIUM SIL, 0-2% SLOPES MOONBEAM CBV-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES MOONBEAM CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES MOONBEAM-CONNLEYHILLS CMPLX, 1-8% SLOPES MOONBEAM-GOODTACK CMPLX, 1-8% SLOPES MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 0-2% SLOPES MOREHOUSE A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES MOREHOUSE A-S, 2-20% SLOPES MURLOSE CB-A-L, 2-20% SLOPES MURLOSE GR-A-COSL, 1-6% SLOPES NINEMILE CBV-L, LOW PPT, 2-15% SLOPES NORCROSS CBX-A-L, 1-8% SLOPES NORCROSS GR-A-L, 1-15% SLOPES PAULINA-CHINARISE CMPLX, 0-4% SLOPES PERNTY,TAXA-CHESEBRO-RO CMPLX, 15-30% SLOPES PITCHERANCH-CHINARISE CMPLX, 0-4% SLOPES PLAYAS POORJUG-RO CMPLX, 2-15% SLOPES RO-RBL CMPLX, 20-60% SLOPES RO-XERIC HAPLOCAMBIDS-RBL CMPLX, 50-90% SLOPES SENRA-GOODTACK-SUCKERFLAT COMPLX, 1-4% SLOPES SUCKERFLAT A-LS, 0-8% SLOPES SUCKERFLAT CB-A-L, 2-10% SLOPES SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% N SLOPES SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 15-40% S SLOPES SUCKERFLAT-RO CMPLX, 8-15% SLOPES SWALESILVER (TAXA),A-FSL, 0-1% SLOPES THORNLAKE A-SIL's, 0-2% SLOPES THORNLAKE A-SL, 0-2% SLOPES TONOR A-SIL, 0-1% SLOPES TUFFCABIN A-SL, 1-10% SLOPES WANOGA-HENKLE CMPLX, DRY, 0-15% SLOPES WEGERT CBV-A-LFS, 1-15% SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, COOL, 0-15% SLOPES WEGERT-KUNCEIDER CMPLX, HIGH PPT, 0-15% SLOPES WEGLIKE-SUCKERFLAT CMPLX, 0-3% SLOPES WILDCATBUTTE-RO CMPLX, 15-30% S SLOPES WILDCATBUTTE-SUCKERFLAT-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLX, 15-40% SLOPES XEROLLS-RO CMPLX, 30-65% N SLOPES
Map 4 - Soil Complexes in the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, Murdock Allotments Miles 00.5 1 2 3 4 Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Legend Ï
Ï
Ï ÏÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Development Type
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Dam - Barrier across a watercourse
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Guzzler
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Reservoir - Includes ponds
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Spring Development
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Trough
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Water Tank
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Waterhole - Includes dugouts
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Fences Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï FENCE-Fence line
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï RIDGE Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï RIM Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï BLM
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï USFS
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Private/Unknown
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï
Ï Ï
ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Main Roads Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ ÏÏ
Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï ÏÏ
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
ÏÏ Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï
ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï ÏÏ
ÏÏ Ï
Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ
Ï
Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï
Ï Ï Ï
Map 5 - Existing Range Improvements Miles for the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, And Murdock Allotment 00.5 1 2 3 4 Legend Dominant Vegetation /ARTRV/POSE4/ /SAVE4/BRTE/DESCU /// /ARTRV/PSSPS/ /SAVE4/DISPS2/ //ELEOC/IVAX /ARTRV/STCO4/ JUOC//BRTE/ //JUNCU/SENEC /ARTRV/STOC2/ JUOC//FEID/ /ARAR8/POSE4/ /ARTRV/STOC2/EPILO JUOC//PSSPS/ /ARAR8/POSE4/PHDI3 /ARTRV/STTH2/ JUOC/ARAR8/AGCR/ /ARAR8/PSSPS/ /ARTRW8/AGCR/ JUOC/ARAR8/POSE4/ /ARAR8/PSSPS/ASTRA /ARTRW8/POSE4/ JUOC/ARAR8/PSSPS/ /ARAR8/PSSPS/PHHO /CHNA2/AGCR/ JUOC/ARAR8/STTH2/ /ARCA13/ELEL5/ /CHNA2/BRIN2/ JUOC/ARTRT/BRTE/ /ARCA13/ELEL5/LUPIN /CHNA2/BRTE/ JUOC/ARTRV/AGCR/ /ARCA13/MURI/ /CHNA2/BRTE/DESCU JUOC/ARTRV/ELEL5/ /ARTRT/AGCR/ /CHNA2/LETR5/ JUOC/ARTRV/FEID/ /ARTRT/BRTE/ /CHNA2/STCO4/ JUOC/ARTRV/POSE4/ /ARTRT/ELEL5/ /CHNA2/STOC2/ JUOC/ARTRV/PSSPS/ OATMAN FLAT /ARTRT/LECI4/ /CHVI8/AGCR/ JUOC/ARTRV/STCO4/ /ARTRT/PSSPS/ /CHVI8/ELEL5/ JUOC/ARTRV/STTH2/ /ARTRV/AGCR/ /CHVI8/STOC2/ JUOC/CHNA2/BRTE/ TUFF BUTTE /ARTRV/BRTE/ /PUTR2/FEID/ JUOC/PUTR2/PSSPS/ /ARTRV/ELEL5/ /PUTR2/STOC2/ PIPO/ARTRV/FEID/ /ARTRV/FEID/ /PUTR2/STTH2/ PIPO/CHVI8/STOC2/ /SAVE4/BRTE/ Highways
31
EGLI RIM
MURDOCK
Map 6 - Dominant Vegetation in the Egli Rim, Miles Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments 00.425 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.4 Map 7. Sage-Grouse Habitat from Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF), Preliminary Priority Habitat, and Preliminary General Habitat
OATMAN FLAT
TUFF BUTTE
Legend Allotment Oregon Greater Sage Grouse Leks Occupied Occupied Pending Unknown EGLI RIM Unoccupied Unoccupied Pending Sage-Grouse Habitat (BLM) Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) Sage-Grouse HAF MURDOCK Habitat Summary Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Marginal Breeding-Marginal_Summer-Suitable Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Marginal Breeding-Marginal_Winter-Suitable Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Marginal Breeding-Suitable_Summer-Suitable Breeding-Suitable_Winter-Suitable Summer-Marginal Summer-Marginal_Winter-Marginal Unsuitable-All Yearlong-Marginal Yearlong-Suitable
Miles 00.5 1 2 3 4