Draft Lakeview resource management plan and environmental impact statement

348 Pages·2001·86.4 MB·English

by  unknown

U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Lakeview Resource Area
Lakeview District Office
HC 10 Box 337
1300 South G Street
Lakeview, Oregon 97630 October 2001
Draft Lakeview
Resource Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 2 [of 3]
As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most
of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land
and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our
national parks and historic places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The
Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best
interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation
communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. Administration.
BLM/OR/WA/PL-01/036+1792
HT>
\Z,oL
243
.03 Appendices
Table of Contents
2CO/
vy.d
Appendix A — Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
A1: Subbasin Review Report. . A-l
A2: ICBEMP Scientific Assessment of the Lakeview Planning Area A-10
Appendix B — Planning Criteria, Legal Authorities, and Relationship/Consistency to Other Plans
Bl: Planning Criteria, Legal Authorities, and Relationship to Other Plans.A-15
B2: Consistency of the Resource Management Plan with Oregon Statewide Plans.A-22
Appendix C — Soils and Ecological Site Inventory
Cl: Soils.A-27
C2: Ecological Site Inventory Process.A-27
Appendix D — Best Management Practices.A-31
Appendix E — Livestock Grazing
El: Allotment Management Summaries.A-37
E2: Livestock Grazing Impacts to Vegetation Communities.A-162
E3: Range Projects.A-178
E4: Rangeland Standards and Guidelines.A-178
E5: Grazing Systems within the Planning Area.A-190
Appendix F — Watershed and Water Quality
FI: Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale.A-193
F2: Riparian/Wetland Areas.A-194
F3: Water Quality Restoration Plans.A-204
F4: Water Resources and Basic Hydrologic Principles.A-210
Appendix G — Noxious Weeds.A-215
Appendix H — Fish and Wildlife
HI: Objectives of the Recovery Plan for Endangered Fish.A-217
H2: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat of the Lakeview Resource Area.A-223
Appendix I — Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.A-237
Appendix J — Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers
J1: Wilderness Study Areas.A-253
J2: Wild and Scenic River Suitability Determinations.A-257
J3: Management Guidelines and Standards for National Wild and Scenic
Rivers, Oregon/Washington.A-270
J4: Wilderness Review.A-274
Appendix K — Interim Management Policy for Caves.A-279
Appendix L — Fire Rehabilitation
LI: Lakeview Resource Area Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan.A-281
i
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
L2: Normal Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Guidelines for Wilderness Study Areas.A-283
Appendix M — Recreation
M1: Off-Highway, Vehicle Use.A-287
M2: Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Definitions and Classifications by Alternative.A-287
M3: Visual Resource Management Class Objectives.A-290
Appendix N — Minerals
Nl: Historic Mineral Activity and Mineral Potential.A-292
N2: Mineral Development Scenarios.A-297
N3: Stipulations and Guidelines for Mineral Operations.A-308
Appendix Attachment: Locatable Minerals Surface Management.A-313
Appendix Attachment: Guidelines for Development of Salable
Mineral Resources in the Lakeview District.A-315
Appendix O — Lands
01: Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria and Legal Requirements.A-317
02: Public Lands Available for Disposal.:.A-319
Appendix P — Common and Scientific Names for Plants and Animals.A-330
Appendix Q — Forest Health Considerations within the Summer Lake, Lake Abert,
Warner Lake, and Guano Subbasins.A-333
List of Tables
Table A1 -1.—Concept of scaled analysis.A-2
Table A1-2.—Steps in the subbasin review and analysis of management situation.A-4
Table A2-1.—Ecological ratings for the four subbasins in the planning area.A-l 1
Table B2-1.—Consistency with Oregon statewide plans.A-23
Table Cl-1.—Prime farmlands within the planning area.A-28
Table E2-1.—Acres in each vegetation community under each grazing system by alternative.A-163
Table E3-1.—Potential projects by allotment.A-179
Table E5-1.—Grazing seasons in relation to months.A-191
Table F1 -1.—Hierarchy of hydrologic units, Lower Crooked Creek (171200060901).A-195
Table F2-1.—Riparian trend analysis worksheet by category.A-196
Table F2-2.—Watershed conditions and relationship to non_point source pollution.A-198
Table F2-3.—Standards for rangeland health and relationship to watershed
condition factors (Table 1) contributing to nonpoint source pollution.A-201
Table F2-4.—Management actions (Chapter 3) that are directly related to or emphasize
standards for rangeland health and watershed conditions that affect water quality.A-202
Table F3-L—1998 State of Oregon water quality impaired stream reaches on LRA-administered lands.A-205
Table I-L—ACEC’s proposed but found not to meet relevance and importance critera.A-251
Table L2-L—Emergency fire rehabilitation native seed mixtures.A-284
Table M2-1.—Recreation opportunity spectrum setting criteria.A-291
Table Nl-1.—Acreage for all locatable mineral potential.A-293
Table 02-1.—Public lands available for disposal.A-320
Table P-l.—Common and scientific names for plants and animals mentioned in this plan.A-330
ii
Appendices
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Reader note: Refer to the list below for abbreviations or acronyms that may be used in this document.
ACEC ~ area of critical environmental concern
APHIS ~ Agricultural Plant and Animal Health Inspection Service
AUM ~ animal unit month
BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM ~ Bureau of Land Management
BMP ~ best management practice
BOR ~ Bureau of Reclamation
BPA ~ Bonneville Power Administration
CAA ~ “Clean Air Act”
CFR ~ “Code of Federal Regulations”
CWA ~ “Clean Water Act”
DLCD ~ Department of Land Conservation and Development
DOD ~ Department of Defense
DOE ~ Department of Energy
DOGAMI ~ Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
DOI ~ Department of the Interior
EIS ~ environmental impact statement
EPA ~ Environmental Protection Agency
FAA ~ Federal Aviation Administration
FERC ~ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FLPMA ~ “Federal Land Policy and Management Act”
ICBEMP ~ Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
IMP (wilderness) ~ “Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness
Review” 1995
ISA ~ instant study area
LCDC ~ Land Conservation and Development Commission
LRA ~ Lakeview Resource Area
NCA ~ national conservation area
NEPA ~ “National Environmental Policy Act”
NRHP ~ National Register of Historic Places
NOAA ~ National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS ~ National Park Service
NRCS ~ Natural Resources Conservation Service
ODA ~ Oregon Department of Agriculture
ODEQ ~ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ODF ~ Oregon Department of Forestry
ODFW ~ Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
ODOT ~ Oregon Department of Transportation
ODSL ~ Oregon Division of State Lands
ODWR ~ Oregon Department of Water Resources
OHV ~ off-highway vehicle
ONHP ~ Oregon Natural Heritage Program
PRIA ~ “Public Rangelands Improvement Act”
RMP ~ resource management plan
RNA ~ research natural area
SHPO ~ State Historic Preservation Office
SMA ~ special management area
T&E ~ threatened and endangered
TNC ~ The Nature Conservancy
USD A ~ U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI ~ U.S. Department of the Interior
USFS ~ U.S. Forest Service
USFWS ~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS ~ U.S. Geological Survey
VRM ~ visual resource management
WSA ~ wilderness study area
WSR ~ wild and scenic river
in
•
.
>
,
Appendices
Appendix A — Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management
This appendix contains a summary of the scientific The subbasins are based on the U.S. Geological Survey
findings and assessments from the various reports and (USGS) 4th field hydrologic unit codes. On average
publications of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem these 4th field hydrologic unit codes comprise an area
Management Project (ICBEMP). Appendix A1 is the of 500,000 to 1,000,000 acres. The Lakeview Subbasin
summary report of the subbasin review that was Review Area included four subbasins identified in the
completed in the Lakeview District in 2000. The intent ICBEMP scientific assessment: Summer Lake, Lake
of that review, in part, was to review the ICBEMP Abert, Warner Valley, and Guano comprising and area
findings and to determine their relevance to the four of approximately 6.5 million acres. Land ownership
subbasins in the review area. The following subbasin and administrative responsibilities included private.
review area report is taken directly from the “Summary State of Oregon, USFS, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
of the Analysis of the Management Situation” com¬ Service (USFWS), and Department of Defense (DOD).
pleted in 2000, and references some resource manage¬ The majority of the land in the subbasin review area is
ment plan (RMP) steps as though they will be com¬ administered by BLM, Lakeview Field Office. Ap¬
pleted in the future. However, many of these steps proximately 3.2 million acres of the BLM-administered
have been completed or will be completed soon. A land is within the RMP planning area.
subbasin review area guide with its appendices is
available at http://www.icbemp.gov/implement/ The resource area staff identified a list of approxi¬
subbas.shtml mately 55 offices, agencies, Tribal groups, and indi¬
viduals who were thought to have an interest in re¬
source management in the subbasin review area. These
Al: Subbasin Review Report included representatives from other BLM offices,
USFS offices, USFWS, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon State Lands Department
Introduction
(ODSL), Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA),
county and city government, and several Tribal groups.
ICBEMP was established in 1994 “. . . to develop and
Private landowners were not asked to participate since
then adopt a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based
this was to be a collaborative interagency and intergov¬
strategy for managing all U.S. Forest Service (USFS)-
ernmental process.
or Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered
lands within the (interior Columbia) Basin.” (USDA-
In anticipation of preparing a comprehensive RMP, the
FS and USDI-BLM 1996). The ICBEMP covered an
Lakeview Field Office had collected a considerable
area of 145 million acres, 53 percent of which was
amount of data and information about the resources on
public land managed by the BLM or the USFS. The
BLM lands. Much of this information was in a geo¬
size of this area requires some means to bring findings
graphic information system format. Kinds of informa¬
and information down to a level where they could be
tion needed for the resources in the subbasin review
applied in a USFS or BLM management unit such as a
area and from other agencies were identified prior to
ranger district or resource area. A process was devel¬
the first meeting.
oped with which the pertinent information could be
“stepped down” to the local level. This is called the
A BLM team was assembled to be the core group
subbasin review process.
responsible for gathering data and putting it into a
written or geographic information system format. This
The ICBEMP area was divided for analysis and review
team was composed of planning and “National Envi¬
into four geographic scales: broad-scale (interior
ronmental Policy Act” (NEPA) specialists, wildlife
Columbia Basin), mid-scale (subbasins or groups of
biologist, fisheries biologist, hydrologist, botanist,
subbasins), fine-scale (watershed), and site scale
weeds specialists, fire ecologist, forester, and range
(project). The mid-scale or subbasin level is the level
management specialist. The subbasin review team
at which field offices would do long-range planning for
would deal primarily with health-of-the-land issues.
all resources within their respective administrative
boundaries. This scaled analysis is summarized in
Table Al-1.
A -1
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
Table Al-1.—Concept of scaled analysis
Scale Type of analysis Issues addressed
Broad-scale (region) Interior Columbia Basin Addresses issues that can only be seen or analyzed at a
Ecosystem Management broad-scale (example: decline of greater sage-grouse in
•
Project the shrub-steppe ecosystem). Does not address or make
decisions for issues that can only be addressed at a more
local level.
Mid-scale (BLM resource Resource management plan, Addresses issues more appropriately addressed at the
area, national forest, subbasin, forest plan, or subbasin mid-scale level, such as land use allocations within a
or group of subbasins) review BLM resource area or national forest. Provides a means
to “step down” broad-scale decisions and direction to the
local level.
Fine-scale (watershed, Watershed analysis, Addresses issues and decisions that are site-specific, such
allotment, or project area) allotment management plan, as individual projects or objectives for an allotment or
or project plan watershed.
Source: “Ecosystem Review at the Subbasin Scale (Subbasin Review)” (USFS and BLM 1999).
Lakeview Resource Area (LRA) prior to the beginning
Issues and Findings
of the subbasin review process. These would be
Broad-scale information from ICBEMP provides a addressed in the RMP/environmental impact statement
general characterization of the Lakeview Subbasin (EIS) pending any changes.
Review Area relative to the rest of the Interior Colum¬
bia River Basin. The broad-scale information indicates Issue 1. What areas, if arty, should be designated and
that about 20 percent of this subbasin review area is managed as special management areas (SMA s)
forest and 80 percent rangeland. including areas of critical environmental concern
(ACEC’s), wild and scenic rivers (WSR s), or other?
Forests in the subbasin review area are described as
being dominated by dry forests with approximately 60 • Which areas should be designated as special
percent of the area showing changes in fire frequency. management areas (SMA’s)?
Mid-seral structure has increased with a decline in • Which designations are most appropriate?
early- and late-seral stages. Most of the area is classi¬ • How should designated areas be managed?
fied as low forest integrity and low to moderate hydro- • How should the Lost Forest/Sand Dunes/Fossil
logic integrity. Lake existing ACEC be managed?
• Should boundaries or management of existing
Rangeland in the subbasin review area is also classified SMA’s be changed, and if so, how?
as low integrity. The rangeland is described as being
dominated by dry shrubland vegetation which is highly Issue 2. How can upland ecosystems be managed and
sensitive to overgrazing and susceptible to invasion by restored to achieve desired future conditions?
noxious weeds. Hydrologic integrity is low to moder¬
ate and the integrity of riparian environments is com¬ • What is the current condition of the various
monly low. Native fish species generally occur in ecosystems and plant communities in the resource
highly fragmented habitat. area, and how can their conditions be improved or
maintained?
The conditions described above significantly increase • How should the public lands in the resource area
the subbasins’ susceptibility to wildland fire, insects be managed to improve and maintain water quan¬
and disease, soil erosion, loss of native species, and tity and quality and to promote hydrologic recov¬
other problems that threaten ecological integrity, water ery?
quality, species recovery, timber and forage production, • How should the public lands be managed to
and other uses of public lands (USDA-FS and USDI- maintain the existence, and also promote recovery,
BLM 1996). The subbasin review team agreed that of threatened and endangered (T&E) species?
these findings were generally accurate in describing • What sensitive species occur in the resource area,
conditions in the Lakeview Subbasin Review Area. and how should the lands be managed to avoid
listing of these species as T&E?
The following potential issues were identified by the • Where are noxious weeds located in the resource
A - 2
Appendices
area, and how can their spread be controlled? These mid-scale issues generally reflect many of the
• What is the fire history in the resource area, and broad-scale findings of the ICBEMP scientific assess¬
what is the appropriate role of fire in the manage¬ ment.
ment of vegetation resources on the public lands?
At the first meeting the group was introduced to the
Issue 3. How can riparian areas and wetlands be subbasin review process and the objectives and expec¬
managed to protect and restore their natural functions? tations. The above issues were introduced and briefly
discussed.
• How should riparian vegetation communities be
managed to improve or maintain proper function¬ At the second meeting, the similarities between the
ing condition while providing for resource uses subbasin review process and the analysis of the man¬
such as livestock grazing, recreation, and mineral agement situation was discussed. These similarities are
exploration and development? shown in Table A1-2. In addition, the group examined
• How should riparian systems be managed to the list of broad-scale findings documented in the
improve or maintain habitat quality for fish, ICBEMP scientific assessment (USFS and BLM 1996)
wildlife, plants, and invertebrates? and EIS. The meeting participants determined that
• How should riparian and wetland areas be managed most of the findings applied to the Lakeview Subbasin
to incorporate State of Oregon water quality Review Area. Some of the findings were rewritten
standards and approved management plans address¬ slightly to fit the Lakeview Subbasin Review Area.
ing water quality concerns? Other findings were added that were applicable to the
• How should management actions in upland ecosys¬ local situation. Of the approximately 60 findings or
tems be developed or designed to be compatible conditions listed, only 7 were considered not to be
with the needs of riparian communities? applicable to the Lakeview Subbasin Review Area.
Either the resource(s) do not occur in the area, or
Issue 4. How should recreation be managed to meet conditions are known to be better than indicated by the
public demand while protecting natural values and findings.
health and safety of the public?
The findings dealt primarily with terrestrial and aquatic
• Which, if any, roads within the existing transporta¬ habitat, water quality, riparian health, landscape health,
tion system should be closed to protect resource and social and economic concerns including Tribal
values? rights.
• Is there a need for any additional roads to provide
access to areas currently inaccessible to BLM, At the third meeting the refined list of broad-scale
commercial interests, or the public? findings was presented and small changes were made
• Which areas should be designated open, limited, or (these follow shortly). Several findings dealt with what
closed to motorized vehicle use? were determined to be priority issues including noxious
• How should wilderness therapy groups be managed weed expansion, juniper expansion, water quality, T&E
to meet the needs of these groups while ensuring species management, aquatic habitat, and riparian and
safety of the public and adjacent property owners? wetland vegetation.
• Should other recreation sites be developed to
provide for public use? The following is a list of key broad-scale findings
derived from the ICBEMP scientific assessment
Issue 5. How should public lands be managed to meet applicable to the Lakeview Subbasin Review Area.
the needs of local communities and Native American This list was developed during the Lakeview subbasin
Tribes? review. The list has been modified slightly in that it
deals primarily those findings that are applicable to the
• What is an appropriate role for BLM in providing Lakeview resource management planning area. Fol¬
support to local communities? lowing each finding is a notation indicating under
• How should the public lands be managed to which of the five RMP/EIS issue(s) the finding is being
provide economic support to local communities? addressed.
• How should the public lands be managed to meet
the needs of Tribal self-sufficiency and traditions?
• How can conflicts between agency actions and
Tribal needs and expectations be minimized or
avoided?
Draft Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
Table Al-2.—Steps in the subbasin review and analysis of management situation
Subbasin review_Analysis of the management situation
1) Prepare for the review 1) Collect and consolidate data
l
2) Identify mid-scale issues 2) Conduct internal and public scoping
3) Describe mid-scale character (describe character of the 3) Resource area profile (describe the condition of the
review area in relation to the issues) resource area, including its physical, biological and human
environment).
4) Develop recommendations and integrated priority
setting (develop recommended actions and determine 4) Existing management situation (describe for each
urgency and timing of actions) resource its current uses, production, or protection
problems and the management practices and direction).
5) Subbasin review report (document the subbasin review
results and the process) and provide information for further 5) Identify management opportunities (identify and
planning evaluate all reasonable opportunities and/or actions to
address the planning issues and management concerns).
6) Prepare the analysis of the management situation
(develop a comprehensive document for use by BLM and a
summary document for public distribution; provide
information for RMP/EIS).
herbaceous understory and biodiversity. (Issue 2)
Revised List of Key Broad-Scale Findings Used
in Issue Identification for the Lakeview
• Cheatgrass has taken over many dry shrublands,
Subbasin Review Area
with the potential to increase soil erosion and fire
frequency and reduce biodiversity and wildlife
(From “Draft Subbasin Review Guide, ” Appendix A,
habitat. Cheatgrass and other exotic plant infesta¬
Using Key Broad-Scale Findings in Issue Identification
tions have simplified species composition, reduced
(USDA-FS and USD1-BLM1999.)
biodiversity, changed species interactions and
forage availability, and reduced the systems’ ability
The underlined text indicates a change or addition to
to buffer against changes. (Issue 2)
the original ICBEMP finding that makes the finding
more specific to the Lakeview RMP area. Findings that
• Expansion of agricultural and urban areas on non-
were detennined by the subbasin review group to be
Federal lands has reduced the extent of some
applicable to the neighboring national forests are
rangeland vegetation types compared to historic
presented at the end of the list. Those findings were
conditions. However, this trend does not continue
not addressed in the RMP/EIS. The ICBEMP findings
today, due to limitations placed on water use for
that the subbasin review group felt did not apply to the
agricultural irrigation. These changes may have
Lakeview Subbasin Review Area are listed at the end
contributed to loss of native species diversity and
of this section.
some wildlife species population declines, some to
the point of special concern (such as greater sage-
Terrestrial Habitat/Landscape Health
grouse and pygmv rabbit). (Issues 2 and 5)
Rangelands
• Increased fragmentation and loss of connectivity
within and between blocks of habitat, especially in
• Noxious weeds are spreading rapidly, and in some
shrub steppe and riparian areas, have isolated some
cases exponentially, on rangelands in every range
habitats and wildlife populations (greater sage-
cluster as well as in most dry forest types. (Issue
grouse. neotropical migrant birds, big game
2)
species, and other wide-ranging species). In turn,
this has reduced the ability of populations to move
• Woody species (such as sagebrush and juniper)
across the landscape, resulting in potential long¬
encroachment and increasing density, especially on
term loss of genetic interchange. (Issues 2 and 3)
dry grasslands and cool shrublands, have reduced
A - 4