DRAFT Rough and Ready

DRAFT
Management Plan & Environmental
Assessment
Rough and Ready
Area of Critical Environmental Concern
I 'I, ,
U.S., Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Medford District
Grants Pass Resource Area
March 1 998

Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment
for the Rough and Ready Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Proposed Action:
Type of Statement:
Lead Agency:
For Further
Information:
Abstract:
The proposed management of the Rough and Ready Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC).
Management Plan/Environmental Assessment
Bureau of Land Management
Linda Mazzu (Team Leader)
Bob Korfhage (Grants Pass Resource Area Manager)
Medford District Bureau of Land Management
3040 Biddle Road
Medford, Oregon 97504
(541)770-2200
This EA analyzes three alternatives for management of the Rough and
Ready ACEC. These alternatives were developed by a BLM
interdisciplinary team with input from public comments. The issues
evaluated were protection of designated ACEC values, recreation, mining,
and other land uses.
Alternative A is the No Action alternative which proposes continuing the
current limited management of this area. Alternative B proposes maximum
protection of designated ACEC values. Alternative C proposes a more
recreation-oriented approach, while conserving ACEC values.

List of Preparers (Interdisciplinary Team)
Name
Frank Betlejewski
Matt Craddock
Dale Johnson
Jeannie Klein
Linda Mazzu
Dave Maurer
Tom Murphy
Cliff Oakley
Joan Seevers
Title
Forester
Realty Specialist
Fisheries Biologist
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Botanist
Hydrologist
Fire Specialist
Wildlife Biologist
Medford District Botanist
Text Responsibility
Vegetation
Lands, Minerals, Cultural
Fisheries
Recreation
Special Status plants,
Inventories/Monitoring
Soils, Hydrology
Fire
Wildlife
Review/Introduction
** This document was completed under a Challenge Cost Share Agreement with the Nature
Conservancy."

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction ........................................................... 1
Background Information .1.............................................
Purpose and Need for Action .......................................... 1
Consistency with State and County Plans ........... ................................. 2
Statutory Authority .............................................................. 2
Setting . ................................................................ 2
Designated ACEC Values .......................................................... 2
Other Values/Uses ............................................................... 3
Management Objectives/Issues . ................................................... 3
Public Scoping Summary/Publication of Management Decisions ........................ 4
Chapter 2 - Affected Environment . ........................... 5
Ecoregion .5
Watersheds .5
Climate . ................................................................ 6
Geology. 6
Hydrologic System. ....................................................... 6
Vegetation ............................................................ 6
Ownership and Land Use Pattern. 7
Regional Human Context .7
Affected Environment in the ACEC. 7
Geology. 7
Soils. 7
Vegetation. ............................................................. 10
Special Status Plants .12
Survey and Manage Species & Non-Native Plants .15
Wildlife .16
Mammals ...................................................... 16
Birds............................................................ 16
Reptiles and Amphibians .16
Special Status Species .16
Other Wildlife Values .18
Fisheries. ............................................................... 18
Special Status Species .18
Hydrologic System .18
Other Natural Systems or Processes .19
Fire Regime .19
Successional Processes .19
Evolutionary Processes .19
Historic Human Uses .................................................. 19
Current Human Uses/Locateable Minerals/Reserved Mineral Estate/Salable . 20
Water Diversions .Divn 20
Open Space .21
Recreation .21
Rights of Way .22
Recreation & Public Purpose Patent .22
Airport .22

Timber Resources ................................................. 22
Special Forest Products ................. ........................... 22
Chapter 3 - Description of Alternatives ................................................... 23
General Description of Alternatives . .............................................. 23
Actions Common to All Alternatives . .............................................. 23
Locateable Mineral Activities . .............................................. 23
Management for Special Status and Survey and Manage Species (Plants & Animals 23
Fire Management........................................................ 24
Dumping ................................................ 24
Special Forest Products ................................................ 24
Timber Harvest .................... ............................ 24
Noxious Weeds .................. .............................. 24
State Park Botanical Wayside ............................................. 24
Land Use Authorizations ................................................ 24
Land Use Adjustments/Open Space .......................................... 24
Comparison of Alternatives . ................................................ 24
Alternative A - No Action . ................................................ 24
Objective . ................................................ 24
Management Actions Proposed for Alternative A (No Action) ...... ............ 27
Action A-1: Locateable Minerals Management ....... ................. 27
Action A-2: Mineral Dredging ............... ....................... 27
Action A-3: Recreational Mining ............. ....................... 28
Action A-4: Salable Mineral Management ........ .................... 28
Action A-5: Motorized Vehicles .............. ....................... 28
Action A-6: Camping .............................................. 28
Action A-7: Education/Interpretation .......... ...................... 28
Action A-8: Group Use ............................................. 28
Action A-9: Non-Motorized Access ........... ....................... 28
Action A-10: Discharge of Firearms ........... ....................... 28
Action A-11: Parking .............................................. 28
Action A-12: Inventories ............................................ 28
Action A-13: Monitoring ............................................ 28
Action A-14: Fire Management Plan ........... ...................... 28
Action A-15: Special Use Apiary permit ......... ..................... 28
Action A-16: Illinois Valley Airport ........... ....................... 28
Action A-17: Water Resources Management ........ .................. 28
Action A-18: Ecological Restoration ........... ...................... 28
Action A-19: Open Space ........................................... 28
Action A-20: Rights of Way . ....................................... 29
Action A-21: Collecting ............................................ 29
Action A-22: Hazard Tree Removal ........... ....................... 29
Alternative B - Resource Conservation ............................................. 29
Management Actions Proposed for Alternative B ......... .................... 29
Action B-i: Locateable Minerals Management ....... ................. 29
Action B-2: Mineral Dredging ................ ...................... 29
Action B-3: Recreational Mining ............. ....................... 29
Action B-4: Salable Mineral Management ........ .................... 29
Action B-5: Motorized Vehicles .............. ....................... 29
Action B-6: Camping .............................................. 30

Action B-7: Education/Interpretation ............ .................... 30
Action B-8: Group Use ............................................. 30
Action B-9: Non-Motorized Access .............. .................... 30
Action B-10: Discharge of Firearms ............ ....................... 30
Action B-11: Parking ............................................. 30
Action B-12: Inventories ........................................... 30
Action B-13: Monitoring ........................................... 31
Action B-14: Fire Management Plan ............. .................... 31
Action B-15: Special Use Apiary permit ........... ................... 31
Action B-16: Illinois Valley Airport .............. .................... 31
Action B-17: Water Resources Management ........ .................. 31
Action B-18: Ecological Restoration ............. .................... 32
Action B-19: Open Space ........................................... 32
Action B-20: Rights of Way ......................................... 32
Action B-21: Collecting ............................................ 32
Action B-22: Hazard Tree Removal .............. .................... 32
Alternative C - Resource Conservation/ Public Use Emphasis ........ ................. 32
Objective ................. ............................ 32
Management Actions Proposed for Alternative C .......... ................... 32
Action C-1: Locateable Minerals Management ........ ................ 32
Action C-2: Mineral Dredging . ...................................... 32
Action C-3: Recreational Mining . ................................. 32
Action C-4: Salable Mineral Management .......... .................. 32
Action C-5: Motorized Vehicles . .................................... 32
Action C-6: Camping ............................................. 33
Action C-7: Education/Interpretation ............................-. 33
Action C-8: Group Use ........................... 33
Action C-9: Non-Motorized Access ................ ........... 33
Action C-10: Discharge of Fire Arms ................... ........ 33
Action C-11: Parking ........................... 33
Action C-12: Inventories ........................... 33
Action C-13: Monitoring ........................... 33
Action C-14: Fire Management Plan ................................. 33
Action C-15: Special Use Apiary permit ........................... 33
Action C-16: Illinois Valley Airport ................ ........... 33
Action C-17: Water Resource Management ........................... 33
Action C-18: Restoration ........................... 33
Action C-19: Open/Scenic Space ............ ............... 33
Action C-20: Rights of Way ........ ................... 33
Action C-21: Collecting ........................... 33
Action C-22: Hazard Tree Removal ................ ........... 33
Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences ........................... 34
Effects on Vegetation ........................... 34
Effects Common to All Alternatives ........................... 34
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Vegetation ........................... 34
Effects of Alternative B on Vegetation .......... ................. 36
Effects of Alternative C on Vegetation .......... ................. 37
Effects on Wildlife (including Fisheries) ........................... 37
Effects Common to All Alternatives ........................... 37

Effect of Alternative A (No Action) on Wildlife ............................... 38
Effects of Alternative B on Wildlife ......................................... 38
Effects of Alternative C on Wildlife ......................................... 39
Effects on Soils and Water . ...................................................... 39
Effects Common to All Alternatives ......................................... 39
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Soils and Water ....................... 39
Effects of Alternative B on Soils and Water .................................. 40
Effects of Alternative C on Soils and Water .................................. 40
Effects on Natural Processes ................... .................................. 40
Effects Common to All Alternatives ......................................... 40
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Natural Processes ...... ................ 41
Effects of Alternative B on Natural Processes ................................ 41
Effects of Alternative C on Natural Processes ................................ 41
Effects on Locateable and Salable Mineral Activities ................................. 41 -
Effects Common to All Alternatives ......................................... 41
Effect of Alternative A (No Action) on Locateable and Salable Mineral Activities . . 41
Effects of Alternatives B and C on Locateable and Salable Mineral Activities ..... 42
Effects on Recreation . ........................................................... 42
Effects Common to All Alternatives ......................................... 42
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Recreation ............................ 42
Effects of Alternatives B on Recreation ...................................... 42
Effects of Alternative C on Recreation ...................................... 43
Effects on Land Use Authorizations ............................................... 43
Effects Common to All Alternatives ......................................... 43
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Land Use Authorizations ..... ........... 43
Effects of Alternatives B and C on Land Use Authorizations ..... ............... 44
References Cited ....................................................................... 45
Tables
Table 1. Soils and Plant Associations of the Rough and Ready ACEC. ....... 9......
Table 2. Federally Listed, Federal Candidates, Bureau Sensitive and Survey and Manage Plant
Species Documented or Suspected within the Rough and Ready ACEC .................. 13
Table 3. Bureau Assessment, Watch and Tracking Plant Species Documented or Suspected within the
Rough and Ready ACEC ......................................................... 14
Table 4. Special Status (including Fisheries) Species Documented or Suspected within Rough and
Ready ACEC ................................................................... 17
Table 5. Mining claims within the Rough and Ready ACEC . .................................. 21
Table 6. Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative for the Rough and Ready ACEC ..... 25
Table 7. Comparison of Effects to ACEC Values by Alternatives Using Levels of Risk .......... 35
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of Scoping Comments on the Rough and Ready ACEC
Management Plan/EA ................... ........................................ 50
Appendix B: Plant Species List for Rough and Ready Creek ACEC ............................ 58
Appendix C: Draft Rough & Ready ACEC Fire Management Plan ............................ 66
Appendix D: Bird Species List from Breeding Bird Study in Serpentine Habitat ................. 75

Appendix E: Recreation Opportunity Setting for the Rough and Ready ACEC ..... ............ 76
Appendix F: Figures 78
Figure 1. Boundaries of the Rough and Ready ACEC-Location Map
Figure 2. Ecoregions in Oregon & California-Klamath Mountains Region
Figure 3. Subregions of the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion
Figure 4. Soils in the Rough and Ready ACEC
Figure 5. Mining Claims Located in the Rough and Ready ACEC
Figure 6. ROS Classes, including roads, gates and berms proposed for Alternative A
Figure 7. ROS Classes, including roads, gates and berms proposed for Alternative B
Figure 8. ROS Classes, including roads, gates and berms proposed for Alternative C

Chapter 1 - Introduction
Background Information
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs) are some of the most important and
sensitive publicly-owned lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA,
Public Law 94-579), enacted by Congress in
1976, requires that the BLM give priority to the
designation, management and protection of
ACECs. Lands designated as ACECs require
special management attention to protect and
prevent irreparable damage to important historic,
cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife
resources or other natural systems or processes, or
to protect life and safety from natural hazards
(FLPMA 1976).
Public land designated as an ACEC must meet the
criteria of "relevance" and "importance." An area
meets the "relevance" criterion for ACEC
designation if it has one or more of the following:
significant historic, cultural or scenic values; a
fish and wildlife resource (including but not
limited to habitat for endangered, sensitive or
threatened species, or habitat essential for
maintaining species diversity); a natural process
or system (including but not limited to
endangered, sensitive or threatened plants species;
rare, endemic or relic plants or plant communities
which are terrestrial, aquatic or riparian; or rare
geological features); and natural hazards.
The relevant values or resources identified must
also have substantial significance in order to
satisfy the "importance" criterion for ACEC
designation. This generally means that the
identified values, resources, systems, processes or
hazards are characterized by one or more of the
following: has more than locally significant
qualities which give it special worth, consequence,
distinctiveness or cause for concern; has qualities
that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable,
exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened or
vulnerable to adverse change; has been recognized
as warranting protection in order to satisfy
national priority concerns or to carly out the
mandates of FLPMA; or has qualities that cause
concern or pose threats to public welfare (BLM
Manual sec. 1613).
In 1993, the Siskiyou Audubon Society and the
Siskiyou Regional Education Project proposed to
the Medford District BLM that 1,312.51 acres of
BLM lands surrounding Rough and Ready Creek
be designated as an ACEC. The request was based
on the outstanding botanical, ecological,
hydrological, wildlife/ fisheries and water quality
values in the area. The BLM analysis and
evaluation of the potential ACEC was conducted
using a systematic interdisciplinary (ID) approach.
The ACEC ID team concluded that the area met
the criteria for relevance and importance, and the
site was designated in the Resource Management
Plan (RMP) adopted in 1994. A total of 1,164.2
acres were included in the ACEC designed to
protect botanical, wildlife/fisheries, hydrologic
systems and other natural systems or processes.
This draft management plan/environmental
assessment (EA) presents three alternatives for
management of the Rough and Ready ACEC. The
management goal within the ACEC is to protect,
conserve and enhance designated ACEC values
while allowing appropriate activities.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of this document is to describe
actions that will guide management of the Rough
and Ready ACEC. Management is needed to
protect, conserve and enhance the ACEC's
designated values. A site-specific management
plan was recommended in the Medford District
RMP and an environmental assessment is required
by FLPMA and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Public involvement and
coordination with federal, state and local agencies
is part of plan development. The final
management plan for the ACEC will be reviewed
and updated after it has been in effect for 10 years
or prior to that time if it becomes necessary.
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter -Introduction page 1

This draft management plan and the EA tier to the
following: (1) the Final EIS and Record of
Decision (ROD) and the Medford District
Resource Management Plan (RMP) dated June
1995 (2) the Final Supplemental EIS on
Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and
Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the
Range of the Northern Spotted Owl dated
February 1994; and (3) the ROD for Amendments
to Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Planning Documents Within
the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and its
attachment A entitled the Standards and
Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-
Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related
Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted
Owl dated April 13, 1994 (which will be referred
to in this document as the Northwest Forest Plan).
Consistency with State and County Plans
The alternatives in this EA take into consideration
other existing land use plans and laws, including
the State of Oregon's Endangered Species Act,
Oregon Natural Areas Preserves Act, Oregon
Land Conservation and Development Commission
Goal 5, Josephine County Comprehensive Plan,
and the Memorandum of Understanding between
the BLM and Josephine County regarding the
Illinois Valley Airport.
Statutory Authority
Congress provided specific language in the
FLPMA for identification and protection of areas
on the public lands having significant natural and
cultural resources. The FLPMA provides that
ACECs be given prioritv in the "inventory of all
public lands and their resources and other values,"
but that such identification "shall not, of itself,
change or prevent change of the management of
public lands." Under FLPMA, Congress made
clear that it viewed ACECs as special places
within the public lands (Callison 1984). Senate
Report No. 94-5 83, by the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, stated that "management of
public lands is to include giving special attention
to the protection of ACECs for the purpose of
ensuring that the most environmentally important,
and fragile lands will be given...early attention and
protection." This report also stated that "unlike
wilderness areas... (ACECs) are not necessarily
areas in which no development can occur."
FLPMA set the foundation to prepare policy and
procedures for identif.ing, designating and
managing ACECs. BLM regulations for land use
planning guide the ACEC designation process.
Copies of these regulations and laws are available
at the Medford District BLM Office.
Setting
The Rough and Ready ACEC lies about 10 miles
southwest of Cave Junction, Oregon. The ACEC
encompasses 1,164 acres in Township 4 South,
Range 8 West, sections 7, 17, 18, 19, 20 (Figure
1). It is included within the 10,613 acre BLM
Illinois Valley Botanical Emphasis Area. The
ACEC includes only public land administered by
the Medford District BLM, including both public
domain and Oregon and California Revested
Railroad lands. Section 7 and 17 are public
domain lands and Sections 18, 19, 20 are Oregon
and California Revested Railroad. The ACEC is
adjoined by a U.S. Forest Service designated
botanical area to the west, an adjacent State
Botanical Wayside, the Illinois Valley Airport
(Josephine County) to the north, BLM lands to the
south and northeast and various private lands to
the south, north and east.
Designated ACEC Values
Rough and Ready ACEC was designated for
several natural resource values: botanical,
wildlife/fisheries, hydrologic systems and other
natural systems or processes. Each of these values
are described below.
Botanical: Rough and Ready ACEC contains one -
of the highest number of special status (rare) plant
species on public land in the Illinois Valley. Most
of these species exist nowhere but within a very
narrow range. The site also hosts a number of
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management PLan/EA: Chapter ]-Introduction page 2

plant communities considered rare or vulnerable
by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (Kagan
1993). Port-Orford Cedar not infected with the
pathogen, Phytophthora laterals, also occur on
the site.
Wildlife/Fisheries: The ACEC has nine
documented or suspected special status wildlife
species. Both Rough and Ready Creek and the
West Fork of the Illinois River are important
habitat for winter steelhead and cutthroat trout. It
is suspected that the lower reaches of Rough and
Ready creek are used by the Federally listed Coho
salmon for spring spawning (Johnson, personal
communication 1997).
Hydrologic and Other Natural Systems or
Processes: Rough and Ready Creek presents a
unique fluvial system characterized by exceptional
water quality and clarity, very flashy flows, an
unusual braided stream channel and a broad,
relatively undisturbed alluvium of cobbles which
may support an extensive hyporheic zone with
rare or sensitive invertebrates (USFS 1993).
Rough and Ready Creek upstream of the National
Forest boundary may be further evaluated in a
Suitability Study for possible recommendation as
an addition to the national Wild and Scenic River
System (USFS 1993).
Other important natural systems and processes
include fire, succession and evolution. Atzet and
Wheeler (1982) indicate that fire has been a
significant and important part of the environment,
shaping plant communities in the region. Evidence
of past fire is common on the landscape of the
ACEC. The ACEC presents an array of plant
communities which display successional processes
more dramatically then seen in most plant
communities. Evolutionary processes in the form
of species hybridization has been documented for
the site.
Other Values/Uses
In addition to its designated values, the Rough and
Ready Creek area has many other natural values
and human uses. The site has identified mineral
resources and is used for recreation, collecting and
other purposes. The remaining important natural
values and special land use authorizations are
discussed briefly below. More details will be
provided in the Affected Environment section.
Open Space: The ACEC provides a unique open
space and scenic natural area with unusual
character in the Illinois Valley basin. The
undeveloped landscape stands out here on the
valley floor where much of the lowlands have been
converted to residential, agricultural, industrial or
commercial developments.
Mineral Resources: Rough and Ready ACEC
has locateable mineral mining claims dating to
1940. Minerals of interest within the ACEC
include nickel, chromium and cobalt. The ACEC
also has salable minerals permits held by the state,
one issued in 1932 and another in 1959.
Recreation: The primary recreational use in the
ACEC is observation of the unique plant
communities and diverse wild flowers. Horseback
riding, swimming, camping, biking and target
shooting also occur.
Land Use Authorizations: Land use
authorizations include a special use permit for an
apiary, three power line rights of way, an
irrigation ditch (with access road) and one phone
line to a private residence.
Management Objectives/Issues
The overall management goal for the ACEC is to
protect, conserve and enhance the values for which
it was designated.
The management objective is to protect, conserve
and enhance special status plant populations,
wildlife and fisheries by ensuring as much habitat
as possible remains undisturbed and the
ecological/hvdrological processes these species
are dependent upon can continue.
Management issues for the ACEC are related to
DraftRough andReadyACEC ManagementPlan/EA: Chapter1-Introduction page3

the uses listed above. Mining activities, recreation
and authorized land uses must be managed in such
a way as to avoid impacts to designated ACEC
values.
Public Scoping Summary
Throughout development of this draft
management plan/EA, the public was provided
opportunities to comment. The comments
received helped formulate the issues, alternatives
and actions discussed in the plan/EA. Legal
notices placed in the Daily Courier on March 26
and in the Illinois Valley News on March 27, 1997
announced a public scoping meeting held on April
5, 1997 and provided a 30 day written comment
period which ended May 5, 1997. Twenty-one
people sent letters expressing their opinions on the
how the ACEC should be managed. These written
and oral scoping comments are summarized in
Appendix A. Copies of all scoping letters and
public comments are on file.
Publication of Management Decisions
Following the Decision Record on this
management plan/EA, the BLM will publish the
list of prohibited activities, closures or restrictions
in the Federal Register so they become federal
regulations specific to the ACEC. These will be
posted at the ACEC and distributed to interested
public.
DraftRough andReadyACEC ManagementPlan/EA: Chapter l-Introduction page 4

Chapter 2 - Affected Environment
This chapter describes the physical, biological,
and social environment that could potentially be
affected by this plan.
Ecoregion
The Rough and Ready ACEC is in the Klamath
Mountains Ecoregion, which is one of nine
ecoregions found in the state of Oregon and 79
regions in the conterminous United States
(Omernik 1997). The Klamath Mountains
Ecoregion is bounded by six ecoregions, including
the Coast Range, Willamette Valley, Cascades,
Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, Sierra
Nevada, and the Central and Southern California
Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Ecoregions
(Omernik 1997) (Figure 2). The Klamath
Mountains Ecoregion encompasses the Klamath
Mountains Physiographic Province, extending
across the interior basins of the Rogue and
Umpqua Rivers to the foothill fringes of the
Western Cascade Range (Orr et al. 1992).
Specifically, the ACEC occupies the southwestern
corner of the Rogue/Illinois valleys subregion of
the Klarnath Mountains Ecoregion (Omemik
1996) (Figure 3). Just upstream from the
boundary of the ACEC on Rough and Ready
Creek lies the boundary with the Serpentine
Siskivous subregion and the southeast boundary
of the ACEC follows the boundary of the Siskivou
Foothills subregion of the Klamath Mountains
Ecoregion (Omemik 1996).
The biota of each of the surrounding regions
overlap to varying degrees in the Klamaths and
contribute to a notably high level of biological
diversity. The region is recognized as one of 200
biologically outstanding ecoregions in the world
(Olson 1997) The combination of the climate,
physiography, history and mineralogy of the
Klamath Mountains Ecoregion has also
contributed to this diversity. Whittaker (1960)
observed that the region exhibits a "central
relation" to the forests of the western United
States. The region has acted as a repository for
species with ranges that have shifted across the
region over time. Driven by historic shifts in
temperature and precipitation, successive floras
have arrived and occupied the region since the
middle Miocene (Axelrod 1990). The complex
physiography of the ecoregion provided an array
of environments which sustained species of
successive transient geofloras (Whittaker 1960,
Smith and Sawyer 1988). Species lost from the
surrounding regions through periods of extensive
glaciation, vulcanismn, flood and desiccation were
in some cases retained in the Klamath Mountains.
Finally, the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion has
engendered a rich flora of plants endemic to the
region, of which many are dependent on
serpentine soils. "Serpentine" is a term that is
generally used to describe environments
influenced by ultramafic substrates. Soils derived
from serpentinite and serpentinized peridotite
have a low calcium to magnesium ratio and high
levels of heavy metals. The extreme chemical
conditions of these soils pose a uniquely stressful
environment for plant adaptation (White 1971).
The variable tolerances to these conditions
expressed by the plant species in the regional flora
influence their distributions and the associations
they form on serpentine.
The ecoregion exhibits the largest terrestrial
exposures of ultramafic substrate possibly in the
world (Orr et al. 1992) and contains a wide array
of distinct plant communities which only grow on
serpentine (Kruckeberg 1954). The greatest
concentration of species endemic to serpentine in
Western North America is in the Klamath-
Siskiyou Mountain complex (Kruckeberg 1992).
The region is considered an Area of Global
Botanical Significance, one of seven such sites in
North America (Wagner 1997).
Watersheds: The ACEC lies in the greater West
Fork Illinois River Watershed, and includes a part
of the Rough and Ready Creek watershed which
is a subdrainage of the West Fork. The West Fork
(77,000 acres) and Rough and Ready Creek
(24,000 acres) watersheds dissect and drain a
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan'EA: Chapter 2- Affected Environment page S

portion of the Siskiyou Mountains, a range that
lies in southwestern Oregon and northwestern
California.
Climate: The climate of the watersheds varies
across the wide range in elevation (1,370-4,764
ft.) and physiography. Maritime influences with
high precipitation reach the western peaks of the
watershed on the crest between the Coast Range
and the Siskivous, but dissipate over the interior
valley where conditions are relatively xeric.
Annual precipitation may range from 60 to 1700
mm (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Most
precipitation falls between October and June. A
zone of transient snow accumulation occurs above
2,500 feet in elevation and season long
accumulations of snow occur above 4,500 feet
(USFS 1997).
Geology: About 60% of the West Fork
watershed is underlain by ultramafic substrates.
The remainder is comprised predominantly of
metasedimentary rock, which is covered by
Quaternary and some older sediment deposits on
the valley floor. The Rough and Ready Creek
watershed is primarily underlain (93%) by
serpentinized peridotite (USFS 1997). A
relativelv small outcrop of granodiorite occurs at
the headwaters of the south fork of Rough and
Ready Creek. Steep slopes and narrow streams
charactenze the upper portions of the drainages.
At the mouth of the canyon, serpenttne bedrock
lies in fault contact with the metasedimentarv
Galice Formation, which is covered bv the
cemented gravels of Pleistocene glacial outwash
fan on the vallev floor.
Hydrologic System: Winter flooding causes the
channel of Rough and Ready Creek to move from
*ear to year. Rain and snow-melt run off rapidly
due to limited percolation and water-holding
capacity of the shallow soil. The fractured bedrock
provides for numerous spnngs, many of which
support Dariingtonia fens and maintain summer
flows in the smaller tributaries. The wide and
shallow channel, fast runoff. lack of summer
rainfall and naturally open riparian area leads to
low stream flows and high water temperatures in
the main streams during the summer. Wide,
unconsolidated streams such as Rough and Ready
have extensive hyporheic or intergravel zones,
which can be ecologically unique. Further study of
Rough and Ready is needed to determine the
extent and ecological functions of the hyporheic
zone (USFS 1993).
The West Fork Illinois River and its major
tributaries have been designated water quality
limited by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, because summer water
temperatures exceed 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Water
diversion at low flow may affect water
temperatures (USFS 1997). Stream survey data
from 1991 shows a water temperature six degrees
Fahrenheit higher at the mouth of the North Fork
than the mouth of the South Fork (USFS 1993).
This is probably because the South Fork is more
vegetated and benefits from the northerly aspect.
The abundance of shallow, rocky soils and rock
outcrops, and the lack of disturbance on the
serpentine lands in the watershed contribute to
exceptional water clarity (USFS 1997). This
feature is especially notable during flood events,
when extreme contrast in water clarity between
Rough and Ready and the other streams in the
region can be observed.
Vegetation: The intergradation of soil types.
drainage, aspect and elevation. with associated
precipitation and temperature gradients and fire
contribute to the wide variety of plant
communities found in the watersheds. The West
Fork watershed was recently found to have the
greatest number of rare species of all 1,400
watersheds in Oregon in a study by the Oregon
Natural Heritage Program (1997). The watersheds
support a large number of sensitive plant species.
manv of which are narrow, regional endenmcs.
Nearlv 300 species of plants have been recorded
for the Rough and Ready Creek watershed which
has exceptional botanical interest due to its being
in the heart of the Upper Illinois River Valley,
which is a center for endemic species of vascular
plants (USFS 1997).
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 2 -Affected Environment page 6

Ownership and Land Use Pattern: The
headwaters of the West Fork watershed are
completely managed by the U.S. Forest Service,
while the lower reaches are a mix of U.S.F.S.,
BLM, State and private ownership. Rough and
Ready Creek is under federal management from its
headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork,
with the exception of a few private inholdings.
Private properties are located in and below the
mouth of the canyon. The Nature Conservancy
owns 60 acres on the lower stretches of Rough
and Ready Creek.
Regional Human Context
The Illinois Valley is located in the southern
portion of Josephine County, which has a
population of 65,500. The following data from
Reid (1996) represents the latest federal and state
data taken between 1987 to 1995. For Josephine
County, the percent of the population age 65 and
older is 20%, exceeding the state average of
13.7%, and transfer payments are among the
highest in the state. The unemployment rate has
been considerably higher than the state average.
Wages have been among the lowest in the state.
Josephine County ranks among the highest for
poverty, particularly for children at 27.5% of the
population. College educated comprise 12% of
the population, compared to 20% for the state.
The high school dropout rate is among the highest
for the state (Reid 1989).
The largest town in the vicinity of the West Fork
Illinois River and Rough and Ready Creek is Cave
Junction with a population of 1,256. A
considerable population also lives outside of the
city limits in rural residential lands. The county
ranks highly for owner occupied housing units.
Josephine County has the smallest percentage of
the land base in farms and only 24% of the land m
the county is in private ownership. The county
timber harvest fell by 67% between 1988 and
1994 (Reid 1996). Employment is primarily in
manufacturing, followed by the combination of
health, education and public administration, and
then by retail and wholesale trade (Illinois Valley
Community Response Team (CRT) brochure, no
date). The historic dependence on resource
extraction, including logging and mining is
apparent. Development of eco-tourism and new
industrial centers have both been targeted as
primary goals in recent regional strategic plans for
community development (Illinois Valley CRT
1995).
The primary transportation route for the regional
population is Highway 199 which follows the
West Fork Illinois River south of Cave Junction,
and bisects the ACEC. Important industrial
developments near the ACEC include the Rough
and Ready Lumber Mill and the Josephine County
Airport.
Affected Environment in the ACEC
Geology: The primary geologic feature of the
Rough and Ready ACEC is the broad alluvial fan
covering an area of approximately six square
miles on the valley floor. Shennon (1933)
speculated that the landform was deposited in late
Pleistocene. Glaciation increased the sediment
supply and the associated wetter climate increased
stream discharge at that time. The surface of the
terrace is nearly flat, declining to the east. Local
relief is slight but shows the pattern of old
floodways across the surface. The deposit is
composed of cobbles and finer sediments and is
cemented at depth. Underlying the alluvial
deposits is metasedimentary rock of the Galice
Formation. The current stream is underfit in the
broad floodplain alluviated with coarse cobbles.
The southeast edge of the ACEC includes a small
portion of the Cretaceous marine sedimentary
substrates that formed while this portion of the
Klamath region was submerged. The exposure is
part of only a small part of the total area in
Josephine County (Ramp 1979). The strata
include coarse conglomerates and sandstones
(Shennon 1933).
Soils: The soils of Josephine County have been
mapped by the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS/Borine 1983) and are shown in Figure 4.
Table I explains soil map units used in Figure 4
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 2 - Affected Environment page 7

along with associated vegetation. The three
geomorphic surfaces within the ACEC contribute
to a varietv of soils including serpentine cobbly
soils on the terrace, mixed younger alluvium on
the floodplain and loamy non-serpentine soils on
the hillslopes east of the river. The soils of these
landforms are discussed below in order. Map
units referred to can be found in SCS/Borine
(1983).
Serpentine (and Non-serpentine) Cobblv Terrace
Soils - The Rough and Readv alluvial fan is
covered by a complex of four soil types primarily
derived from coarse alluvial deposits of serpentine
and peridotite cobbles. The mineralogy of these
serpentine soils strongly influences the vegetation.
7 - Takilma Variant extremely cobbly loam (map
uniL 74) covers the greatest area. Permeabilitv m
the Takilma Variant is moderate at the surface and
rapid below. The available water capacity is low
(2.5 to 4 inches). Minor portions of the Takilmna
cobbly loam (map unit 73) occur near the south
boundarv of the ACEC. This soil is similar to the
more widespread variant but is derived from
mixed sources of parent material from the West
Fork drainage. These soils are not considered
forest soils by SCS/Bonne (1983), however
significant stands of forest occur. The Brockman
Variant very gravelly loam (map unit 13) occurs
south and west of the confluence of the creek and
river. Brockman soils are derived from serpentine
and peridotite alluvium on high stream terraces.
This deep, well drained soii has greater available
water capacity (6.5-10.5 inches) than the Takilma
soils described above. The site index for Douglasfir
on this soil is 95 (SCS/Borne 1983). The
Abegg gravelly loam (map unit IB) occurs in two
areas in the ACEC: cutting across the terrace
north of the confluence and south along the West
Fork of the Illinois River. The Abegg soil is
typicalyv derived from non-serpentine sources.
Permneabilitv is moderate. the available water
capacity is 4 to 6 inches ano ro)oting depth is 60
inches or more The site r.-. for Dougias-fir on
this soil is 114 (SCS/Bonne i983).
recent and ongoing fluvial processes of Rough and
Readv Creek and the West Fork of the Illinois
River. While not typically derived from peridotite
and serpentine sources, thev are likelv derived
from alluvium of mixed sources that include
ultramafics on the ACEC. The largest area is
accounted for by the Camas-Newberg Complex
soils (map unit 15), which begins upstream of the
bridge on 199 and widens along the West Fork of
the Illinois River. The unit - comprised of 45%
Camas gravellv sandy low - 5% Newberg fine
sandv loam, 10% Evans lown and the remainder
Riverwash. The soils are generally deep.
Drainage and permeability vary widely due to the
texture of the alluvium, but are predominantly
excessively drained with rapid permeability. The
available water capacity ranges generally from 1.5
to 3.5 inches. but reaches 8 inches in inclusions of
the Evans loam. Camas gravelly loam (map unit
14) occurs as a minor map Laint farther upstream.
The Camas soil is underlain by sand and has rapid
permeability and low water holding capacity.
Rooting depth is restricted below two feet in depth
by the extremely gravelly sand. Riverwash (map
unit 64) is the remaining unit in the alluvial
portion otf the ACEC. Riverwash is considered
barren gravel, cobbles and sand in the floodway of
the streams.
Non-serpentine Hillslope Soils - The remaining
four soils mapped on the ACEC developed on the
slopes flanking the West Fork- of the Illinois River
and are forested. The Josephine graveilv loam
(map unit 48F) is a deep well drained soil on
mountain sides. Permeability is moderately slow.
available water capacity is 4.5 to 12 inches and
runoff is rapid. The site index for Douglas-fir is
130. The Pollard loam soils (map units 61C and
6 ID) are deep well drained soils derived of
colluviun and alluvium of altered sedimentary
bedrock. The soils have slow penneability and the
available wvater capacitv is
Modem Alluvial Soils - Three floodplain alluvial
soils occur on the ACEC associated with the
Draft Rough andReadvACEC ManagementPlanI/EA: Chapter 2 -Affected Environment page 8

Table 1. Soils and Plant Associations of the Rough and Ready ACEC Plant association nomenclature
follows Atzet (1996), unless specified. Soils follow Borine (1983).
Soil Map Unit I Plant Series and Associations Comments
Terrace Soils (serpentine)
74/Takilma Jeffrey pine/hoary manzanita/Idaho fescue Warm and dry.
Variant/
extremely cobbly Jeffrey pine/buckbrush/ Idaho fescue Driest Jeffrey Pine type.
loam Jeffrey pine/Idaho fescue With low grass cover in ACEC.
Knobcone Pine Series (successional) (Jimerson Present as inclusions. Successional state
1995) unknown.
Siskiyou mat/Idaho fescue/ Serpentine Barrens
(Jimerson 1995)
Highest number of rare plants in ACEC.
73/Takilma Jeffrey pine-Incense cedar- Douglas fir Possible transition to Douglas-fir series.
cobbly loam
cobblyloa _ Douglas fir-Incense cedar-Jeffrey pine Dry and cool.
1 3/Brockman Jeffrey pine-Incense-cedar- Douglas fir Possible transition to Douglas fir series.
Variant very
gravelly loam Douglas-fir-Incense-cedar-Jeffrey Pine Dry and cool.
Terrace Soils (typically non-serpentine)
IB)Abegg Douglas fir-Ponderosa pine-Poison oak Not previously mapped on BLM lands.
gravelly loam
shrubot
HtDouglas-fir/dry
and dry.
Floodplain (alluvial soils)
1 5/Carnas White Oak Series Further study required.
Newberg
complex Ponderosa Pine Series Further study required.
14/Caamas White Oak Series Further study required.
gravelly sandy
loam Ponderosa Pine Series Further study required.
Jeffrey pine/Idaho fescue
Unusually low grass cover in the ACEC.
64/Riverwash not classified Further study required.
Upland soils on Siskiyou Foothills east of the River
48F/Josephine Douglas-fir/creambush ocean-spray/whipplevme Rare in bottomland; common in region.
gravelly loam
Douglas-fir/dry shrub
Hot and dry.
61 CD/Pollard I )Douglas fir-Ponderosa pine/ Poison oak Not previously mapped on BLM lands.
loam
84F/Witzel-Rock White-oak-Douglas-fir/Poison oak More common than the following.
outcrop complex
White-oak/Hedgehog dogtail
Rich in grass species.
Draft Rough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter 2-Affected Environment page 9

5.5 to 8 inches. The site index for Douglas-fir is
126 (SCSfBorine 1983). Finally, a sliver of
Witzel-Rock outcrop complex (map unit 84F)
occurs within the ACEC on a ridge off Indian Hill.
The unit is a shallow well drained soil of
coliuvium. and residuum derived from altered
sedimentary bedrock. Available water capacity
and rooting depth are limited and runoff is rapid
on this ridge top.
Vegetation: Various ecologists have described
vegetation from the Kiamath Mountains, however,
two recent compilations are particularly important.
Atzet (1996) provides a classification with
descriptions of forested plant associations in
southwestern Oregon, and Jimerson (1995)
provides additional insight into the associations on
serpentines in northern California. These
classifications are robust and the most
comprehensive available. A provisional list of the
most relevant plant associations from these
classifications for the ACEC are provided in
Table 1. The plant communities on the ACEC
may offer unique expressions of the plant
associations described. A preliminary list of 164
plant species documented in the ACEC is included
in Appendix B. Borgias and Ullian (1994)
provide a brief description of the vegetation and
species list for the Rough and Ready Creek
Watershed, however, detailed inventory and
mapping of the plant communities has not been
completed. The following descriptions are offered
as preliminary and subject to revision.
The assemblage of plant species on a site
responds to many environmental factors including
quantities and patterns of precipitation and
temperature, soil depth, available water capacity
drainage, aspect, disturbances such as fire and
flooding, among others. One of the distinct
features of the ACEC is the serpentine influence.
Serpentine communities can offer a distinct and
unique ecosystem that stand out abruptly from the
a non-serpentine matrix (Whittaker 1954).
Franklin (1988) considers Jeffrey pine (Pinus
jeffreyq)/grass woodlands as perhaps the
outstanding feature of the Siskivou serpentines. A
variety of these types, referred to as savannas or
woodlands by Kagan (1993) occur on the
Pleistocene terrace of Rough and Ready Creek
within the ACEC. Three such Jeffrey pine
associations described by Atzet (1996) and the
serpentine barrens type described by Jimerson
(1995) are thought to occur on the terrace (Table
1). The communities range from open stands
over manzanita, buckbrush and Idaho fescue, to
barrens where the pines are sporadically
distributed and particularly stunted. Siskiyou mat
(Ceanothus pumilus) is important in many stands.
There is a large diversity of herbs, including many
rare species such as Waldo rockcress (Arabis
aculeolata), Howell's mariposa lily (Calochortus
howellii), Howell's microseris (Microseris
howellii) and Siskiyou butterweed (Senecio
hesperius).
The botanically rich and colorful understories
below the widely spaced, often stunted pines has
attracted observers to the site for years and
motivated the citizens of the Illinois Valley and
Oregon State Parks to establish the original
Botanical Wayside.
Chaparral stands are an important feature on the
terrace. A broad expanse of chaparral dominated
by wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus)
occurs north of Rough and Ready Creek. The
presence of this large stand of chaparral may
result from frequent occurrence of fire in the past.
Other patches of chaparral occur as extensions of
the woodland understonres. Woodland related
stands are typically dominated by gray manzanita
(Arctostaphylos canescens). Whiteleaf manzanita
(Arcrostaphylos viscida) occurs in both
situations. Lomatium cookii, a rare endemic
species, is associated with a grassy understory
with thin chaparral.
The terrace also supports more closed canopy
woodlands and forests with a variety of tree
species and understories. These forests cover
most of the terrace surface south of Rough and
Ready Creek and contrast with the open savanna,
barrens and chaparral on the north side. The
forested stands occur on areas mapped as cobbly
and extremely cobbly loams as well as gravelly
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 2- Affected Environment page 10

loams and on soils with variable serpentine
influence (Figure 4). The four associations into
which these stands can be placed are listed in
Table 1. Variations among the stands appear to
have developed in response to variations in the
sediment deposits across the landform and in
response to varied fire histories. The stands have
relatively dense overstories typically dominated by
Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), Ponderosa
pine (Pinus ponderosa) or Jeffery pine, in
combination with incense cedar (Calocedrus
decurrens), and frequently with sugar pine (Pinus
lambertiana). Where the serpentine influence is
reduced, ponderosa pine replaces Jeffrey pine.
Knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) also occurs as
an important component in some of these stands.
The important shrubs in the understories include
gray manzanita, Brewer's oak (Quercus garryana
var. brewer), huckleberry oak (Quercus
vaccinifolium), silktassel (Garrya buxifolia), and
California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica).
The shrubs occur in various combinations and
provide variable cover. The herb layer is also
variable in composition and cover. California
fescue (Festuca californica) is a common
dominant in the understory. Where the serpentine
influence is reduced, the understories shift to
poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and
creeping snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis).
The ACEC supports a bottomland knobcone pine
community. Knobcone pine is the dominant tree
and Douglas-fir, the expected late successional
replacement, is absent or occurs sparsely in the
understory. The understory is dominated by gray
manzanita with Brewer's oak as an important
component. There are few species in the
herbaceous layer. This closed cone pine forest is
maintained by fire. Much of the stand occurs on
private lands adjoining the ACEC, where it is
significantly altered. Further north, mixed conifer
stands dominated by Douglas-fir over huckleberry
oak are shading out the knobcone community
Jimerson (1995) refers to a knobcone pine series
in northern California as an "existing vegetation
type" (early successional) on serpentine, but
provides no description. The knobcone pine series
descriptions are summarized by Sawyer and
Keeler-Wolf (1995). This summary includes
numerous references to stand descriptions and to
several associations in California.
The more recently deposited or reworked alluvial
soils, topographically below the Pleistocene
terrace, offer a number of different communities.
The most prevalent community is dominated by
Jeffrey pine, distributed sparsely, over two species
of small trees: Brewer's oak and mountain
mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides). The other
important components of the shrub strata include
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus),
serviceberry (Amelanchior alnifolia) and
Siskiyou mat. The herbaceous layer is varied and
diverse.
Beds of sorted serpentine gravels and sand nearest
the shifting creek are colonized by a distinct
assemblage of species. Waldo buckwheat
(Eriogonum ternatum) and Siskiyou mountain
pennycress (Thlaspi montanum var. sisliyouense)
create low miniature islands of matted vegetation.
These assemble with the expected low elevation
species of brodiaea, onion, and violets between
Idaho fescue(Festuca idahoensis) and Lemmon's
needlegrass (Achnatherum lemmonii). Two
species of rock cress, Arabis modesta and A.
koehlern var. stipitata also occur here. Along the
banks Del Norte willow (Salix delnortensis)
occurs sporadically.
Alluvial soils north and east of the confluence of
Rough and Ready Creek with the West Fork
Illinois River support an array of stands that vary
with fire history, soil texture and depth to water
table. The upland portions include a stand of
mixed conifers dominated by Douglas-fir, over
ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) with service
berry (Amelanchior alnifolia). Brewer's oak
occurs in the stand and is a prevalent resprouter
on the burned over sections. A mixed woodland
stand of ponderosa pine and black oak, and stands
of white oak (Quercus garryana var. garryana)
occur here as well. Stands dominated by
ponderosa pine with Oregon ash (Fraxinus
latifolia) over willows (Salix spp.), ninebark and
spirea (Spirea sp.) occur along the river.
DraftRough andReadyACECManagementPlaWEA: Chapter 2 -Affected Environment page 11

The bottomland soils east of the river appear to
have less of a serpentine influence. A significant
stand of intact bottomland forest occurs south of
the confluence. It is a mixed woodland dominated
by Douglas-fir with ponderosa pine, and sugar
pine secondary. Madrone, a few bigleaf mapie
(Acer macrophyllum) and Brewer's oak also occur
in the stand. The dominant understorv shrub is
poison oak and the herb laver is dominated bv
California fescue. Black oak becomes important
with ponderosa pine nearer the floodway. The
riparian stand on this section of the creek
resembles that with Oregon ash described above.
Conversion of such bottomland woodland to
agriculture and logging impacts across much of
the Illinois Valley floor have left few of these
stands intact. .. ding significance to this
occurrence.
The upland slopes east of the river lack serpentine
influence all together. A mixed conifer stand in
the Douglas-fir series dominates these slopes with
poison oak and Califorrua fescue important in the
understorv (Table 1).
Darlngtonia fens are an outstanding serpentine
community that also occur in isolated small
wetlands on the ACEC. Jimerson

Table 2. Federally Listed, Federal Candidates, Bureau Sensitive and Survey and Manage Plant
Species Documented or Suspected within the Rough and Ready ACEC.
Scientific Name
Arabis macdonaldiana
Lomatium cookli
Calochortus howeliji
Camassia ho well ii
Epilobium ore ganum
Erythronium howeliji
Gentiana setigera
Hastingsia atropurpurea/bracteosa
Limnanthes gracilis var. gracilis
Microseris howeliji
Pen derndia erythrorhiza
Senecio hespernus
Streptanthus howellii
Viola primulijfilia ssp. occiden talis
Bryoria tortuosa
Common Name
Macdonald's rockcress
Cook's desert parsley
Howell's mariposa lily
Howell's camas
Oregon willow-herb
Howell's adders tongue
Waldo gentian
Large flowered rush lily
Slender meadowfoanm
Howell's nmicroseris
Red-root yanipah
Siskivou butterweed
Howell's streptanthus
Western bog violet
Occurrence
suspected
documented
documented
suspected
suspected
suspected
suspected
suspected
suspected
documented
suspected
documented
suspected
suspected
documented
Status
FE
FC, SE
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
S&M
FT': Federally Threatened
FC: Federal Candidate
SE: State Endangered
BS: Bureau Sensitive
S&M: Survey and Manage
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management PlaWlEA: Chapter 2 - Affected Environment page 13

Table 3. Bureau Assessment, Watch and Tracking Plant Species Documented or Suspected within the
Rough and Ready ACEC.
Scientific Name
Arctostaphylos hispidula
Common Name
Howell's manzanita
Occurrence
suspected
Status
BA
Fritillaria glauca
Siskiyou frittilary
documented
BA
Lewisia leana
Lee's lewisia
suspected
BA
Lomatium engelmannii
Engelmann's lomatium
suspected
BA
Monardella purpurea
Siskiyou monardella
suspected
BA
Salix delnortensis
Del Norte willow
documented
BA
Sebum laxum ssp. heckneri
Lax stonecrop
suspected
BA
Aster brickelloides
Brickellbush aster
documented
BT
Cardamine nuttallii var. dissecta
documented
BT
Carex serpenticola
documented
BT
Arabis aculeolata
Waldo rockcress
documented
BW
Arabis koehleri var. stipitata
Koehler's rockcress
documented
BW
Balsamorhiza sericea
Silky balsamroot
documented
BW
Cardamine nuttalli var. gematta
Purple toothwort
suspected
BW
Castilleja hispida var. brevilobata
Short-lobed paintbrush
documented
BW
Cyprepidium californicum
California lady slipper
documented
BW
Darlingtonia californica
Pitcher plant
documented
BW
Dicentraformosa ssp. oregana
Oregon bleeding heart
suspected
BW
Epilobium rngidum
Eriogonum pendulum
Hieracium bolanderi
Lewisia oppositifolia
Mimulus douglasn
Poa piperi
Thlaspi montanum var. siskiyouense
Smilax californica
Sanicula peck7ana
Rigid willow-herb
Waldo buck-wheat
Bolander's hawkweed
Opposite-leaved lewisia
Douglas s monkeyflower
Piper's bluegrass
Siskiyou pennycress
Greenbrier
Peck's snakeroot
suspected
suspected
suspected
suspected
documented
suspected
documented
suspected
suspected
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BA: Bureau Assessment
BT: Bureau Tracking
BW: Bureau Watch documented within theACEC.
DraftRough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter 2-Affected Environment page 14

The infrequent occurrence of these species in the
ACEC could reflect the low level of inventory
completed or possibly loss of habitat from shrub
encroachment and thatch buildup in the absence of
fire.
Red Mountain rockcress (Arahis
macdonaldiana) - This species was recently
included under federal protection as Endangered
within the state of Oregon. One occurrence is
suspected within the ACEC, but has not been relocated.
Therefore survey work in the vicinity of
the occurrence needs to be completed to attempt to
locate the species. It occurs on barren to shrubcovered
shallow, rocky, serpentine soils ranging in
elevation from 500 to 4,000 feet (USFS 1998).
Cook's desert parsley (Lomatium
cookii) - This State Endangered species occurs in
two distinct areas approximately 30 miles apart,
the Agate Desert in the Rogue Valley and the
Illinois Valley. The proposal to list this species as
Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is underway. The populations of this species in the
ACEC are the least disturbed of those in the
Illinois Valley. Recurrent off-road vehicle use and
encroaching development have jeopardized the
other populations outside of the ACEC. The
populations are being monitored by the Oregon
Department of Agriculture under a Challenge Cost
Share agreement.
Siskiyou butterweed (Senecio
hesperius) -S. hesperius is a serpentine endemnic
species. The known occurrence of Siskiyou
butterweed in the ACEC could not be relocated in
recent surveys as the site has been disturbed by
mining related activity. This species usually
occurs in Jeffrey pine savanna and is generally
restricted to low elevation, serpentine slopes on
the west edge of the Illinois Valley, with the
exception of one population farther north at the
Cedar Log RNA (Kagan 1989).
Howell's microseris (Microseris
howellii) -M. howelfii is a serpentine endemic
species found in Jeffrey pine savanna. Its
distribution is frequently patchy and scattered. It
usually occurs in Jeffrey pine savanna and is
restricted to low elevation, serpentine slopes on
the west edge of the Illinois Valley, with the
exception of one population farther north at the
Cedar Log RNA (Kagan 1988).
Howell's mariposa lily (Calochortus
howelli) - C howellit is restricted to ultramafic
soils in "serpentine barrens" (Fredericks 1988).
Two occurrences within boundaries of the ACEC
could not be relocated in surveys following mining
related disturbance. Its distribution is restricted to
the Illinois River drainage and its tributaries in
Josephine County, Oregon. All verified
populations occur within an elevation range of
375 to 600 m. The northernmost site occurs just
north of Eight Dollar Mountain and the
southernmost site is at the foot of Oregon
Mountain (Fredericks 1988).
Survey and Manage Species - Survey and Manage
Species were designated under the Northwest
Forest Plan (1994). The standards and guidelines
for management of Survey and Management
Species outline four survey components: 1)
manage known sites, 2) survey prior to ground
disturbing activities, 3) conduct extensive surveys,
or 4) conduct general regional surveys.
One Component 1 species does occur in the
ACEC. Bryoria tortuosa is a pendent, hairlike
lichen suspected to occur on the ACEC. It occurs
along the west coast from southern British
Columbia to central California and in northern
Idaho. While there are 35 records of Bryoria
tortuosa in the Pacific Northwest (8 in Oregon),
only five occur on federal lands, of which three are
in Oregon. It grows on trees in well-lit, open
stands, most frequently on oak and pine, although
it has been collected on a large variety of trees and
shrubs. In Oregon it occurs on Arctostaphylos,
Taxus brevifolia, Quercus kelloggii,
Psuedotsuga menziesii, and in Pinus
ponderosa/Quercus garryana stands.Two
occurrences within the ACEC and one occurrence
in the State Wayside has been confirmed.
Non-Native Plants - Two noxious weeds are found
Draft Rough andReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter 2 -Affected Environment page 1s

in disturbed sites, primarily along roads in the
ACEC. Yellow star thistle (Centaurea
solstitiahs) occurs along Highway 199 (section
18) in the areas north and south of where the
highway crosses the creek. Local citizen efforts
over three years have seen a substantial reduction.
Patches of Scotch broom (Cynsus scoparius) are
found in section 17.
Wildlife: The diversity of habitats and plant
communities at Rough and Ready support all of
the major groups of wildlife. Research and data
collection on wildlife that occupy serpentine areas
is lacking. Most information that exists on
wildlife in serpentine areas is anecdotal and
incomplete. Wildlife species seem to be well
represented on serpentine. but at low densities.
Many of the currently undocumented species
could occur within the ACEC since suitable
habitat is present.
Mammals - The ACEC contains habitat for bear.
blacktail deer, grey fox, racoons, jackrabbits,
squirrels and other small mammals. The
occurrence and abundance of these species are
uncertain as no surveys are known to have been
completed in the area. Spotlight counts conducted
by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for
black tailed deer indicate that deer use serpentine
areas but in very limited numbers. Species
associated with Jeffrey pine savanna and
deciduous oak/pine savannas are declining in
numbers due to human encroachment on these
habitats (USFS 1997).
Birds - The diversity and abundance of bird
species in the ACEC is unknown. Neotropical
migratory birds (birds that migrate north each
spring to breeding grounds in North Amenca. then
flv south to winter in Central and South America)
are of concern as they are declining nationally. A
breeding bird study along the Illinois River which
sampled riparian and upland serpentine areas
located 28 species of birds (Appendix D). Species
were verv similar to those found in surrounding
forest and meadow habitat tvpes. however
densities were .olv low (Finlev 1997). A
multi-year bird oanding project at Cedar Log Flat
RNA, which supports several similar habitats
found 54 species of birds (USFS 1997). Killdeer,
which are not often seen in the vallev, have been
observed in the ACEC. Osprey are present along
the Illinois River north of the ACEC, and
occasionallv a bald eagle is observed along the
river.
Reptiles and Amphibians - Species such as garter
snakes. rattlesnakes, sagebrush lizards and
western fence lizards are present in the ACEC.
Due to warm water temperatures and low summer
flows in uie reaches of Rough and Ready Creek
across BLM land, the value to salamanders and
frogs is thought to be low, however, surveys have
not been conducted. Anecdotal observations
indicate that some species of reptiles and
amphibians may be represented on serpentines in
densities similar to those found in non-serpentine
areas.
Special Status Species - Several special status
species have been documented or are suspected to
occur within the ACEC. All special status wildlife
species are listed in Table 4. Many of the special
status species suspected within the ACEC
probable occur because there is suitable habitat.
Following is a brief description of Federally
Listed. Federal Candidate, State Critical and
Bureau Sensitive species documented within the
ACEC:
O'Brien Caddisfly (Rhyacophila
colonus)- This Bureau Sensitive species may be
present in the ACEC in the West Fork of the
Illinois River and in the perennial portion of
Rough and Readv Creek. R. colonus is oniv
known from a single locality recorded as
"Josechine County, in the vicinity of O'Brien."
The precise locale is not known. Rhyacophiia
species have been fairly intensively collected in
the Pacific Northwest in the past 20 vears. The
fact that R. colonus is still known onlv from a
smgle collection would indicate that this species is
rare. However. collections from the Siskiyou-
Klamath Mountain Region are mnimal
(Wisseman 1990). Attempts to trap this caddisflv
Draft Rough and ReadvACEC Management PlanIEA: Chapter 2 -Affected Environment page 16

Table 4. Special Status Animal Species (including Fisheries) Documented or Suspected within Rough
and Ready ACEC.
M.--- (r--mn. IV-N m qfaffie
I........ -
Oncorhyncus kisutch
Oncorhyncus mykiss
Bombusfranklhni
Clemmys marmorata
Myotis thys anodes
Oreortyxpictus
Plethodon elongarus
Rhyacophila colonus
Aneidesferreus
Aneides flavipuncatus
Dryocopus pileatus
Lampropelins zonota
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Otusflammeolus
Sialia mexicana
Aegolius acadocis
Lampropeltus getulus
Coho salmon
Winter steelhead trout
Franklin's bumblebee
Western pond turtle
Fringed myotis
Mountain quail
Siskivou salamander
O'Brien caddisflv
Clouded salamander
Black salamander
Pileated woodpecker
CA mountain kingsnake
Chinook salmon
Flammulated owl
Western bluebird
Northern sawhet owl
Common kingsnak-e
documented
documented
possible, SH
documented
documented
documented
probable, SH
suspected
probable, SH
probable, SH
documented
probable, SH
documented
probable, SH
documented
probable, SH
probable, SH
FT
FC
BS
SC, BS
BS, SV, S&M
BS*
BS, SV, S&M
BS
BA, SC
BA, SC
BA, SC
BA, SC
BA, SC
BA, SC
BA, SC
BA, SV
BA, SP
FT: Federally Threatened
FC: Federal Candidate
BS: Bureau Sensitive; Species listed by the USFWS as Federal Candidates 2 were changed to BLM Sensitive
Species.
BS *: Mountain quail are listed for eastern Oregon not western Oregon.
BA: Bureau Assessment
SC: Oregon State Critical
SV: Oregon State Vulnerable
SP: Oregon State Peripheral
SH: Suitable Habitat
S&M: Survey and Manage
Draft Rough andReadyACECManagementPIanWEA: Chapter 2-Affected Environment page 17

were made in 1996 by The Nature Conservancy,
but none were found (Borgias 1997). The species
is thought to occur in high gradient, narrow and
shaded streams (Wisseman pers. comm. 1997).
Yellow legged frog (Rana boylii) - This
Bureau Sensitive species has been reported in
Rough and Ready Creek and along the stretches of
the Illinois River which are in the ACEC.
Western pond turtle (Clemmys
marmorata) - This Bureau Sensitive species
occurs along the West Fork of the Illinois River.
Other Wildlife Values - The Cororus fritillarv
butterfly (Speveria coronas var. coronas) was at
one time proposed to be added to the BLM special
status invertebrate species list. A disjunct
population of this species is present in the Illinois
Valley. Its primary breeding ground is rocky flats
around the Illinois Valley airstrip and Rough and
Readv ACEC and eastward to the French Flat
ACEC. The larvae feed mostly on Viola halli
(hall's violet) in rocky serpentine habitats of the
Illinois Valley (Hammond 1992). The butterfly
depends on the violet, therefore any activitv
which destroys the violet's habitat could destrov
local populations of the butterfly (Paetzel 1993).
Fisheries: The Oregon Chapter of the American
Fisheries Society designated the Rough and Ready
drainage as highly sensitive, a reference watershed
and a genetic refuge and recommended protection
of the entire watershed (Oregon Chapter American
Fisheries Society 1993). Rough and Readv Creek
and its tributaries contain both anadromous and
resident salmonids. Resident saimonids consist of
both rainbow (Oncorhvzch us mvuAss) and
cutthroat trout (Salmo ciark-n)
During winter months the hiuh flows in the lower
reaches of Rough and Ready Creek across BLM
lands mav contribute to fish survival as thev
migrate to the upper reaches to spawn. The creek
also provides refugia for fish durng occasional
high flows in the Illinois River.
Special Status Species: Several special status fish
species have been documented within the ACEC.
All special status fisheries species are listed in
Table 4. Following is a brief description of
Federally Listed. Federal Candidate, State Critical
and Bureau Sensitive species documented within
the ACEC:
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
This species is federally listed as threatened. The
West Fork of the Illinois watershed produces 10%
of Coho in the Illinois River subbasin (USFS
1997). Approximately one half mile of the West
Fork is included in the ACEC. Coho could
possibly spawn in the lower reaches of Rough and
Readv Creek.
Winter steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus
nvkiss) - This species has been observed in the
West Fork Illinois and is proposed for federal
listing as Threatened and Endangered.
Hydrologic System: The ACEC includes
approximately one-half mile of the West Fork of
the Illinois River and 1.5 miles of Rough and
Ready Creek. including their confluence. The
mainstem of Rough and Reads Creek within the
ACEC, from just downstream of the power line to
the confluence with the Illinois River, has a
braided channel cut down through the Pleistocene
deposits to create terraces on either side. This
reach of the creek exhibits unusual channel
morphology. with an uncommonly large fraction
of large cobbles and relative absence of small
gravels. Within the ACEC. summer flows are
typically low and the creek often retracts into
isolated deep clear pools. It has not been
determined what the natural flow through this
section would be without water withdrawals that
occur at six points of diversion upstream from the
ACEC. The streambanks are mostly gravelly rock
with a thin soil mantle and are sparsely vegetated.
Fluvial processes control the age, texture, depth
and drainage of the alluvium, as well as some
forms of seed dispersal on the floodplain. This
section is atypical for streams of this size in the
Illinois Vallev and unusual for the Kiamath
Province. In 1997, the American Rivers
Association selected Rough and Readv Creek as
Draft Rough and ReadvACEC Management Plan'EA: Chapter 2- Affected Environment page 18

one of the 20 most threatened rivers in the United
States due to planned mining activities (Long
1997).
Other Natural Systems or Processes: Natural
processes, such as fire and succession, also
contribute to the diversity of plant communities.
Fire Regime - Atzet and Wheeler (1982) indicate
that fire has been a significant and important part
of the environment, shaping plant communities in
southwestern Oregon. They determined that the
return interval for natural wildfire in the Jeffrey
pine series was 20 to 50 years. They observed
that the Jeffrey pine associations are likely to
support small, patchy fires and less likely to suffer
catastrophic fire due to low fuel loading and
widely spaced canopies. They noted that although
most sites are open and quick to dry, little fuel is
produced and fuel continuity is usually lacking,
resulting in low intensity fires that have not, in
most cases, significantly altered species
composition. Jimerson (1995) notes variable
potential for fire exclusion to cause change in the
successional pathways of the associations in his
Jeffrey Pine series in Northern California.
Jimerson (1995) also describes shrubs invading
and occupying the space of herbaceous species.
Kagan (1989) speculated that Senecio hesperus
abundance declined at Cedar Log Flat RNA in the
absence of fire, as evidenced by extremely high
cover of native grass. Borgias and Beigel (1996)
observed that the dominant species of serpentine
savannas regenerated readily following wildfire,
however, the effect of fire on special status plants
of serpentine systems is uncertain (Jimerson 1995,
Borgias and Beigel 1996).
The presence of burned snags and fire-dependent
plant species indicate that fire is a natural process
that has historically contributed to the diversity of
plant species within the ACEC. The frequency of
fire has likely been greatly reduced due to fire
exclusion over the last 100 years. Current
wildfire risk, in terms of potential for ignition, is
categorized as high due to the level of human
activity and presence in and adjacent to the
ACEC. Current fuel hazard conditions (properties
of a fuel complex related to ignition susceptibility,
wildfire behavior and severity and suppression
difficulty) are moderate to high. Risk would be
expected to remain high. Gradual increase in risk
will occur as the surrounding area population
increases and use of the ACEC area increases.
Modification of the fire regime in ecosystems of
the Pacific Northwest, through prolonged fire
suppression, has tended to increase fuel loads and
continuity of fuels, resulting in more severe fire
effects (Agee 1993).
Successional Processes- Fire is the most important
disturbance mechanism on the upland portions of
the ACEC and the fire regime mediates
successional processes and pathways. Stands
ranging from knobcone pine over manzanita to
closed canopy Douglas-fir forests over dying
knobcone provide excellent on-site examples of
successional states, posing the question as to what
plant series these stands may be truly
representing. Successional states can also be
observed in the stands burned in the recent Indian
Hill Fire near the confluence of Rough and Ready
Creek and the West Fork Illinois River. Various
states of succession are also apparent in the
floodplains. Established clumps of shrubs and
forbs tend to capture new biological detritus in
flood events, which improves the soil moisture
holding capacity and nutrient cycling. Stands of
trees and shrubs are established on finer texture,
presumably older and deeper soils.
Evolutionary Processes - The known presence of
active interspecies hybridization, with possible
speciation occurring, is a notable feature of the
watershed. Genetic and evolutionary processes of
hybridization among pairs of Arctostaphylos
species and pairs of Ceanothus species have been
discovered in the vicinity (Nobs 1963, Gottleib,
1968, Chambers 1993).
Historic Human Uses: Before 1997 no formal
cultural resource surveys had been undertaken in
the Rough and Ready Creek watershed and no
sites had been documented. A formal survey is in
progress in the ACEC in section 18 south of
DraftRough andReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter 2 -Affected Environment page 19

Rough and Ready Creek and west of Highway
199. Prehistoric use of the site probably included
village sites and seasonal base camps on the lower
reaches of the creek. An isolated projectile point
has reportedly been found on lower Rough and
Ready Creek. The uplands were likely used on a
seasonal basis for hunting and gathering.
Campsites in the uplands wouic .ave been used
for short-term task-specific activities. There are
several old trails and possibly some old
homesteads in the area. Prehistoric historv of the
area is probably buned. Excavation, or movement
of material through other means, may unearth
remains (USFS i)93 and Winthrop 1993).
Euroamericans began settling in the Illinois River
valley in the earlv 1850's, following the discovery
of gold in the area, which brought an influx of
miners. Unlike manv of the other Illinois
tributaries, Rough and Readv did not contain
profitable placer deposits, so the floodplain was
never dredged or hydraulically mined with water
canons. During World War i. Federal
Government incentives encouraged mning for
strategic minerals such as chromite. This
prompted exploration throughout the Rough and
Ready drainage and a small amount of chrome
was mined.
Since the 1940's mineral deposits have been
prospected throughout the watershed. Nickel
exploration in the watershed began in the 1950's
A End work of exploration roads and back hoe
pits dot portions of the terrace within the ACEC
(USFS 1997).
Current Human Uses: Ti )llowing sections
desc.ne the types of resou. _.. use which are
currvntlv occurnng within uie ACEC.
Locateable Minerals - A vanetv of minerals have
been located in the West Fork of the Illinois River.
In the Rough and Ready Creek drainage, gold has
been located at the Alberg Mine on the ridge
above the North Fork of the Rough and Ready
Creek. chromium on the ndge above the South
Fork of Rough and Ready Creek and nickel in
widespread locations. including in the ACEC
(Ramp 1979). Current mining claims are listed in
Table 5. Location of mining claims in the ACEC
are shown in Figure 5. All of the claims are
placer claims and all surface management is
vested with the BLM. An application has been
filed bv one individu .i for patent on mining claims
within the watershe.. .otaling 4380 acres,
including about 720 acres within the ACEC (also
in Figure 5). A nickel grade of 0.45% was
determined for samples from the Rough and
Ready outwash dep- nis. This grade is about half
as rich as the best grades in the watershed (Ramp
1978).
A Plan of Operations for continued mineral
development within the watershed has been
submitted to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
Mining on the ACEC has not been proposed at
this tine. however, the plan proposes storing
laterite ore in a large area on the ACEC. The
USFS is preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement to address this Plan.
Reserved Mineral Estate - The lands originally
patented to Josephine County for the Illinois
Vallev Airport were deeded in surface and timber
onlv. The minerals remain owned and
administered bv the United States.
Salable Mineral Materials - The State of Oregon
has two 20 acre mineral material sites contiguous
to the State of Oregon Rough and Ready
Botanical Wavside in section 18. One was
authorized in 1932. the other in 1959. These prior
nghts involve rock extraction and stockpiling for
the construction and maintenance of Highway
199. These permits do not expire.
Water Diversions - The total water allocation of
water Nithdrawn from Rough and Ready Creek
upstream from the ACEC is approximately 8.9
CFS. Several of the rights have limitations on the
availability of water. which suggests that the total
allocation mav not be met during high demand or
low flows.
DraftRough and ReadvACEC ManagementPlan/EA: Chaprer2-Affected Environment page20

Table 5. Mining claims within the Rough and Ready ACEC.
Oregon Mining
Section Claim Name Claimant Claim Number
7 Extension Assoc.#1-5 Walt Freeman 20633-37
Wendy Mac Assoc. # 1 Walt Freeman 20653
17 Omega Assoc. #1-3 Ruth Webb 20639-41
18 Rough and Ready Assoc. Walt Freeman 20627-30
# 1-4
Nita Marie Assoc. # 1-2 Walt Freeman 20631-32
Omega Assoc. #4-5 Ruth Webb 20642-43
19 August Assoc. Walt Freeman 20638
The water from Rough and Ready Creek has
historically been diverted for domestic use,
irrigation and as a water source for the Rough and
Ready Lumber Company mill pond. The earliest
water rights date to 1899 with water transferred in
the "Wing and Ferren Ditch." An additional
point of diversion is located on Parker Creek
which flows into Rough and Ready Creek at Seats
Dam. Seats Dam is the lowest point of diversion
on Rough and Ready Creek and diverts 1.5 cubic
feet per second (CFS) to store 108 acre feet of
water in mill ponds at the Rough and Ready
sawmill. This diversion ditch with an associated
access road crosses the ACEC and is maintained
by Rough and Ready Lumber Company. There
are five recorded points of diversion located in
section 13 and 14, upstream of the ACEC. These
other diversions provide 7.4 CFS allocated for
irrigating 277.5 acres and domestic water supply
for one residence.
Open Space - The ACEC provides open space and
a scenic natural area with unusual character in the
Illinois Vallev basin. The entire ACEC is in
Visual Resource Management Class III.
Objectives for VRM Class III are: "to partially
retain the existing character of the landscape. The
level of change to the characteristic landscape
should be moderate. Management activities may
attract attention but should not dominate the view
of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the
basic elements found in the predominant natural
features of the characteristic landscape" (BLM
Manual Handbook 8431-1, 1986). The Josephine
County Comprehensive Plan states that the Board
of Commissioners shall support the identification
of significant natural areas and shall implement
measures to evaluate the importance of preserving
such sites (Josephine County Board of
Commissioners, No Date).
Although the stretch of Rough and Ready Creek
on BLM land (1.5 miles) was found to be
ineligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic
Rivers System (BLM RMP 1995), the USFS will
eventually evaluate the suitability of the upstream
reaches for inclusion.
Recreation - A Recreational Opportunity
Spectrum (ROS) analysis was completed to
provide a standardized characterization of the
existing recreation setting for the Rough and
Ready ACEC under the three alternatives. The
recreation character for the ACEC includes
locations classed as Semi-Primitive Motorized
(SPM), Roaded Natural and Rural. There are no
Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized
settings, due to the density of open roads which
Draft Rough andReadyACECManagementPlanIEA: Chapter 2 -Affected Environment page 21

leaves no setting further than l/2 mile from a road
influence. A description of the ROS analysis can
be found in Appendix E. See Figure 6 for the
locations of specific categories, which follow:
Semi Primitive Motorized (SPM): 85
acre. These areas may have non-maintained roads
and trails, but are otherwise roadless and receive
little use. These areas are generally located on the
outer edges of the ACEC in the uplands and more
forested areas.
Roaded Natural (RN): 828 acres. This
class comprises the majority of the ACEC and
includes roads which are used intermittently and
the lands surrounding them. The West Fork
Illinois River and Rough and Ready Creek also
fall into this category.
Rural (R): 275 acres. These areas are the
most heavily used, including corridors along the
major road systems through the ACEC. These
include Highway 199, the road on the east side,
north of the creek (E) and the road west and south
of the creek (I).
The majority of the recreational use occurs along
roads and trails within the ACEC. The roads are
all natural surfaced, with the exception of
Highway 199, which is a paved 2 to 4 lane route
that bisects the ACEC. Camping on the ACEC
occurs mainlv where roads access the river or
creek. Camping also occurs along the northwest
road (B) into the ACEC, where it overlooks the
creek. Day use includes botanmzing, horseback
riding, mountain biking, hiking, driving (OHVs as
well as 2WD vehicles on roads), fishing, target
shooting and nature study.
Rights-of-Wav - Three power line rights-of-way
cross the ACEC. The first of the rights- of-way is
along Highway 199, a second lies near the
northwestern border of the ACEC and the third
stretches between Highway 199 and the previous
set near the northwestern border south of the
airport. There is one phone line right-of-way to a
residence. The State of Oregon holds a right of
way for Highway 199 on a portion of the BLM
lands. Maintenance of the power line access roads
and clearing of interfering vegetation are
anticipated to occur regularly.
Recreation & Public Purpose Patent (R&PP) -
The State of Oregon patented 30 acres under the
R&PP Act for a State Park-Botanical Wayside
which was issued March 8, 1962. A clause in the
patent would revert the land to the BLM if
management is found inconsistent with the
designated use.
Airport - In 1987 the Josephine County Airport in
the Illinois Valley was designated following
conveyance of the lands from the Forest Service,
through the BLM, to the County. The surface and
timber was conveyed, but the minerals remained
reserved to the United States. Josephine County
has applied for patent to an additional 70 acres of
BLM land in section 7 within the ACEC. The
application was made under the federal airport
patenting procedures to allow for airport
expansion adjacent to the existing facilities.
Timber Resources - Very little logging has
occurred in the Rough and Ready Creek watershed
except in some of the upper headwaters of the
South Fork of Rough and Ready Creek. The only
timber harvest before ACEC designation was a
salvage harvest (27 acres) associated with the
Indian Hill fire in section 17. The ACEC was
closed to timber harvest in the RMP (1995).
Special Forest Products - Little is known about
the collection of special forest products in the
ACEC. Illegal bough cutting of Port-Orford Cedar
has been noted. The ACEC was closed to the
collection of special forest products in the RMP
(1995).
DraftRoughandReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter2-AffectedEnvironment page22

Chapter 3 - Description of
Alternatives
General Description of Alternatives
Three alternatives for the management of the
Rough and Ready Creek ACEC were developed
with input from a multidisciplinary team of BLM
natural resource specialists and comments
provided by the public. Actions under all
alternatives are consistent with all applicable
federal laws and the Medford District RMP.
Alternative A - No Action
Alternative B - Resource Conservation
Alternative C - Resource Conservation/ Public
Use Emphasis
Actions Common to All Alternatives
Locateable Mineral Activities:
In accordance with BLM policy 3809.14(A)(3) for
lands designated as ACECs, a Plan of Operation
would be required prior to surface disturbing
activities for all mining operations with the
ACEC, including those under five acres. The Plan
of Operations would prescribe "measures to
prevent unnecessary or undue degradation and
measures to reclaim disturbed areas" and would
be subject to BLM surface management
regulations. An Environmental Assessment (EA)
or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
would be prepared to review the proposal. The
plan cannot be approved until the authorized
officer has complied with section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and section 7
of the Endangered Species Act. Operators might
also be subject to specific stipulations to protect
or restore ACEC values. This includes all mining
activities authorized by the General Mining Laws.
The Medford District RMP/ROD provides
management direction for locateable minerals
mining in ACECs:
'Mining operations will be allowed in
designated ACECs but only in a manner that
would not impair or degrade those significant
resource values that lead to (ACEC)
designation. A plan of operations will not be
approved if operation would irreparably damage
those resource values for which the ACEC was
designated. "
Regulations effective March 1997 require all
mining activities to be bonded. All activities with
a surface disturbance of one acre, or 5000 cubic
yards, would require bonding and permitting by
the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries (DOGAMI). All operations below the
DOGAMI threshold would require bonding by the
BLM.
Regulations effective August 15, 1996 outline
BLM management of the occupancy and use of
unpatented mining claims. The regulations
require all operators desiring to occupy and use
mining claims to file a plan of operations for
activities within the ACEC, including the
justification for occupancy. Occupancy needs
would be analyzed along with the mining plans to
determine if they are reasonably incidental to
mining. No occupancy or use of the mining
claims would occur without written approval from
the BLM. Existing occupancies would also be
reviewed to determine if the occupancy is
reasonably incidental to mining.
Threatened or endangered species listed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
Marine Fisheries Service potentially impacted by
mining activities would be protected under the
Endangered Species Act. The operator would be
responsible for consulting with these agencies.
Management for Special Status and Survey
and Manage Species (Plants and Animals):
Management for Special Status species and
Survey and Manage species would be consistent
with BLM policy (6840.06), the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (as amended), the Northwest
Forest Plan (1994) and approved recovery or
conservation strategy plans, and follow the
direction of the Medford District RMP (1995).
Draft Rough and Ready ACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 23

Fire Management: The Draft Rough and Ready
ACEC Fire Management Plan (Appendix C)
would be adopted for all alternatives, however, the
amount and general purpose of the prescribed
burning would change with each alternative
Wildfire suppression standards and guidelines
would be the same for all alternatives. The use
prescribed natural fire (i.e. fires caused by
lightning strikes) would not occur during the span
of the management plan.
Dumping: Dumping regulations would be
enforced and current dump sites would be cleaned
up. Attempts would be made to prosecute
violators where possible. Existing and new dumps
would be checked for hazardous materials before
cleanup. Public clean-ups would be organized
depending on interest and funding.
Special Forest Products: The ACEC would
remain closed to special products gathering as
directed in the Medford District RMP (1995).
Timber Harvest: The ACEC would remain
unavailable for timber harvest as directed in the
Medford District RMP (1995).
Noxious Weeds: The presence of noxious weeds
would be determined through inventories.
Planning for the control of noxious weeds would
be tiered to the Medford District Noxious Weed
Environmental Assessment. Integrated Pest
Management methods would be used.
State Park Botanical Wayside: Oregon State
Parks plans to install a gate (#2 in Figure 6) at the
Botanical Wayside. which would prevent motor
vehicle access to the ACEC through the Wayside
(on road B, Figure 6). In cooperation with the
State and other interested agencies, the BLM
plans to construct an interpretive panel and trail
on the ACEC. A 0.3 mile trail would be
developed in the northeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of section 18 along the existing road to an
overlook along the creek. The trail would begin
on state parks land and continue onto BLM land
for 0.2 miles. The trail would be handicap
accessible from the junction of the existing road to
the overlook. The trail would be natural surface
and constructed by hand. A parking area and gate
would be placed on state land along with a fence
to limit vehicular access around the gate.
Interpretive panels will be placed at the parking
area and the overlook. Access through the gate
will be made available for motor vehicle access for
the handicapped and the elderly.
Land Use Authorizations: The three existing
power line rights-of-way, the irrigation ditch road
and phone line a private residence would remain
open for maintenance to those with authorized
access.
Land Use Adjustments: The BLM would review
anv offer of sale or exchange of lands adjacent to
the ACEC. Acquisition of such lands might be
pursued if lands are determined to enhance ACEC
values.
Open Space: Al .zmatives would comply with
the Visual Resource Management III objectives.
Comparison of Alternatives
Table 6 provides a comparison of the three
alternatives by management actions.
Alternative A - No Action
Objective: The No Action Alternative (Figure 6)
would continue the current management which is
primarily very limited in direction. This area was
designated an ACEC under the ROD for the
Medford District RMP (1995). The only
management directions given in the ROD were to
maintain and protect ACEC values. The ROD
recommended site-specific management plans for
areas such as this ACEC.
Alternative A would continue limited management
of the ACEC as designated in the RMP without
any site-specific management plan. While ACEC
values would be protected, no actions to enhance
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 24

Table 6. Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative for the Rough and Ready ACEC.
Management Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Action
(No Action)
1. Locateable Plan of Operations for all Plan of Operations for all Same as B.
minerals mining activities. Dredging mining activities (same as Alt.
allowed.
A.) Withdrawal from future
mining claims, including
dredging. No new permanent
structures and residences
allowed on the ACEC.
2. Mineral dredging Dredging allowed. Dredging prohibited. Same as B.
3. Recreational Recreational mining Recreational mining Same as B.
mining allowed. prohibited.
4. Salable minerals Open to extraction of New requests for the purchase Same as B.
saleable mineral materials. of saleable minerals denied.
Pursue revoking State
pernmts.
5. Motorized Open to motorized Closed (except for authorized Closed (except for
vehicles vehicles on existing roads use) to motorized vehicles authorized use) to motorized
(Figure 5). except Roads I and G (Figure vehicles except on roads E,
6). I and G (Figure 7).
6. Camping Dispersed camping, both Closed to motorized access Motorized access camping
motorized and camping. Dispersed backpack along open roads, backpack
backpacking allowed. camping allowed. No camping allowed. No
Campfires allowed. campfires. campfires.
7. Education and No additional Additional Education/ Additional Education/
interpretation interpretation signs or interpretation signs and trails interpretation signs and trails
trails developed. developed. developed. Picnic area and
pit toilets developed.
8. Group Use Group size and access Registration box(s) at popular Same as B.
unrestricted.
access points. Large Groups
ospecially encouraged to stay
on roads and trails.
9. Non-motonzed Horses and other pack Horses and other pack Same as B.
access animals, bikes, carts and animals, bikes, carts and other
other non-motorized non-motonzed modes of
modes of transportation transportation restricted to
allowed.
existing roads.
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 25

Table 6 (continued). Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative for the Rough and Ready
ACEC.
Management Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Action
(No Action)
10. Discharge of Discharge of firearms No discharge of firearms. Same as B.
firearms allowed. Safetv zone established.
11. Parking Parking at State Botanical Same as A, with additional Same as B, with
Wayside improved in parking improvements on east development of picnic area
conjunction with State side of Highway 199. and toilets at east side
installed gate and
parking area.
interpretive trail.
12. Inventories Surveys only in response Proactive surveys to Same as 13.
to development projects. determine the presence,
distribution and abundance of
existing species, natural
processes, and cultural
resources.
13. Monitoring Monitorng of Lomanum Expanded and intensified Same as B.
cookl
monitoring for high ranked
biotic elements, natural
processes and abiotic factors.
14. Fire Emphasis on fire Additional emphasis on Same as B, with less habitat
Management Plan suppression and hazard prescribed burns to enhance enhancement and more
fuels reduction near special status plant habitat. hazard fuels reduction along
boundaries and along
open roads.
roads
15. Special Use Open for apiary use. Closed to apiary use. Same as B.
Apiary Permit
16. Illinois Vallev If pending mineral patent Same as A. Sarne as A
Airport Expansion application not awarded,
process airport's
application to expand into
the ACEC to determine
w hether to issue a deed
17. Water Resources Withdrawals continue If possible, pursue strategies Same as B.
Management
with cooperating private
users/land owners to reduce
water withdrawal from Rough
and Readv Creek-, convering
to in stream water nights
18. EcolocLcal No restoration. Pnontv sites would be Same as B.
restorauon
restored usung site specific
plant materials
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 26

Table 6 (continued). Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative for the Rough and Ready
ACEC.
Management Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Action
(No Action)
19. Open Space Adhere to BLM guidelines Work proactively with Same as B.
regarding Visual
community on open space and
Management objectives. visual resources protection.
20. Rights of way Allocation of lands to Proposals for new rights of Same as B.
existing rights of way way potentially denied (on a
continue. With the
case-by-case determination).
exception of buried line Proposals to modify existing
and existing rights of way, rights of way evaluated and
avoid locating new rights designed to minimize impacts
of ways. Rights of way on vegetation.
may be granted in
avoidance areas when no
feasible alternative.
21. Collecting Open to collection of rocks Closed to collection of rocks Same as B.
and other natural features. and other natural features,
except for educational
purposes under permit.
22. Hazard Tree Hazard tree removal will Minimize removal or cutting Same as B.
Removal follow BLM Manual. of hazard trees. Logs left in
place.
these values or any additional
interpretive/educational developments would be
proposed under this alternative. Recreation and
public use would remain unconstrained.
Management Actions Under Alternative
A (No Action or Current Limited
Management)
The following actions are currently occurring or
are permitted to occur in the ACEC.
Action A-1: Locateable Minerals Management
- See "Actions Common to All Alternatives" for
regulations regarding mineral related activities.
Under Alternative A, the entire ACEC is open to
location of muining claims under the General
Mining Laws.
Operations that may occur include the excavation
of material by heavy equipment, the processing
of material within the ACEC using a trommel
system with settling ponds, the construction of
other processing facilities such as a mill or
smelter, the construction of haul roads or the
stockpiling of material for transport elsewhere.
Associated uses that may be related to mining
includes the construction and use of shops,
storage facilities, residential facilities (both
temporary and permanent), parking areas, etc.
There may also be a need for signing or gates for
safety reasons.
Action A-2: Mineral Dredging - The ACEC is
open to mechanized dredging for gold in
waterways outside of an established mining claim.
Mechanized dredges are gasoline/diesel powered
engines that run a suction hose to remove material
DraftRough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter3-Description ofAlternatives page27

from the stream bottoms to a sluice box.
Action A-3: Recreational Mining - The ACEC
is open to casual use activities under mining law,
such as gold panning within watercourses. No
digging or scraping above water would be
allowed. Casual use mining includes nonmechanized
panning and/or the use of a non -
mechanized sluice box. Using this type of sluice
box system may require hand shovelling material
into it.
Action A4: Salable Mineral Management -
Requests for saleable minerals such as sand,
gravel, decorative rock, etc. are reviewed on a case
by case basis and granted discretionary permits.
The area remains open to the sale and extraction
of mineral materials, including the existing permit
held by the State of Oregon for use of gravel for
maintenance of Highway 199.
Action A-5: Motorized Vehicles - The ACEC is
open to motorized vehicles on existing roads
(Figure 6).
Action A-6: Camping - Dispersed camping,
including motorized is allowed throughout the
ACEC.
Action A-7: Education/Interpretation - No
education/interpretation trails or signs occur
within the ACEC. Those installed in conjunction
with the State plans to build a gate on the west
side of Highway 199 will occur in the future. See
"Actions Common to All Alternatives."
Action A-8: Group Use - Group size is not
restricted.
Action A-9: Non-Motorized Access - Horses
and other pack anirn..._. bikes, carts and other
non-motorized modes of transportation are
allowed throughout the ACEC.
Action A-10: Discharge of Firearms -Discharge
of firearms, including target shooting, is allowed
within the ACEC.
Action A-1i: Parking - The historically used
parking areas on the east and west side of
Highway 199 on the State Botanical Wayside are
available for parking. There would be no
improvement of parking areas, except in
conjunction with the State installed gate on the
west side of the highway.
Action A-12: Inventories - Vegetation, wildlife,
fisheries and cultural resources are only surveyed
in conjunction with ground disturbing
projects/proposals.
Action A-13: Monitoring - Monitoring plans
could be developed following the direction
outlined in the RMP. The ongoing monitoring of
Lomanum cookzi populations conducted by the
Oregon Department of Agriculture under a
challenge cost share project will continue
indefinitely.
Action A-14: Fire Management Plan - Fire
management will focus on suppression with
limited prescribed burning along boundaries.
Action A-15: Special Use Apiary permit - The
ACEC is open to apiary use and the existing
permit would remain in effect.
Action A-16: Illinois Valley Airport - The
airport's application to expand into Section 7 of
the ACEC is on hold due to the pending mineral
patent application. If the patent is not awarded,
the BLM would process the airport's application
to determine whether to issue a deed.
Action A-17: Water Resources Management
Waterflows in the stretch of Rough and Ready
Creek will remain as currently allocated.
Action A-18: Ecological Restoration- Closed
roads and other ground disturbances caused by
mining would not be reclaimed unless specified
within approved Plans of Operation.
Action A-19: Open Space - Visual resource
management objectives will be met according to
BLM policy.
Draft Rough and ReadyACECManagement Plan/EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAiternatives page 28

Action A-20: Rights-of-Way - Allocation of
lands to within existing rights of way corridors
would continue. Rights-of-way may be granted in
avoidance areas when no feasible alternate route
or designated rights of way corridor is available
(BLM 1995).
Action A-21: Collecting: The ACEC is open to
collection of rocks and other natural features.
Action A-22: Hazard Tree Removal - Any
hazard tree removal activity would follow BLM
policy (Manual 8365).
Alternative B - Resource Conservation
Objective - Alternative B (Figure 7) would better
protect, conserve, and enhance designated ACEC
values by reducing impacts to these values
through site-specific management guidelines.
This would be done by limiting the activities
allowed on the ACEC that impact values and by
taking other actions to enhance these values.
Management Actions Proposed for
Alternative B
Action B-1: Locateable Minerals Management
- See "Actions Common to All Alternatives" for
regulations on mineral related activities.
Withdrawal from location of claims under the
General Mining Laws would be pursued. This
action would only prevent future claims from
being filed on the ACEC. It would not prevent
current mining claims from being mined. No new
permanent structures and residences would be
allowed on the ACEC. Occupancy and use must
comply with mining claim use and occupancy
regulations.
Rationale -Mineral withdrawal of ACEC lands
would provide additional protection for designated
ACEC values.
Action B-2: Mineral Dredging - Mechanized
dredging for gold would be prohibited in
waterways outside of existing claims.
Rationale - This action would reduce the potential
area of stream bed that might be disturbed.
Action B-3: Recreational Mining - The ACEC
would be closed to casual use activities such as
gold panning within watercourses, outside of an
established mineral claim.
Rationale - Disturbance of the stream during low
flow periods is not compatible with protection of
the fluvial processes and biota of the stream.
Action B4: Salable Mineral Management -
Requests for the purchase of salable minerals
would be denied. These permits are discretionary
which allows the BLM to deny a new permit
request, to determine the location for a permitted
operation to minimize the impacts and to renegotiate
existing permits. The State would be
asked to relinquish their existing permits.
Rationale -The excavation of mineral materials is
not compatible with designated ACEC values.
Action B-5: Motorized Vehicles - The ACEC
would be closed to motorized vehicles (Figure 7)
with the exception of Roads I and G. Road B will
be gated and only accessible by motor vehicle to
the handicapped and elderly for educational
purposes. Roads where access is essential (Rough
and Ready ditch and power line roads) would be
gated and open to use only by authorized persons.
Fencing would be installed where needed to
discourage vehicles from going around gates and
berms. Efforts would be coordinated with the
State. Increased law enforcement presence in the
early stages of this action might be necessary.
Efforts would be made to contact other land use
managers to find effective ways to encourage
motorized vehicles to stay on designated roads.
Rationale - Limiting motor vehicle access would
reduce impacts of motor vehicles and associated
activities on designated ACEC values and help
prevent the introduction of Phytophthora
laterals.
Draft Rough andReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter 3-Description ofAkernatives page 29

Action B-6: Camping - The ACEC would be
closed to motonzed vehicle camping. Dispersed
walk-in (backpacking) camping would be allowed.
Camping would not be allowed in parking areas.
No campfires would be permitted.
Rationale - Limiting camping reduces
concentrated impacts to vegetation and reduces
littering.
Action B-7: Education/Interpretation -
Education/interpretation signs and trails would be
developed within the ACEC in cooperation with
interested agencies. The trali would be limited to
existing roads and no new trail construction would
be planned unless required to reduce unforeseen
impacts of visitor use. Interpretive entry signs
with felines will be placed on both sides of
Highway 199. Rare plants would be avoided in
the development of any trails and interpretive
areas. The interpretive message would focus on
the unique features of the area and minimal impact
techniques for use of the ACEC. A cooperative
stewardship program with local interested parties
would be pursued.
Rationale- Interpretive signs would promote
understanding of the ecological value of the area
and encourage the public to protect designated
ACEC values. Interpretive signing and other
forms of - reach to explain road closures would
be necek :to convince users that closures
benefit the values of the ACEC and the public's
experience of it.
Action B-8: Group Use - Groups would be
ern'ourae, to contact the BLM for information on
ap-ropnri use. This information would also be
available the traitheads. The amount of use
(day use c erruaht) would be monitored
through registration boxes set up at the parking
areas.
Rationale - Larger groups have a greater potential
of trampling vegetation. causing erosion and
disturbing wildlife. Such disturbances could
impact designated ACEC values. Action B-8
would help guide and monitor the level of use to
determine if impacts are occurring and if other
actions to protect ACEC values would be needed.
Action B-9: Non-Motorized Access - Horses and
other pacl: animals, bikes, carts and other nonmotoriz
2 : modes of transportation would only be
allowed on existing roads throughout the ACEC.
Hikers would be strongly encouraged to stay on
roads and trails as well, so not to adversely impact
vegetation and soils.
Rationale - Off-road use of these non-motorized
forms of access can impact vegetation, cause
erosion and disturb wildlife. If it is determined
that exotic plant species are being introduced into
the ACEC in pack animal manure, pack animals
mav be restricted in the ACEC.
Action B-10: Discharge of Firearms -Discharge
of firearms would not be allowed within the
ACEC. The ACEC would be designatec s a
firearm discharge safety ne.
Rationale - Discharge of firearms is not
compatible with other uses of the ACEC. Many
people visiting the ACEC walk within the area
where target shooting has commonly occurred and
are exposed to unnecessary hazards.
Action B-1i1: Parking - In coordination with
State Parks, parking areas would be more defined
on the east and west side of Highway 199.
Rationale - This would accommodate visitors and
prevent an increase in the area of vegetation and
soils impacted by parking.
Action B-12: Inventories - Additional
inventories and survevs bev- -id those related to
ground disturbing projects Nwould be conducted to
determine the presence. distribution and
abundance of special status species and
recognized ACEC values. The following
inventories should be completed: -.ascular plant
species. non-vascular species, wildlife and
fisheries. vegetation communities. Port-Orford
Cedar survev and risk assessment. wetlands.
active channels and floodplains. stream habitat,
Draft Rough and ReadvACEC Management Plan'EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 30

fire history, baseline water quality and cultural
resources.
Rationale - The richness, abundance, distribution
and habitat requirements of species inhabiting the
ACEC, including special status species, is
relatively unknown. A number of the plant
communities present within the ACEC may be
unique to the area and have not been described.
Other ACEC values could be discovered and
sufficiently defined.
Action B-13: Monitoring - Ecological status
monitoring would be designed and implemented
for Special Status species, the habitats or
communities in which they occur and key abiotic
features and processes (fluvial processes and
channel development, for example). Quantitative
management objectives would be developed for
each element. Conceptual models would be
described in monitoring plans to elucidate
management concerns. Monitoring strategies
would be intensified for any ecological features
that showed declining trends or if threats to the
features increased. Effectiveness monitoring
would be designed with regularly scheduled visits
to ensure the ACEC values, including cultural
sites and artifacts, are adequately protected and
that uses comply with the closures and
restrictions. Designated ACEC values within the
vicinity of interpretive areas (trails, information
displays) will be monitored to determine effects of
visitor use.
Rationale - Monitoring is essential to determine
management needs and to track management
success.
Action B-14: Fire Management Plan - See
"Actions Common to All Alternatives."
Prescribed burns would be used to enhance ACEC
values. Prescriptions would identify specific burn
conditions and guidelines that would achieve the
desired objectives. Burn prescriptions would, at
minimum, include identifying potential impacts to
resource values, monitoring fire effects on
vegetation, mitigating measures to reduce adverse
impacts, a contingency plan to minimize impacts
in unforeseen circumstances, a monitoring plan to
maintain quality control over the project and a
rehabilitation plan identifying site restoration.
Rationale - Natural processes, including fire, are a
designated value of the ACEC. Many of the plant
species and communities in the ACEC appear to
be fire adapted. The occurrence of fire in the
ACEC might enhance plant populations and
communities by stimulating growth or
reproduction and by improving habitat by
eliminating the encroachment of later successional
species.
Action B-15: Special Use Apiary permit - The
ACEC would not be open to apiary use. The
existing special use permit for the apiary expires
on December 31, 1999 and would not be renewed.
Rationale - The apiary could be disturbing the
natural ecological processes for which the ACEC
was designated. Further discussed in
"Environmental Consequences."
Action B-16: Illinois Valley Airport - The
airport's application to expand the runway into
Section 7 of the ACEC is on hold due to a pending
mineral patent application.
Rationale - Expansion of the airport runway in to
the ACEC could conflict with designated ACEC
values and could cut across the interpretive trail.
Action B-17: Water Resources Management
The BLM would work with the Oregon Division
of Water Resources and interested, willing
landowners who have water rights upstream from
the ACEC to find cooperative and fair market
means to convert water withdrawals from Rough
and Ready Creek during critical low flow periods
to in-stream allocations.
Rationale - Maintenance of an ecologically
determined minimum stream flow during the low
flow portion of the hydrograph may be critical to
the health of Rough and Ready Creek and its
inhabitants.
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 31

Action B-18: Ecological Restoration -
Permanentlv closed roads, mineral exploration pits
and other ground disturbances would be evaluated
for restoration with native plant species. Priority
sites would be restored using site specificr plant
materials.
Rationale - Native seeding may speed up tne
restoration process, especially in areas susceptible
to erosion.
Action B-19: Open Space - The BLM will work
proactively within any community planning
processes in the vicinity of the ACEC to conserve
open space and scenic vistas. Visual resource
management objectives will be met as per BLM
policy.
Rationale - In order to protect the unique open
habitat and vistas of this area. the BLM must
work with their neighbors during planning
processes.
Action B-20: Rights-of-Way - Proposals for new
rights-of-wav outside of existing right-of-way
corridors would be denied. Proposals to modify or
widen existing rights-of-way would be evaluated
and designed to minimize impacts on ACEC
values.
Rationale - Limiting inghts-of-way activities will
reduce concentrated impacts to vegetation.
Action B-21: Collecting - The ACEC would be
closed to collection of rocks. plants and other
natural features. except for educational purposes
under permit.
Rationale - Limiting collecting activities would
reduce direct impacts to plant communities and
special status plants.
Action B-22: Hazard Tree Removal -The BLM
would minimize removal or cutting of hazard trees
bv careful location of new trails or temporary
rerouting of existmig trails. Any falling of hazard
trees will be done in such a way as to minimize
disturbance. Anv downed wood created would be
left in place to provide habitat and/or soil
enhancement and/or add to any coarse woody
debris deficiencies (Northwest Forest Plan 1994).
Rationale - Hazard tree removal may be necessarv
along roa :, and trails for safety purposes (BLM
Manual 8365). Coarse woody debris
requirements follow the Northwest Forest Plan
ROD 1994.
Alternative C - Resource Conservation/
Public Use Emphasis
Objective: Alternative C (Figure 8) would allow
for more recreation opportunities within the
ACEC while still protecting, conserving and
enhancing ACEC values through site-specific
management. Recreational actions would be
designed to minimize impacts to designated
ACEC values.
Management Actions Proposed for
Alternative C
Action C-1: Locateable Minerals Management
- Action the same as B- 1.
Action C-2: Mineral Dredging - Action the same
as B-2.
Action C-3: Recreational Mining - Action the
same at B-3
Action C-4: Salable Mineral Management -
Action the same as B-4
Action C-5: Motorized Vehicles - The ACEC
would be closed to motorized vehicles on the
following roads (Figure 8): Road A, B, C, D, F, H.
J. Road B will be gated and only accessible by
motor vehicle to the handicapped and elderly for
educational purposes. Roads E, G and I would be
open to motorized traffic. Road E would be
closed during the wet season to protect the area.
Fencing would be installed where needed to
discourage vehicles from going around gates and
berms. Roads A and H (transmission line roads)
Draft Rough and ReadvACEC Management PlanzEA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 32

and the Rough and Ready ditch road would be
gated and open to authorized persons. Efforts to
enforce road closures would be the same as Action
B-5.
Rationale - Increased vehicle access in the ACEC
would allow for ease of use while still protecting
some sensitive areas from motor vehicle impacts.
Action C-6: Camping - Dispersed motorized
vehicle camping at existing roadside primitive
sites would be allowed along open roads. Vehicles
would be restricted to roads or established
pullouts. If camping is found to impact ACEC
values in the future, camping would be limited to
designated areas or prohibited. Dispersed
backpacking camping would be allowed
throughout the ACEC. Camping would not be
allowed in parking areas. No campfires would be
allowed.
Rationale - Dispersed motorized vehicle camping
confined to the roadsides and designated pullouts
would limit the potential area impacted by
vehicles. Vehicle camping use has been
historically light.
Action C-7: Education/Interpretation - Same as
Action B-7.
Action C-8: Group Use - Same as Action B-8.
Action C-12: Inventories - Same as Action B-
12.
Action C-13: Monitoring - Same as Action B-
13.
Action C-14: Fire Management Plan - Same as
Action B-14.
Action C-15: Special Use Apiary permit - Same
as Action B-15.
Action C-16: Illinois Valley Airport - Same as
Action B-16.
Action C-17: Water Resource Management -
Same as Action B-17.
Action C-18: Restoration - Same as Action B-
18.
Action C-19: Open/Scenic Space - Same as
Action B- 19.
Action C-20: Rights of Way - Same as Action
B-20.
Action C-21: Collecting - Same as Action B-21.
Action C-22: Hazard Tree Removal - Same as
Action B-22.
Action C-9: Non-Motorized Access - Same as
Action B-9.
Action C-10: Discharge of Fire Arms - Same as
Action B-10.
Action C-1l1: Parking - In addition to the parking
improvements in Action B- 1 1, the BLM would
work with State Parks to develop a picnic area and
vault toilets in the parking area on State Park land
on the east side of Highway 199.
Rationale - A picnic area and vault toilets would
concentrate impacts, provide better sanitation and
reduce littering.
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Planl/EA: Chapter 3- Description ofAlternatives page 33

Chapter 4 - Environmental
Consequences
This section discusses the effects of each of the
alternatives on natural resources and land use
activities. Table 7 summarizes these effects bv
ACEC value.
Effects on Vegetation
Effects Common to All Alternatives
Mining and associated operations (these activities
are described in Chapter 3, Action A, pages 28-
29) would have a wide range of adverse effects on
the biotic integrity of the ACEC. These include
effects on various aspects of the life history of rare
species including their reproduction, growth,
metabolic activity and survival, affecting their
population biology and distribution. Clearing
habitat would immediately affect populations,
interrupting gene flow between populations or
hybrids, possibly interfering with speciation
processes. Loss of breeding sites for insect
pollinators responsible for pollinating rare plants.
habitat fragmentation and reduction in habitat
quality might have indirect effects on known
sensitive plants. Fragmentation of woodland,
savanna, chaparral, and serpentine barren
communities would interfere with their natural
processes and reduce connectivity. Springs and
seeps would be affected by altered drainage
patterns or where subsurface inputs are
interrupted. Upland areas would be affected where
water run-off from roads and other areas of
operation occurs. Dust would be deposited on
plants in areas surrounding operations and haul
roads which could affect photosynthesis.
The effects of mining activities on special status
plant populations could vary depending on the
amount of land that gets mined in the future.
Those narrow endemic species with known
populations existing only in a few watersheds
could be highly affected and possibly threatened
with extirpation if a large amount of habitat gets
mined. If mining activities remain on a small
amount of acreage, then these species as a whole
may still survive, if adequate numbers of
populations are known in the watershed or
surrounding watersheds. It is impossible to
determine such effects for certain, though, because
little of the watershed or nearby water -ieds have
been systematically surveyed for speci..i status
plant species.
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on
Vegetation
This alternative would have the most effects on
vegetation, especially special status plants,
because it does not consider withdrawal of future
mining claims. A greater area of the ACEC could
potentially be disturbed by mining and its related
activities. The greater the area disturbed, the more
likely that special status species and their habitats
would be disturbed. Since most of these special
status species are endemic with very small ranges,
such disturbance, if it began occurring on a large
scale, could decrease the viability (i.e. the ability
to continue to exist) of these species.
Mining of locateable minerals, extraction of
salable minerals and vehicle use would increase
the potential for importation of Phytophthora
lateralis. Mineral extraction related activity as
currently planned (USFS 1997) has the most
potential for Phytophthora introduction as it
proposes a number of stream fords for vehicles.
Alternative A would allow the greatest amount of
vehicle access by keeping all roads open, except
for road B. For this reason, Alternative A allows
for the highest potential for ground disturbance
from vehicles pulling off the roads. Vehicle
operators tend to drive around perceived obstacles
in the road (potholes. cobbles, etc.) and disturb the
surrounding vegetation. More motor vehicle
access also allows for greater numbers of visitors
and congregation which could have an effect on
special status plant habitat located in the interior
of the ACEC. Alternative A could also create the
highest potential of noxious weed introduction
from motorized vehicles bringing in seed.
Concentrated impacts on vegetation from long
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management PlanIEA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 34

Table 7. Comparison of Effects to ACEC Values by Alternatives
Using Levels of Risk
Alternative Effects on Sp. Effects on Effects on Effects on
Status Plants Wildlife/Fish Natural Process Hydro. Process
No Action High due to more High due to more High due to fire High due to more
potential mining, potential mining, suppression potential mining,
more road/off road more road/off road water diversions
use, higher fire use, higher fire
danger
danger
Alt. B - Resource Low due to road Low due to road Low due to Low due to road
Conservation closures hence less closures hence less potentially less closures hence less
off road concerns, off road concerns, mining, most off road/sediment
potentially less potentially less amount of concerns,potentially
mining, most mining, most prescribed burning less mining
amount of
amount of
prescribed burning. prescribed burning.
Medium due to Medium due to
possible vandalism possible vandalism
around gates/berms around gates/berms
Alt. C - Resource Medium due to some Medium due to Medium due to Medium due to
Conservation/Public reduction in open reduction m open reduction in open reduction in open
Use Emphasis roads, potentially roads, potentially roads, potentially roads, potentially
less mining, some less mining, some less mining, some less mining.
prescribed burning. prescribed burning. prescribed burning.
High = risk of irreversible effects to species/processes
Medium = risk of effects that may or may not be irreversible
Low = low risk of effects
term camping could also be more likely with
maximum vehicle access. All of these effects
from these actions described could lead to
reduction in species viability as mentioned above.
Alternative A would not lead to improved
understanding or management of special status
plants and their habitats as it would not schedule
inventory or monitoring except in response to
ground disturbing projects/proposals.
The non-native bees associated with the permitted
apiary could adversely effect the native vegetation
in the ACEC. Non-native bees could displace
native pollinators through aggressive competition,
the introduction of disease or the introduction of
parasitic mites to native pollinators (Buchmann
and Nabhan 1996). Some plant species (including
special status plants) may have specific
pollinators and may not survive if their pollinators
are lost. This, in turn, could add to other effects in
possibly reducing the viability of some special
status species and native plant communities.
It is of growing concern nationwide that native
pollinators are on the decline. Native pollinators
are essential for both wild and agricultural land
(Buchmann and Nabhan 1996). While in other
areas this mav not be considered a big problem,
the uniqueness of vegetation in Rough and Ready
Draft Rough and ReadyACECManagement Plan/EA: Chapter 4- Envuonmental Consequences page 35

ACEC. the abundance of special status endemic
plants and the lack of understanding regarding
how specific the pollinators may be for these
species makes this concern difficult to ignore.
Alternative A offers limited use of prescribed fire
along boundaries only and provides limited
unprovement in the management of fire on the
ACEC. Use of prescribed fire is necessary for
achieving ACEC objectives of maintaining the
unique plant communities. Fire exclusion has
resulted in unstable and possibly low vigor plant
communities within the ACEC.
Effects of Alternative B on Vegetation
This alternative is the most likelv to achieve the
management objective for botanical values (see
page 4). including maintenance and improvement
of populations of special status plants.
Withdrawing the area from future mineral entry
and closing the area to the excavation of salable
mineral materials would minimize the amount of
ground disturbance that could impact the habitat.
natural processes and overall biotic integrity of the
ACEC. This means. for example. that special
status species would more likely remain viable
within their narrow ranges. In other words,
Alternative B allows for the highest potential for
these species to survive.
Alternative B wouid minimize motonzed vehicie
traffic. concomitant tire impacts. off road vehicle
use and illegal and destructive activities associated
with motorized vehicle use in remote areas (i.e.
illegal dumping, illegal length of stay camnpin.
removal of plant or rock matenals and discharzing
of firearms). Limiting motor vehicle access.
including motor vehicle camping, would limit the
potential impacts of concentrated use on special
status plant habitat which again relates to ensuring
the viabilitv of these species in their narrow
ranges.
The road closures proposed in Alternative B could
also have th following effects. Structures installed
to confine vehicle use Will undoubtedly be the
target of vandalism and damage by people
attempting to drive vehicles around gates or
barricades. New routes established in this way
would impact the habitat and any special status
plant sites in the vicinity of gates or barricades.
Interpretive signing with explanation of the
closure,-. increased monitoring and law
enforcc;..ent presence is proposed to reduce these
potential effects.
The increased education and interpretation under
this alternative would benefit special status plant
species by instilling a respect for rare species,
providing an understanding of how impacts occur,
how they affect plants and eliciting cooperation in
protecting habitat in the ACEC. Interpretation
and outreach would focus on the unique botanical
features of the site and would engender support
for management of those features.
Alternative B proposes fire management actions,
including prescribed burning, which would benefit
the unique vegetation of the ACEC by reducing
competition with less fire tolerant species. The
expanded use of prescnbed fire under this
alternative would help restore fire-dependent plant
commumties to a more natural state and would
prevent encroachment of trees and shrubs on rare
plants that require open habitat. The road
closures called for in Alternative B would require
less hazard fuel reduction activities. helping to
focus finite resources on cntical habitat
management for special status piants.
There would be less chance of Phvtophthora
introduction under Altemative B due to less road
use (i.e. numbers of roads reiated to mining,
salable mineral extraction and open to vehicle
traffic would be reduced).
Increased inventory and monitoring would provide
cntical information about the status. trend and
functioning of the natural systems. plant
communities and sensitive plant species in the
ACEC. This information would allow for
adaptation of management techniques as more is
learned about the ACEC and its special values.
Effects of Alternative C on Vegetation
Draft Rough and ReadvAC'EC Mfanagement PlawEA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 36

Effects on vegetation from locateable and salable
mineral activities under Alternative C would be
the same as under Alternative B.
Alternative C would put vegetation on the east
side of Highway 199 at greater risk from various
uses associated with the open roads. Motor
vehicle camping would be allowed along open
roads under this alternative, so the eastern portion
of the ACEC would be more susceptible to
concentrated use and off road use, which could
lead to destruction of habitat adjacent to roads.
While Alternative C would provide less protection
to vegetation, it may allow enough use to reduce
vandalism associated with gates and barricades.
The effects on vegetation from education and
interpretation actions under this alternative would
be similar to Alternative B. Educational tours by
vehicle would be possible under Alternative C,
which could impact roadside vegetation.
The addition of developed facilities (picnic tables
and toilets) on the east side of the highway would
benefit vegetation by concentrating picnicing
visitors away from undisturbed habitat. Toilets
would reduce trampling of plants and the litter
associated with dispersed unsanitary practices,
which reduces the aesthetics of the area.
Alternative C provides similar benefits to
vegetation from fire management as those that
would be provided under Alternative B, except
with more roads open, more hazard fuel reduction
may have to take place to avoid fires ignited from
motorized vehicles. This would mean focusing
fewer resources on habitat managing prescribed
bums.
The potential for Phytophthora infestation would
increase in Alternative C due to fewer road
closures. The risk would not be as great as under
the No Action alternative.
Effects on Wildlife (including Fisheries)
Effects Common to All Alternatives
Mining and associated operations would have a
wide range of effects on most wildlife species (see
list of species under Affected Environment).
Effects would be in the form of disturbance and
displacement. Displacement would result from
habitat alteration and destruction, ranging from
increased levels of noise to loss of suitable
substrate and vegetation for food and cover. All
of these effects combined could lead to a reduction
in wildlife species use of the ACEC which could
be important as a reserve within the developed
surrounding Illinois Valley region.
Since information is incomplete or unavailable
regarding wildlife populations on the watershed
level, it is not possible to determine if effects to
wildlife on the ACEC level would affect the
overall populations in the watershed.
The planned installation of the gate at the
boundary with the State Botanical Wayside would
reduce effects on the wildlife which live adjacent
to this road such as resident/neotropical birds,
deer, blacktailed jackrabbit. raptors and other
small mammals by creating a much larger block of
habitat undisturbed by vehicles.
Stream crossings for roads used during mining
would most likely not be bridged and would have
the potential for causing sedimentation during
construction and operation of the road. Erosion
from road runoff during winter months may cause
mortality of fish eggs in the nests. Fish spawning
may be interrupted if the stream crossing is a ford.
Mining could adversely impact the fishery.
Excessive sedimentation would decrease the
survival of fish eggs in gravels and juvenile fish
during rearing periods. Special status species
including Survey and Manage species would only
be protected through agreed upon mitigation.
Threatened or endangered species would be
protected under the Endangered Species Act, but
it would be the operators responsibility to consult
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Ptan/EA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 37

with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Effect of Alternative A (No Action) on Wildlife
Effects on wildlife from locateable minerals
extraction would be the same as in the common
effects listed above. Recreational mining (mineral
dredging and gold panning) would create
disturbance of the streambed and some destruction
of habitat for aquatic invertebrate species. Rock.
gravel and sand extraction under salable mineral
permits would have the same effects on habitat
and would alter the fluvial processes of Rough and
Ready Creek.
Motorized vehicle use could reduce numbers.
diversity and biomass of vertebrates (Berrn 1980).
Small numbers would be killed outright in
accidental impacts with vehicles. The majority.
though, disturbed by noise, would move away
from roads that are used regularly and densities of
some species within the ACEC would decrease.
Vehicular use on the ACEC would continue and
probably increase in the future under management
outlined in Alternative A. Wildlife populations on
the ACEC, which are naturally verv low because
of the serpentine environment, might be
sigmficantlv affected by loss of a few individuals.
their habitats or reduced reproduction. reducing
the viabilitv of existing populations to continue
within the ACEC.
Uncontrolled camping and hiking would continue
and probably increase under Alternative A. This
could also result in disturbed, displaced and
reduced wildlife populations and/or could result in
wildlife adapting to human contact. which could
cause problems of animal damage to adjacent
landowners.
Non-motorized access (horses and other pack
animals. bikes. carts) would continue unregulated
under Alternative A. Horses and pack animals
can be destructive to wildlife habitat, especially at
camp sites or staging areas. by spreading noxious
weed seed, trampling and consuming plants.
which mav be habitat for wildlife foragers such as
deer. blacktailed jackrabbits. ground squirrels.
resident passerine birds, neotropical birds and
reptiles.
Shooting (firearm discharge) would continue and
may increase under Alternative A. Shooting
affect- wildlife indirectly through noise
distu nce. which may result in reduced
reproduction (Boyle 1985). Wildlife might also
become direct targets of shooting.
Non-native bees could displace native pollinators
through aggressive competition. the introduction
of disease or the introduction of parasitic mites to
native pollinators. This could lead to loss of
habitat plants. which in turn could have the effect
of reducing forage for some of the native wildlife,
especially invertebrate species which depend on
single plant species for forage or reproductive
cover (Buchmann and Nabhan 1996).
Water diversion could continue to contribute to
the cumulative water withdrawal from Rough and
Ready Creek. Much of the creek is dry during the
late summer and may be partially a result of
cumulative water withdrawals which can affect
fish survival by reducing habitat and food sources.
Ongoing water withdrawal could also continue to
affect other aquatic species by reducing habitaL
Mining activities could alter water quality.
bedload and fluvial processes. increasing sediment
to the habitat for aquatic species. Increased
sedimentation could also occur during spawning
and rearng of fish if stream crossings or road use
adiacent to the creek occurs. Aquatic species
could be adversely affected durini all life history
stages from excess sedimentation due to road
construction. road use and creek crossuigs. The
effects of increased sediment include direct effects
such as smothering of eggs to indirect effects such
as increase in diseases brought on bv increased
temperatures and turbidity. The effects of
motorized road use on fisheries could be sirnihar if
erosion into the streambed takes place.
Effects of Alternative B on Wildlife
The impact of locateable minerals management on
Draft Rough and ReadyvACEC Management Plan'EA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 38

wildlife would be the same as in the effects
common to all alternatives. Withdrawing portions
of the ACEC not already under existing mining
claims from mineral entry would reduce
disturbance and displacement of wildlife such as
deer, ground squirrels and jackrabbits.
Species such as these would benefit from limited
camping by reducing displacement and
conditioning to humans and their trash.
Education/interpretation signs and trails could
educate people about the local wildlife use of the
site. Signs and brochures would inform people
about which species react strongly to disturbance
and should be avoided. Trails would be placed to
avoid sensitive habitat and wildlife.
Restriction of non-motorized access to existing
roads would limit the habitat altering effects of
new introduction of noxious weeds and habitat
loss caused by trampling and consumption.
Prescribed fire could have a positive effect on
some plants or be required by others and could
result in improved habitat for some wildlife
species, especially foraging species such as
blacktail deer.
Reduction of water withdrawal could increase
habitat for aquatic species, including resident and
anadromous fish.
Road closures could reduce the amount of possible
sedimentation to the stream thus reducing impacts
to fisheries (as discussed in Alternative A). Fish
reproduction would not be as threatened from
smothering of eggs and less threats could occur
from diseases brought on by higher water
temperatures/turbidity. Limited access to the
stream will curtail or possibly halt all dumping
and pollution to the stream.
Effects of Alternative C on Wildlife
As motorized vehicle use would be allowed on
some roads, effects created by use on those roads
would displace and disturb some wildlife, such as
deer and jackrabbits.. Wildlife disturbance would
be moderate compared to Alternative A (No
Action). Motorized camping would lead to
increased dumping of food and other items which
could harm wildlife if eaten. Impacts from
education/interpretation developments and group
use would be the same as Alternative B. A
developed picnic area could promote scavenging
of food brought by visitors.
Effects of water resource management, inventory,
and monitoring will be the same as Alternative B.
The effects of mining on fisheries would be the
same as in Alternative B.
Since the eastern portion of the ACEC will remain
open to motorized vehicles, potential for
sedimentation to the stream will exist, especially
near the mouth of Rough and Ready creek and
could still cause adverse impacts to the aquatic
environment as discussed in Alternative A.
Effects on Soils and Water
There are three activities within the ACEC area
that have significant effects on soils and water:
mining, motorized traffic, and stream water
withdrawal.
Effects Common to All Alternatives
Current mining could affect water and soil quality,
possibly exposing water and soils to hazardous
chemicals and introducing sediment into
waterways. Mining operations could also change
water quantities and stream flow which might be
especially critical at low flows.
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Soils
and Water
Under Alternative A, the ACEC would remain
open to mineral entry, potentially leading to
expanded areas of mining, which could increase
the area of surface water and soils exposed to
hazardous chemicals and sediment.
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 39

Motorized traffic would continue at current or
increased volume in the ACEC. The fine clay
fraction of soils on the roadways tend to be
disturbed by road use and eroded by wind and
water. These clays would redistribute in part to
the downwind areas and to the low spots in roads
where the fine sediments would compoLid
puddling and the development of potholes.
Eroding the fines out of the soil surface roads
would also lead to greater exposure of cobbles,
creating hazards and difficult travel conditions.
The presence of exposed cobbles, puddles and
potholes are one of the causes for the apparent
road widening/habitat destruction occurring in
many places. Additional water erosion would most
likely occur on the terrace escarpments and stream
ford under the transmission line. Little soil is
found on these short slopes and a portion of the
eroded particles reach the stream system as
sediment.
Stream water withdrawal would continue to cause
reduced summer flows in Rough and Ready Creek.
Surface pools would remain less extensive than
they would be without the withdrawal.
Effects of Alternative B on Soils and Water
Withdrawing the ACEC from mineral entry would
reduce the potential levels of mining disturbance.
With time, effects on water quality and quantity
from mining exploration would diminish, though
the rate is not known.
If successful, motorized traffic would be reduced
substantially throughout the ACEC in a short
period. However, it would take many years for the
roads to recover from surface disturbance and
compaction even if rehabilitation action is taken.
Erosion on sloping road sections would diminish
as vegetation is reestablished. If closed roads are
reopened to allow mining, soil and water could
again be affected.
If stream water withdrawal is successfully
reduced, summer flows would increase and
surface pools would be larger than under current
level of water withdrawal.
Effects of Alternative C on Soils and Water
Mining and stream water withdrawal would be
reduced from existing conditions as in Alternative
B and the effects would be the same.
If successfi, motorized traffic would be reduced
in the western portion of the ACEC. In the
eastern portion, road use would continue and the
effects in those areas would be similar to or
greater than those discussed in Alternative A, due
to use shifting from closed areas to the open,
resulting in locally concentrated use. "Caking" in
road depressions would stop in the short term in
the eastern portion, where there is no motorized
traffic in the wet season.
Effects on Natural Processes
The hydrologic regime of Rough and Ready
Creek, the fire regime of the uplands and
evolutionary processes throughout the ACEC
would be affected variably by the proposed
alternatives.
Effects Common to All Alternatives
In all alternatives, flood flows in Rough and
Ready Creek would reflect the range of natural
variability in terms of discharge, flashiness and
water quality, while low flows would fall short of
the natural range of variability in these terms due
to water diversions. Flood flows would dictate the
processes shaping the channel and alluvial
deposits available for colonization by vegetation.
Mining operations allowed under all alternatives
would potentially interrupt processes of
succession and speciation and would interfere with
the fire regime equally among the alternatives.
The risk of landscape scale high intensity fire
would be expected to remain high. Gradual
increase in risk will occur as the surrounding area
population increases and use of the ACEC area
increases.
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 40 -

Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Natural
Processes
Under Alternative A, natural processes would be
interrupted, truncated or otherwise altered to a
greater degree than in the other alternatives. The
hydrologic regime would be altered during
summer low flows while water diversions are
active. The fire regime would fall short of the
natural range of variability for one or more
measures, including spatial and temporal scales,
intensity of fire behavior and range of fire effects.
Successional states in the various vegetation
associations would be less influenced by natural
processes since prescribed burning would be
minimal and oriented towards reducing fuel loads.
Knowledge about the successional pathways and
their relationship to the fire regime would be slow
to develop or unavailable to guide management.
Evolutionary processes associated with bee
pollination behaviors would potentially be altered
by the European bees introduced under the apiary
permit. Fragmentation of habitat due to existing
roads would inhibit gene flow, alter migration and
colonization processes and potentially alter
ongoing evolutionary processes.
Effects of Alternative B on Natural Processes
Under Alternative B, natural processes would be
less interrupted truncated or otherwise altered
when compared to effects of management under
Alternative A (No Action). The hydrologic regime
would potentially be improved if reallocating a
portion of the low flows to instream flow was
possible. It would bring summer flows closer to
the natural range of variability providing greater
potential fish habitat. Proactive fire management
would re-establish a disturbance regime that
would more closely approach the natural range of
variability. The greatest improvement would
occur in stands that typically support low intensity
fires and that are still in early successional states.
Stands that would naturally have supported more
intense, sometimes stand replacement fires, would
benefit less. Increased use of fire, targeted at
ecological restoration would reinstate disturbance
that rare species may require and initiate greater
variability on landscape and patch scales that may
improve the integrity and resiliency of biotic
systems on the ACEC. The increasing trend in
risk of landscape scale, high intensity fires would
be ameliorated somewhat under Alternative B,
but the risk of ignition would remain unchanged.
Knowledge about the successional pathways and
their relationship to the fire regime would develop
sooner and become available to guide
management sooner. Evolutionary processes
associated with bee pollination behaviors would
not be altered by European bees to the extent
possible in Alternative A. Habitat connectivity
would be better maintained allowing gene flow,
migration, colonization and evolutionary
processes to occur near the range of natural
variability.
Effects of Alternative C on Natural Processes
The effect of Alternative C on natural processes
would be similar to those described for Alternative
B. Increased motorized vehicle access and
camping allowed under Alternative C increases
the risk of unplanned iguitions which would cause
greater disturbance of natural systems through
increased fire suppression activities compared to
Alternative B.
Effects on Locateable and Salable
Mineral Activities
Effects Common to all Alternatives
The impacts on mining activities at the location of
claims with prior existing rights within the ACEC
would be the same throughout all alternatives,
assuming that those claims are kept current (i.e.
annual assessment work is completed or fees paid
as required).
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on
Locateable and Salable Mineral Activities
Under Alternative A, the ACEC would remain
completely open to mineral entry. Potential
opportunities for additional mining developments
Draft Rough and ReadyA CEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 41

would be preserved and mining claimants and the
local community could potentially benefit
economically. Permittees could continue to
benefit from the extraction of saleable minerals.
Recreational miners will still be able to enjoy gold
panning and dredging in the ACEC.
Effects of Alternatives B and C on Locateable
and Salable Mineral Activities
The mineral withdrawal of the ACEC viould
prevent location of any future mining clamis. No
future mineral development or exploration, with
the exception of operations on existing claims,
would be allowed. This would reduce the area
available for mining activities within the ACEC.
The closure to salable mineral extraction would
decrease the available reserves of rock. sand and
gravel for regional use. Opportunities for
dredging and panning would be lost.
Effects on Recreation
Effects Common to All Alternatives
Recreation would likelv increase under all
alternatives due to population growth and
encouragement of tourism in the area. The
residence related to mninig activity would
discourage public use of that part of the ACEC. If
mining related activities occur within the ACEC.
there would be similar effects on recreation under
all alternatives. The view from the overlook along
the proposed State/BLM interpretive trail and a
large area on the west side of the hiahwav could
be affected bv anv mini activity near the mnmmc
occupancy.
Interpretive sign placement as proposed could
attract more visitors to the ACEC. but slins
would also educate visitors about appropnate use
of the site. resulting m reduced imnpacts.
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on
Recreation
Alternative A would provide the most
opportunities for unconstrained recreation.
Recreational use would be dispersed and not
concentrated at a specific sites. Alternative A
would allow the most access by motor vehicles
and would provN (ie the most options for camping
sites, both motorized and walk-in, and would
allow dispersed camping throughout the ACEC.
Horses and other pack animals, bikes and other
non-motorized modes of transportation would be
allowed throughout the ACEC. The quality of
experience for pedestrians and other visitors using
non-motorized modes of travel would be impacted
by conflicts with motorized use on large areas of
the ACEC. Under Alternative A, 275 acres would
be experienced as a Rural setting, 828 acres as
Roaded Natural, and 85 acres would be Semi-
Primitive Motorized as described under the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) analysis
(Figure 6 and Appendix E).
The potential for illegal dumping related to motor
vehicle access would not be reduced under
Alternative A. Dumping impacts the aesthetics of
the site and visitors' perception of it. Illegal
dumping could introduce hazardous materials or
other waste that could produce offensive odors.
either of which would make recreation unpleasant
and unsafe.
Alternative A would permit the discharge of
firearms. Some people would be deterred from
entering portions of the ACEC where firearms
were being discharged.
Potential airport expansion onto state lands would
affect plans to develop the interpretive trail
intended bv the State or could force the closure of
the trail if already completed.
Effects of Alternatives B on Recreation
Alternative B would provide a more managed
recreation situation. reducing potential impacts to
designated ACEC values. This alternative would
close most opportunities for motonzed
recreational travel over the ACEC. The potential
for illegal dumping related to motor vehicle access
would be reduced under this alternative. Road
closures at the ACEC may displace some off
Draft Rough and ReadvACECManagement PLanEA: Chapter 4-Environmental Consequences page 42

highway vehicle use, which may increase impacts
from off highway vehicle use on other nearby
sites. Opportunities for non-motorized modes of
access would be reduced, confining such uses to
existing roads. The use of the extensive road
system by non-motorized modes of access would
not be impacted and general access via roads to
nearly all areas of the ACEC would not be altered.
Closed roads, including roads that may have been
restored to natural vegetation, could be re-opened
to allow approved mining.
This alternative would impose added
responsibilities on participants in and leaders of
large groups as they would be asked to register
and would be encouraged to follow special
guidelines to reduce impacts to designated ACEC
values.
Discharge of firearms would be prohibited. The
elimination of shooting would create a safer
environment for visitors, increase use by visitors
deterred by discharge of fire arms and expand
areas used for walking and nature study.
Improved parking areas on both sides of the
highway proposed under Alternative B would
funnel visitors to two primarv entry points, where
they could read interpretive signs and pick up
brochures which would provide information about
the ACEC's designated values and present
guidelines for appropriate use of the area.
While road closures and vehicle restrictions
proposed in Alternative B would enlarge the area
of primitive setting for recreation, the reduction in
the number of entry points may cause visitors to
experience more concentrated use, particularly at
interpretive sites and on trails.
Alternative B would provide for more
opportunities for non-motorized recreation not
affected by motorized vehicle use. Roads would
be closed to motorized vehicles and become
Roaded Natural. This alternative would reduce
opportunities for motorized vehicle access
camping, but improve opportunities for nonmotorized
dispersed camping within the ACEC.
Under Alternative B, the Roaded Natural area
would increase in size, Rural would decrease and
the area of Semi-Primitive Motorized experience
would remain unchanged (see Figure 7).
If airport expansion onto the ACEC is denied
under alternative B, effects on recreation
associated with the proposed expansion could be
avoided, although effects to the local economy
could be felt. If not denied, effects would be
similar to Alternative A (No Action).
Effects of Alternative C on Recreation
This alternative would allow more motorized
access than Alternative B. Alternative C would
provide greater access than under Alternative B,
potentially widening the spectrum of users.
Alternative C would permit dispersed walk-in
camping and some motorized camping along open
roads. This alternative would provide for some
primitive opportunities, but not as many as
Alternative B. Under Alternative C, a major
portion of the road system on the east side of the
highway would be open, while the other road
systems to the north would be closed. Under this
alternative, the acreage for Rural, Roaded Natural
and Semi-Primitive Motorized areas would remain
the same as Alternative A. All other effects are
similar to Alternative B (Figure 8).
Effects on Land Use Authorizations
Effects Common to All Alternatives
Prescribed burns within the ACEC would produce
smoke which could affect visibility at the airport
at times, but careful planning could minimize
these impacts.
Effects of Alternative A (No Action) on Land
Use Authorizations
Allocation of lands to existing rights of way
corridors would continue. The BLM would avoid
locating new nights-of-ways. This could be a
hardship to parties who would like to acquire a
new right of way. Rights-of-way may be granted
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 43

in avoidance areas when no feasible alternate
route or designated rights-of-way corridor is
available.
basis and with fair compensation for the transfer
of water rights and reduced beneficial use.
Under Alternative A, the airport might be able to
expand onto the ACEC, which could potentially
benefit the economic development in Josephine
County by allowing for larger aircraft to land.
Effects of Alternatives B and C on Land Use
Authorizations
Proposals for new rights of way outside of
existing right of way corridors would be denied,
which might be a hardship for parties who would
like to acquire a new right of way. Proposals to
modify or widen existing rights of way would be
evaluated and designed to minimize impacts on
ACEC values. This could make modifications of
existing rights of way more difficult.
If a recommended denial of the Illinois Valley
Airport expansion were to occur, a decrease in the
potential for economic development in Josephine
County may occur. Denying the request would
reduce the land base potentially available to the
County's proposed expansion and would increase
their costs for expansion if the County considered
acquisition of private land for proposed expansion
as an alternative. The costs of this alternative and
difficulty in securing a source of funding could
delav or halt the County plans and slow, reduce or
eliminate potential future economic gains to the
local economy from the proposed expansion. This
may reduce support for ACEC protection received
from Josephine County.
The non-renewal of the apiary site permit could
create a hardship for the permittee since they
would be required to locate elsewhere. The
perrnittee would have until 1999 to relocate
outside of the ACEC.
Under Alternative B and C, the BLM would
pursue ways to increase water flows in the portion
of Rough and Ready Creek through the ACEC.
Potential impacts on private land owners with
valid water rights would occur only on a voluntary
DraftRough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA: Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences page 44

References Cited
Agee, James. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Atzet, Thomas et al. 1996. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of Southwestern. Oregon. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Atzet, Thomas and David Wheeler. 1982. Historical and Ecological Perspectives on Fire Activity in the
Klamath Geological Province of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. USDA -Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR
Axelrod, D. 1990. Outline History of California Vegetation. In: Terrestrial Vegetation of Califirnia. Eds. M.
Barbour and J. Major. California Native Plant Society Special Publication.
Berry, K.H. 1980. A review of the effects of off-road vehicles on birds and other vertebrates. In Workshop
Proceedings: Management of Western Forest and Grasslands of Non-Game Birds, Salt Lake City,
Utah.
Borgias, Darren. August 29, 1994. Letter to BLM regarding ACEC designation. On file at Medford District
BLM Office.
Borgias, D. and J. Beigel. 1996. Post Fire Vegetation Recovery in the Serpentine Fens and Savannas of
Josephine Creek. Unpublished report on file at the Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.
. 1997. Personal communication. The Nature Conservancy, Southwestern Oregon Office.
Borgias, D. and B. Ullian. 1994. Oregon plants, Oregon places: Rough and Ready Creek. Kalmiopsis 4:1-6.
Native Plant Society of Oregon.
Borne, Roger. 1983. Soil Survey of Josephine County, Oregon. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Boyle, S. A. and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 13:110-116.
Brown, Herbert A. et al. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society.
Buchmann, S.L., G.P. Nabhan 1996. The Forgotten Pollinators, Island Press, Washington D.C. 1996
Bureau of Land Management. June 1995. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Medford
District Office.
Callison, Charles. 1984. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern on the Public Lands: Origins of the
Concept and Legislative History. New York: Wild Wings Foundation.
Chambers, Kenton. 1993. Letter to the U.S. Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Illinois Valley Ranger
District. On file at the BLM Medford District Office.
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA page 45

Department of Land Conservation and Development. June 28, 1996. Statewide Planning Goal 5: Salem,
Oregon.
Finley, L.L 1996. Breeding bird survey conducted on the Illinois River near Eight Dollar
Mountain. Unpublished.
. 1997. Personal communication. BLM Medford District Office.
Fran"lin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Portland, Oregon.
Fredericks, Nancy. 1988. Species Management Guide for Calochortus howelli: Wats. Salem, OR: Oregon
State Department of Agriculture.
Gottlieb, Leslie. 1968. Hybridization between Arctostaphylos viscida and A. canescens in Oregon.
Brittonia 20: 83-93.
Hammond, Paul. 1992. Special Status Butterfly Species List, October 16. On file at BLM Medford District
Office.
Hass, Ted. 1993. Specialist report prepared for ACEC nomination of Rough and Ready Creek. On file at the
BLM Medford District Office.
Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H., and Lucas, RC. 1990. Wilderness Management-second edition.
Illinois Valley Community Response Team. No date. Profile: Illinois River Valley. Brochure available at
Illinois Valley Visitors Center.
_.___ 1995. Illinois Valley Strategic Plan for Community Development: From Vision to Action. Available
fro the CRT office, Cave Junction.
Jimerson, T.M., et al. 1995. A Field Guide to Serpentine Plant Associations and Sensitive Plants in
Northwestern California. U.S. Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest.
Johnson, Dale. 1997. Personal Communication. Medford District BLM, Medford, OR
Josephine County Board of Commissioners. No date. Josephine County Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No.
81-11.
Kagan, Jimmv.1988. Draft Species Management Guide for Microseris howelli,. Portland: Oregon Natural
Heritage Program.
. 1989. Draft Species Management Guide for Senecio hesperus. Portland: Oregon Natural Heritage
Program.
. 1993. Oregon Comprehensive Terrestrial Plant Community Classification. Unpublished document on
file at the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Portland, Oregon.
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA page 46

. 1997. Personal communication. Portland: Oregon Natural Heritage Program.
Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1954. The ecology of serpentine soils: plant species in relation to serpentine soils.
Ecology 35(2):267-274.
. 1984. California Serpentines: Flora, Vegetation, Geology, Soils and Management Problems.
University of California publications in Botany, vol. 78. University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA.
.1992. Plant life of western North American ultramafics. In: The Ecology of Areas with Serpentinized
Rocks, a world View, Ed. B.A. Roberts and J. Proctor. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Pp 31-73
Long, C. April 16, 1997. "Rough and Ready Creek on nation's threatened list." Daily Courier. Grants Pass,
Oregon.
Macdonald, C. 1997. Personal communication. Portland: Oregon Natural Heritage Program.
Nobs, M.A. 1963. Experimental studies on species relationships in Ceanothus. Carnegie Inst. Washington
Publ. 623. 94pp.
Olson, D.M. and E. Dinnerstein. 1997. The Global 200: Conserving the World's Distinctive Ecoregions.
Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund-U.S., Washington, D.C.
Omernik, James. 1996. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Oregon and Washington. National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon. (1 page map).
. 1997. Level Iml Ecoregions of the Continental United States. National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. (1 page
map).
Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Watershed Classification Subcommittee of the Natural
Production Committee. April 1993. Oregon Critical Watersheds Database (Draft). AFS: P.O. Box
722, Corvallis, Oregon. 97339.
Oregon Natural Heritage Program 1997. Unpublished report. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland
Oregon.
Orr, E.L., Orr, W.N. and E.M. Baldwin. 1992. Geology of Oregon. Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Dubuque, Iowa.
Paetzel, Marv. 1993. Personal communication. In Linda Hale's specialist report prepared for ACEC
nomination of Rough and Ready Creek. On file at the BLM Medford District Office.
Public Law 94-579. 1976. Federal Land Policy Management Act. United States Congress.
Ramp, L. 1978. Investigations of Nickel in Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
Miscellaneous Paper 20.
DraftRough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA page 47

Ramp, L. 1979. Geologic Map of Josephine County, Oregon 1979. Plate I Geology and Mineral Resources
of Josephine County, Oregon. Bulletin 100, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.
Ramp L. and N.V. Peterson. 1979. Geology and Mineral Resources of Josephine County, Oregon. Bulletin
100, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Salem.
Reid, R. L. and W.R. Flagg 1996. Oregon: A Statistical Overview, 1996. Southern Oregon Regional
Services Institute. Ashland. Oregon.
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation, California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento California.
Shennon, P. J. 1933. Geology and Ore Deposits of the Takilma-Waldo District, Oregon, Including the Blue
Creek District. US Geological Survey, Bulletin 846--B, in contribution to economic geology, part 1,
pages 141--194.
Smith. J. P. and J. 0. Sawver. 1988. Endemic vascular plants of northwestern California and southwestern
Oregon. Madrono 35 (10):54-69.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. ROS Users Guide. 1982.
USDA Forest Service. May 1993. Eligibility Study: Rough and Ready Creek and its Tributaries. Unpublished
report prepared by Illinois Valley Ranger District. USDA-Forest Service: Siskivou National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1997. Cedar Log Flat Research Natural Area Strategic Management Plan. Siskivou
National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1997. Draft NICORE Plan of Operations Environmental Impact Statement,
Siskivou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1997. Draft West Fork Illinois River Watershed Analvsis: Iteration 1.0. Unpublished
report prepared by Illinois Valley Ranger District. USDA-Forest Service: Siskivou Nationai Forest.
USDA/United States Department of Intenor (USDI). 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments
to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the
Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines. Washin ton D.C.
USDA/USDI. 1994 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for
Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted
Owl. Washington D.C.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. Recreation Inventory Handbook H-8310-1. 1987.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Medford District Resource Management Plan ROD. Medford.
OR
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA page 48

USDI Bureau of Land Management. Medford District Noxious Weed Environmental Assessment,
Medford, OR.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1988. BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1981. BLM Manual 8365, Visitor Safety and Hazards, Oregon
State Office, Portland, OR
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1986. BLM Manual 8431, Visual Resource Contrast Rating.
Wagner, David H. 1997. Klamath-Siskiyou Region, California and Oregon, USA. In: Centres of Plant
Diversity. Eds. S.D. Davis et al. World Wildlife Fund for Nature/IUCN. Pp 74-76.
White, C.D. 1971. Vegetation --soil chemistry correlations in serpentine ecosystems. Unpublished
dissertation on file at the University of Oregon, Eugene, 151 pp.
Whittaker, RH. 1954. The ecology of serpentine soils. Ecology 35(2):275-84.
Whittaker, RH. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskivou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs
30(3):279-338.
Winthrop, K. 1993. Included in Matt Craddock's specialist report for Rough and Ready ACEC nomination.
On file at BLM Medford District Office.
Wisseman, R W. 1990. Sensitive Aquatic Invertebrates Found or Suspected to be Present on the Umpqua-
Rogue-Siskivou National Forests, Oregon. Western Aquatic Institute.
1997. Personal communication. Oregon State Universitv.
Zobel, D. 1997. A Port-Orford Cedar update: biology, risk and controversy. Presentation given at
Conference on Siskiyou Ecology. Cave Junction, Oregon.
Draft Rough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA page 49

Appendix A: Summary of Scoping Comments on the Rough and Ready ACEC
Management Plan/EA.
The following summarizes the scoping comments submitted by the public and explains how they are
incorporated in this management planiEA. When explanations are applicable they are indented and italicized
under the public comment (s) which they address.
Comments Addressed in All Alternatives
*A road inventory is necessary. Roads should be mapped. What will be considered "existing" roads. There
are many tracks in the area.
Roads were inventoried to complete this management plan.
*Work with State Parks to develop and interpretive area on the west side of Highway 199.
Addressed in "Actions Common to All Alternatives."
*Keep in mind the values that the area was designated for; but keep in mind these are human designated
values.
The designated ACEC values were considered in the development of all alternatives.
*Don't make a regulation that you can't enforce; regulations should tie into state regulations.
Regulations associated with every alternative will be enforced.
*Avoid introduction of non-native species.
Addressed in "Actions Common to All Alternatives. " Alternatives B and C do more to prevent the
introduction of non-native species than Alternative A.
*BLM should help with efforts to control star thistle on the ACEC - possible other methods for controlling
star thistle (burning or propane torching?).
Addressed in "Actions Common to All Alternatives."
*Integrate plan with Josephine County on airport use.
Addressed in Chapter 1, "Consistency with State and County Plans."
*BLM should clean up areas where dumping has occurred, and take measures to prevent dumping in the
future. Organize a public clean-up.
Addressed in "Actions Common to All Alternatives."
*Is there a fire management plan (see Appendix C)?
*Controlled burns could eliminate some hazards to private land.
*Concern of too much fuel on the ground.
Fire management is addressed in each alternative. See Appendix C for the complete Fire
Management Plan.
*Concern about private road use - Rough and Ready Creek Lumber Co. wants access to the road that runs
along their irrigation ditch so that they can maintain it.
Current rights of ways will continue under all alternatives.
*The present private residence should be removed. The guidelines in your resource management plan for
mining residence should be implemented. The BLM has ignored this residence.
All alternatives enforce occupancy regulations.
*ACEC should be accessible for tourism.
The ACEC is accessible to toirists under all alternatives.
*Need to avoid rare plants when crea. tg trails.
The above comment is incorporated in all alternatives.
*The management plan should provide direction for developing connectivity with the French Flat ACEC.
Addressed in land use adjustments.
Draft Rough and Ready ACEC Management PlanzEA page 50

*Make decisions locally, not in DC.
This plan/E4 was written by a local ID team, and management decisions will be made by the
Medford District BLM.
*Problem is lack of maintenance funds for upkeep.
*Regulations need to be enforced; allocate funds to enforce regulations; enforce penalties.
Addressed in all alternatives in which activities occur where regulation enforcement would be
necessary.
Comments Resolved in an Alternative:
*The BLM portion of Rough and Ready Creek should be included in the National Wild and Scenic River
system.
Addressed in alternatives B and C.
*Need to do a fire history study; question as to whether this is a fire dependent community and what is the
length of its fire cycle.
Afire history study will be conducted in Alternatives B and C.
*Are water diversions necessary. Maybe wells would be a better option. Is the water actually going to
beneficial use.
Water resource management will be evaluated in Alternatives B and C
*The west side of the ACEC is a good place for the existing apiary. The permit holder would like to continue
use.
The ACEC would be open to apiary use under Alternative A.
*An apiary should not be allowed on the ACEC. There are many other areas on public land where an apiary
could be located.
Apiaries wouldl not be permitted in the ACEC under Alternatives B and C.
*ORV use (including motorcycles) should not be allowed in the ACEC.
Off-road vehicle use is not allowed in Alternatives B and C.
*Close roads to protect the ecological values of the area, such as rare plants.
*Keep open only those roads necessary to access residences.
*Close road on east side of 199 accessing ACEC from ODOT property.
*AIl but necessary roads should be closed and obliterated.
*Closed roads should be restored with native vegetation.
Incorporated in Alternatives B and C.
*Limit vehicular access as it spreads the root rot disease.
Vehicular access is limited in Alternatives B and C.
*Keep roads open; too many roads are being closed.
Alternative A leaves all roads open, except the one being closed by State Parks.
*A program of enforcement of the road closures and off road regulations should be instituted.
Road closures and enforcement of regulations will occur in Alternatives B and C. Alternative B
has more road closures than Alternative C.
*Certain roads could be used for specific purposes but not general use.
* Road used to maintain Rough and Ready Creek Lumber Co. water ditch should be gated and used only for
its intended purpose.
Alternatives B and C would close roads within the ACEC. Some of these roads will be gated so
that persons/organizations with rights-of-way can access them, but they will not be open to the
general public.
DraftRough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA page 5S

*The ACEC should not be excluded from mineral entry - miners' rights are being taken away.
The ACEC will remain open to future mineral entry under Alternanive A.
*The ACEC should be withdrawn from mineral entry to prevent future mining claims as soon as possible.
*Mining and mining related projects should not be allowed in the ACEC. Protect the area from degradation
due to NICORE mining project (smelter site/stockpiling) and future mining projects.
The ACEC will be withdrawn from mineral entry under Alternanives B and C. This will prevent
future mining claims. Current mining claims can not be prohibited under the 1872Mining Law
(see below comments that cannot be accomplished by the BLM).
*The many unique and endemic plant species and communities deserve the utmost protection.
*The botanical, ecological and fisheries values should be the bottom line for determining other uses.
This comment is incorporated in Alternative B.
*Maintain the integrity of ecological processes, not just specific locations.
*The relatively undisturbed valley forest floor of the ACEC is an important remnant from the past (a refuge
for species and ecological processes) and should be protected and preserved.
*Protect the Wild and Scenic River values and aquatic communities. The ACEC shares these qualities. The
fisheries, water quality and other aquatic values must be preserved.
*The great diversity of the area (1 of 4 most diverse needle-leaf forests in the world) demands that it be
protected.
These concerns are addressed in Alternatives B and C. While both alternatives aim to protect
ecological resources, Alternative B provides more protection.
*Need to research/protect the endemic O'Brien caddisflv.
*The management plan should contain a survey and monmtoring plan.
*BLM should conduct a comprehensive plant survev of vascular and nonvascular plants.
Alternative A contains calls for inventory and monitoring if a ground disturbing project is to take
place. Alternatives B and C contain inventory and monitoring plans, particularlyfor special
status species. beyond those associated with ground disturbing development. A comprehensive
plant survey, including nonvascular plants. will occur in Alternatives B and C.
*Need water qualitv/turbidi tv sampling.
Water monitoring will be conducted in Alternatives Band C.
*Provide public with information about the ecological and botanical importance and sensitivityv of the ACEC
through signs. brochures, etc.
*Interpretive areas/trails/signs/parking should be developed.
*Trails need to be signed.
*Will the BLM put trails in?
*The ACEC should just be accessed by walking. Educate people so that they'll want to walk.
*Deveiop a handicapped accessible trali.
*lnterpretive facilities should be low key and aesthetic.
'Potential interpretive site at overlook.
*Work with ODOT to develop interpretive area on east side of 199.
* Make video highhlghting sianificance of the area to show at schools. clubs. etc.
*Docent program.
*BLM should coordimate with USFS on management.
*The World Wildlife Fund has provided 2rants for watershed restoration work in the Rogue Basin. They may
be willing to provide funding for measures to control vehicle use and protect ecological values.
The above comments are incorporated in Alternatives B and C. Cooperative srewardshiv Projecrs
will depend on interests ofpotennai partners and funding.
*Needs to be a balance between places to drive and places to walk (on public lands in general).
Alternative A allows both motor vehicles and pedestrian access throughout the ACEC. Motor
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan.-EA page 52

vehicle use (unless authorized) will not be allowed in Alternative B (exceptfor two roads).
Alternative C closes some roads, but other will remain open.
*No exclusion of public use beyond RMP.
Alternative A does not limit public use anymore than in the RMP.
*Camping should only be allowed in designated areas of the ACEC.
Alternative B allows backpack camping anywhere within the ACEC and no motor vehicle
camping. Alternative C allows backpack camping anywhere in the ACEC and motor vehicle
camping only along open roads.
*Camping should only be two cars a week maximum.
*Camping should not be allowed in the ACEC.
Limits on camping are addressed in Alternatives B and C.
*Will campfires be allowed?
Campfires are permitted under Alternative A. They are prohibited under Alternatives B and C.
*Target shooting should not be allowed. Efforts should be taken to prevent it.
Alternatives B and Cprohibit discharge offirearms within the ACEC.
*In cooperation with the state of Oregon, sanitary facilities should be provided.
Sanitaryfacilities would be provided under Alternative C.
*East side of 199 would be an attractive place for a picnic area.
A picnic area will be developed under Alternative C
*Biking should be on trails and roads only.
Alternatives B and C only allow biking on existing roads.
*Will livestock (horses, mules) be allowed on the ACEC?
Horses and mules are allowed in the ACEC under all alternatives. In Alternatives B and C they
are only allowed on existing roads.
*Talk to planners in Pima County, AZ to find out how they keep ORV use on trails
*Area needs to be monitored to ensure its plant communities are not being damaged by visitors.
Addressed in Alternatives B and C under monitoring action.
*No further expansion of the airport onto public lands.
Expansion of the airport onto the ACEC would not be allowed in Alternatives B and C.
*Mininig pits could be reclaimed, and the residence and equipment buildings removed and the area
rehabilitated.
Restoration of mining exploration pits and other excavations related to mining activities will take
place under Alternatives B and C.
*Rules to prohibit illegal rock and gravel excavation should be enforced.
Addressed in Alternatives B and C
*A Port-Orford Cedar survey and risk assessment is needed include in inventory
Included in inventories in Alternatives B and C.
*Trees should not be cut for safety purposes, except possibly at the south end of the airport runway; but the
trees are already so stunted there due to the serpentine soil that they shouldn't be much of a problem. Will
managers be able to authorize the cutting of trees for public safety?
Addressed in Alternatives B and C.
Comments Incorporated in Affected Environment:
*Mining existed in the area prior to ACEC designation.
*There are Coho salmon and steelhead in the West Fork of the Illinois River.
*The Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society has listed the Rough and Ready Creek watershed as
"highly sensitive," "genetic refuge," and "reference watershed."
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management PlanWEA
page s3

*The plant species, populations and communities remain unique assemblages of organisms especially adapted
to these soils and habitats. The genetic resources of endemic plants, in particular, occur in few other places.
The ACEC has properties of an island, and the populations there are isolated and evolving.
*Potential biological importance of moss/lichen mat communities.
*The ACEC is important for wildlife and migration.
*Bears live in the ACEC.
*Both kingsnakes are found.
*ACEC has great potential as an environmental education location.
*Original surveyors (botanists) say populations may be diminished from what they were in the past.
*Parties take place on ACEC at night.
*Use Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) in planning process.
Comments Addressed in Environmental Consequences:
*Mining activities, including stockpiling/residen.ce/smelter seems in direct conflict with objective of ACEC.
*Effect of patent application: potential private ownership within ACEC would impact the integrity of the
area.
*Mining roads/equipment could introduce Port-Orford Cedar root disease
*Mining represents a major threat to the ecological integrity of the ACEC.
*Mining related activities are in direct conflict with protecting the botanical resources.
*Mining activities will effect water and air quality.
*The residence discourages public use of that part of the ACEC.
Noise, air and water pollution caused by mining activity bad for community, ecosystem, tourism.
*View from overlook will be heavily impacted by stock-piling of ore at mining claim residence.
*Use of ACEC for apiary should be considered an introduction of a non-native species (domesticated bees) as
they may disrupt the natural interactive between native pollinators and plants. In addition, the ACEC may
contain rare, sensitive and endemic insects which could be impacted by the non-native bees or parasites they
may carry. There is a good chance of finding rare insect species associated with the rare plants in the ACEC.
*How do horses and mules contribute to the introduction of non-native species.
*ORVs are a problem in the ACEC and have caused much plant damage and soil erosion.
*Will increased use impact wildlife?
*Potential airport expansion could negatively impact the ACEC. Scientific, ecological. aesthetic. recreational
values should be given consideration in any proposed expansion of the airport into the ACEC.
*Roads facilitate trash dumping, introduction of exotics. poaching of plants and rocks. damage to plants, and
more off road usage. Roads also disrupt and kill wildlife and increase the risk of wildfire.
*Difficult to have effective road closures in this terrain. Usually a way to drive around road closure. Must
make sure barriers are effective. Gates will get ripped out.
*Exclusion of human activities from the area will lead to a sense of exclusion and resentment and polarity.
Focus on creating the middle ground.
*Roads present a threat to the ecological integnity of the ACEC.
*Roads are becoming wider as people drive around puddles.
*Vehicular access on road and off-roads is damaging rare plants and their habitat.
*Information sign at parking area might prevent problems such as ORV use and dumping.
*Concem about limiting public use.
*Will ACEC plan affect water rights?
*Should prescribed bums take place in the ACEC?
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/F-A page 54

Comments that suggest actions that would not meet the Purpose and Need, could not be accomplished
by the BLM, or are outside the scope of this plan:
*Mining and mining related projects should not be allowed in the ACEC. Protect the area from degradation
due to NICORE mining project (smelter site/stockpiling) and future mining projects.
Under the 1872Mining Law the BLMdoes not have discretionary authority to prohibit outright
the proposed activity.
*Marginal mineral value of mining is far outweighed by the environmental qualities (rare plants, water,
fisheries).
Mineral values and environmental qualities are currently under evaluation by the U.S. Forest
Service in the EJSfor the proposed mine operation.
*In determining the validity of claims the BLM must give full consideration to the scientific, ecological,
aesthetic, recreational and other amenity values of Rough and Ready Creek and the ACEC, as well as the
mineral values. The required mineral exams should not be intrusive or damage these qualities.
Outside the scope of this plan.
What affect does the residence have on water in Rough and Ready Creek. Does it have an established water
right? Does it have a well or water diversion? What type of septic?
Outside scope of this plan.
*Should the area be looked at as an RNA - less use allowed.
RNA status was considered in the recommendation for designation as an ACEC.
*Existing mining claims should be bought out by the government for money or a land exchange.
Action on acquiring claims will nor be considered until the patent application is resolved.
*The location of the existing residence could become a visitors information and interpretive center.
Outside the scope of this plan.
*Bears live in the ACEC which makes it foolish to set out hives
Risks of bear predation on beehives are assumed by the permittee.
*Collection of special products such as manzanita, cedar boughs, and medicinal plants, should not be
permitted on the ACEC as such activities would conflict with protecting the designated ACEC values.
*Collection could disturb the process of speciation.
*Collection is difficult to regulate and usually degrades an area.
*Special forest product use should be permitted. but needs to be done in a sustainable and responsible
manner, in a way that would not negatively impact the ACEC.
Previously decided in RMiP that specialforest products harvest is not allowed in the ACEC.
*Modified harvest should be allowed on the ACEC
*How was the decision made to exclude timber harvest in the RMP? Was there public input?
*There are some areas on ACEC suitable for timber harvest
*Logging should be prohibited.
Previously decided in RAIP that timber harvest is not allowed in the ACEC.
*Leave primitive camping area near overlook the way it is now.
*Declsion to close road on west side on State Park property was made without public input; prevents access
to ACEC (State Park decision)
The camping area by the overlook on the west side of Highway 199 will be closed by the State
Parks when they install their planned gate on the access road. This will occur regardless of this
management plan. Public involvement is not required in State Park decisions.
*Tire fires should not be allowed to occur.
BLM will investigate this comment; no such fires have been reported. Such fires are not allowed
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA page 55

on BLM lands.
*One of the western most occurrences of the western fence lizard.
Brown et al. (1995) show the range for the western fence lizard through western Oregon to the
southern Oregon coast.
*Regulate illegal fish take
ODFW manages harvest offish and wildlife resources.
*No mandatory vehicle easement for the public across private lands to reach parts of the ACEC.
Easements across private land have not been recommended in this plan.
People who submitted written comments during Scoping
Bruce Campbell
Susan Chapp
Eric Clough
Romain Cooper
Nancy Clark-Cosner
Lane Cosner
Tom Dimitre - Headwaters
Barbara Dudman
Christy Dunn
Michael J. Klein
Kathleen Lombardo
Gordon Lyford
Nancy Lyford
Barbara Mumblo - Native Plant Society of Oregon
Donna Piori
Eleanor A. Pugh
Barry Snitkin
Darlene Southworth - Native Plant Society, Siskiyou Chapter
Barbara Ullian - Siskiyou Regional Education Project
Suzanne Vautier
People who attended April 5,1997 scoping meeting
Gary Buck
Elvin E. Burns
Robert Chapman
Sylvia Chapman
Susan Chapp
Bob Clark
Michelle Houghton Cook
Romain Cooper
Robert Cornett
Rochelle Desser
Jim Duncan
Christy Dunn
DraftRough and ReadyACECManagementPlan/EA page 56

Joya Feltzin
Ken Goen
Michael Gosenski
William Gray
Cynthia Hobbins
Cathy Hocker
Sherri Hopper
Beth Howell
Jim Hutton - Oregon Parks and Recreation
Clifford Johann
Lew Krauss
Kathy Lombardo
Don McLennan
Bob Perguson
Elaine Plaisance - Native Plant Society, Sisk-iyou Chapter
Ginny Post
Jim Post
June Robinson
George Shook
Barry Snitkin - Siskiyou Regional Education Project
Els Stolk
Barbara Ullian
Frank Wells
Dorothy Wiltfong
J.D. Wood
Draft Rough and Ready ACEC Management Plan/EA page S7

Appendix B: Plant Species List for Rough and Ready Creek ACEC.
This list is compiled from various BLM surveys. A comprehensive vegetation survey of the ACEC has not
yet been done. Special status, Bureau Tracking and Bureau Watch species are noted by an asterisk after the
scientific name.
FERNS AND FERN ALLIES
Scientific Name
DENNSTAEDTIACEAE
Pteridium aquilinum
DRYOPTERIDACEAE
Polystichum munitum var. imbricans
Polysti chum munitum var. munitum
POLYPODIACEAE
Polypodium glycyrrhiza
Common Narn
BRACKEN FAMILY
bracken fern
WOOD FERN FAMILY
inbricated sword fern
sword fern
POLYPODY FAMILY
licorice fern
PTERIDACEAE
Aspidotis densa
BRAKE FAMILY
Indian's dream
GYMNOSPERMS
CUPRESSACEAE
Calocedrus decurrens
Chaemaecyparus lawsoniana
CYPRESS FAMILY
incense cedar
Port-Orford Cedar
PINACEAE
Pin us attenuata
Pinusjeffreyi
Pinus lambertiana
Pinus monti cola
Pinus ponderosa
Psuedotsuga menziesn
PINE FAMILY
knobcone pine
Jeffrey pine
sugar pine
western white pine
ponderosa pine
Douglas-fir
DICOTYLEDONS
ACERACEAE
MAPLE FAMILY
Draft Rough and Ready ACEC Management PlanEA4: Appendix B page 58

Acer macrophyllum
bigleaf maple
ANACARDIACEAE
Toxicodendron diversilobum
APIACEAE
Lomatium cookii*
Lomatium howelli
Lomatium macrocarpum
Lomanum nudicaule
Lomatium triternatum
Perideridia gairderni
SUMAC FAMILY
poison oak
CARROT FAMILY
Cook's desert parsley
Howell's lomatium
large-seeded lomatium
pestle lomatiurn
narrowleaf lomatium
ASTERACEAE
Achillea millefolium
Antennaria dimorpha
Arnica cernua
Balsamorhiza deltozdea
Blepharipappus scaber
Chrysothamnus nauseousus
Crocidium multicaule
Eriophyllum lanatum
Helenium bigelovui
Hieracium albiflorum
Hieracium scoulen
Microserns howeilii*
Rudbeckia californica
Senecio hesperius*
Senecio macounzi
Solidago sp.
COMPOSITE FAMILY
yarrow
low everlasting
serpentine arnica
deltoid balsamroot
rabbitbrush
spring gold
Oregon sunshine
sneezeweed
white hawkweed
Howell's niicroseris
coneflower
Siskivou butterweed
Siskiyou Mountains ragwort
goldenrod
BERBERIDACEAE
Berberis aquifolium
Berberis pumilis/repens
BARBERRY FAMILY
Oregon grape
Oregon grape
BETULACEAE
Alnus rubra
Corylus cornuta var. calhfornica
BIRCH FAMILY
alder
hazelnut
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA: Appendix B page 59

BORAGINACEAE
Lithospermum californicum
Plagiobothyrus sp.
BORAGE FAMILY
Western pucoon
popcorn flower
BRASSICACEAE
Arabis aculeolata*
Arabis koehleri var. stipztata*
Cardamine nuttallii var. dissecta*
Cardamine nuttallii var. gemmata*
Downingia sp.
Erysimum capitatum
Thlaspi montanum ssp. siskiyouense*
MUSTARD FAMILY
Waldo rockcress
Koehler's rockcress
yellow tubered toothwort
wallflower
Siskiyou pennycress
CAMPANULACEAE
Campanula scoulen
HAREBELL FAMILY
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
Lonicera hispidula
HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
California honeysuckle
CARYOPHYLLACEAE
Arenaria douglasii
Arenana howellii
Cerastium arvense
Silene sp
PINK FAMILY
sandwort
Howell's sandwort
chickweed
CONVOLVULACEAE
Calystegia occidentalhs ssp. occidentalis
MORNING GLORY
CRASSULACEAE
Sedum sp.
STONECROP FAMILY
ERICACEAE
Arbutus menzzeszn
Arctostaphylos canescens
Arctostaphylos viscida
Chiamphila umbellata
Rhododendron occidentale
HEATH FAMILY
madrone
grav manzanita
whiteleaf manzanita
prince s pine
western azalea
Draft Rough and Ready ACEC Management Plan/EA: Appendix B page 60

FABACEAE
Lathyrus sp.
Lotus sp.
Lupinus albifrons
PEA FAMILY
FAGACEAE
Lithocarpus densiflora var. echinoides
Lithocarpus densiflora var. densiflora
Quercus garryana var. garryana
Quercus garryana var. breweri
Quercus kelloggii
Quercus vaccinifolia
GARRYACEAE
Garrya buxifolia
GERANIACEAE
Geranium sp.
HYDROPHYLLACEAE
Eriodictyon califorrnicum
Phacelia corymbosa
HYPERICACEAE
Hypericum anagalloides
Hypericum perforatum
LAMIACEAE
Monardella odoranssima
Prunella vulgaris
Trichostema sp.
LAURACEAE
Umbellularia californica
NYMPHAEACEAE
Nuphar luteum ssp. polysephalum
OAK FAMILY
tanoak
tanoak
white oak
Brewer's oak
black oak
huckleberry oak
SILK TASSEL FAMILY
silktassel
GERANIUM FAMILY
storksbill
WATERLEAF FAMILY
yerba santa
phacelia
ST. JOHN'S WORT
tinker's penny
St. John's wort/kIarnath weed
MINT FAMILY
coyote nint
selfheal
bluecuris
LAUREL FAMILY
Califormia bay/laurel
WATER LILY FAMILY
yellow pond lily
Draft Rough and Ready ACEC Management Plan/EA: Appendix B page 61

ONAGRACEAE
Epilobium brachycarpum
Epilobium minutum
EVENING PRIMROSE
OLEACEAE
Fraxinus latifolia
OLIVE FAMILY
Oregon ash
OROBANCHACEAE
Orobanche uniflora
naked broomrape
PAPAVERACEAE
Eschscholzia californica
POPPY FAMILY
California poppy
PHILADELPHACEAE
Whipplea modesta
MOCK ORANGE FAMILY
whipplevine
POLEMONIACEAE
Gilia capitata
Phlox diffusa
Phlox speciosa
PHLOX FAMILY
gilia
spreading phlox
showy phlox
POLYGALACEAE
Polygala californica
MILKWORT FAMILY
California milkwort
POLYGONACEAE
Eriogonum nudum
Eriogonum pendulum
Eriogonum ternatum
PORTULACACEAE
Claytonia exigua
PRIMULACEAE
Dodecatheon hendersonn
Trientalis latifoha
BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
naked buckwheat
Waldo buckwheat
buck-wheat
PURSLANE FAMILY
PRIMROSE FAMILY
shooting star
star flower
RANUNCULACEAE
Delphinium decorum
BUTTERCUP FAMILY
larkspur
Draft Rough and Ready ACEC Management Plan/EA: Appendix B page 62

Ranunculus occidentalis
RHAMNACEAE
Ceanothus cuneatus
Ceanothus pumilus
Rhamnus californica
ROSACEAE
Amelanchier alnifolia
Cercocarpus betuloides
Holodiscus discolor
Holodiscus microphyllus
Horkelia congesta ssp. nemorosa
Horkelia sericata
Physocarpus capitatus
Rosa gymnocarpa
Rubus ursinus
Spirea douglasii
RUBIACEAE
Galium ambiguum
western buttercup
BUCKTHORN FAMILY
buckbrush
Siskiyou mat
coffeeberry
ROSE FAMILY
serviceberry
mountain mahogany
oceanspray
small-leaved oceanspray
Josephine horkelia
ninebarkl
woodrose
California blackberry
spirea
MADDER FAMILY
bedstraw
SALICACEAE
Salix sp.
Salix delnortensis*
SARRACENIACEAE
Darlingtonia californica*
WILLOW FAMILY
PITCHER PLANT FAMILY
pitcher plant
SAXIFRAGACEAE
Lithophragma paiviflora
SAXIFRAGE FAMILY
SCROPHULARIACEAE
Castilleja hispida var. brevilobata*
Collinsia sparsiflora
Mimulus douglassti*
Mimulus guttatus
Penstemon laetus
FIGWORT FAMILY
paintbrush
Douglas's monkeyflower
yellow monkevflower
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management Plan/EA: Appendix B page 63

VALERIANACEAE
Plectriffs congesta
VALERIAN FAMILY
sea blush
VIOLACEAE
Viola adunca
Viola cuneata
Viola hallii
VIOLET FAMILY
Western dog violet
violet
Hall's violet
MONOCOTYLEDONS
CYPERACEAE
Carex serpentmnicola*
SEDGE FAMILY
IRIDACEAE
Iris bracteata
Iris chrysophylla
Sisyrincium douglasii var. douglasn
IRIS FAMILY
Siskiyou iris
yellow flowered iris
purple-eyed grass
JUNCACEAE
Juncus sp.
Luzula comosa
RUSH FAMILY
LILIACEAE
Allium amplectens
Alliumfalcifolhum
Brodiaea elegans
Calochortus howellii *
Calochortus tolmiei
Camassia quamash
Dichelostemma capitatum
Erythronium citrinum
Fritillaria affinis
Hastingsia serpentincola
Lilium pardilinum
Tofieldia occidenta/is ssp. occidentalis
Tritelia hyacinthina
Zigandenus venenosus
LILY FAMILY
sickled leaved onion
Howell's mariposa lily
Tolmie's cat's ear
camas
blue dicks
lemon colored fawn lilv
checker lily
rush lily
tiger lily
tofieldia
death camas
Draft Rough and ReadyACEC Management PlanEA: Appendix B page 64

ORCHIDACEAE
Epipactus gigantea
Pipena sp.
ORCHID FAMILY
giant stream orchid
POACEAE
Achnatherum lemmonfi
Bromus carinatus
Bromus tectorum
Danthonia californica
Deschampsia cespitosa
Elymus elymoides
Elymus glaucus
Festuca californica
Festuca idahoensis
Koehleria macrantha
Melica sp.
Panicum sp.
GRASS FAMILY
Lemmon's needlegrass
California brome
cheat grass
California oatgrass
tufted hairgrass
squirrel tail
blue wildrve
California fescue
Idaho fescue
June grass
omnongrass
Panic grass
Draft Rough and Ready A CEC Management Plan/EA: Appendix B page 65

Appendix C: Draft Rough & Ready ACEC Fire Management Plan
October 1997
Prepared by Tom Murphy
The Rough & Ready ACEC Fire Management Plan is adapted from and conforms to the Medford District
Fire Management Plan, Phase I, 1997. Management plans for ACEC are required to address fire
management actions includin: use of prescribed fire and wildfire suppression (ROD 1995, p.56). The
primary ACEC values for Rough & Ready are special status plants, wildlife/fisheries, natural and hydrologic
processes.
A. General Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for Fire Management Pertaining to the Rough
& Ready ACEC (as outlined in the Medford District Plan)
Objectives for Fire Management
Provide appropriate fire suppression responses to wildfire that will help meet the ACEC Management Plan
objectives.
Use prescribed fire to meet ACEC Management Plan objectives. This might include fuels management for
wildfire hazard reduction, restoration of desired vegetation conditions, management of habitat and restoration
of plant species and/or communities.
Adhere to smoke management / air quality standards of the Clean Air Act and the state implementation plan
for prescnbed burning.
Apply the management actions/direction in the Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species and
Habitat Section of the Northwest Forest Plan.
Address Fire/Fuel management for all land use allocations as part of watershed analysis. This will include
determination of the role of fire and the risk of large scale, high intensity wildfire at the landscape level and
its potential effect on the ACEC. During watershed analysis, identify additional factors which mav affect
hazard reduction goals.
Coordinate fire management activities m rural interface areas with local governments, agencies, and
landowiers. Minimiuze the impacts of wildfire suppression actions.
Fire management plans (including the use of prescnbed fire for ecosystem management, fuel hazard
reduction and wildfire suppression) will be written or revised for all areas. as necessary, consistent with
existing guidance. The plans will be developed in an interdisciplinary manner and include specific objectives
to support the unique management of the area. It is important to monitor and evaluate all fire management
activities to ensure consistency with ecosystem management objectives.
Standards and Guidelines for Fire Management
One objective of ecosystem analysis and management is to identify historical disturbance regimes and to
manage the landscape within that context. The role of fire management in the maintenance of ecosystems is
DraftRough and ReadyManagementPlanWEA::Appendix C page 66

well recognized. Thus, fire is inherently neither "bad" nor "good," and should be used or suppressed in the
context of achieving ecosystem management objectives at the landscape level.
Fire management activities consist of wildfire suppression, wildfire hazard reduction and prescribed fire
applications. In the course of implementing the following standards and guidelines to achieve ecosystem
management objectives, it is critical that wildfire suppression and prescribed burning activities do not
compromise the safety of fire fighting personnel.
A wildfire is defined as any wildland fire that does not meet management objectives and, thus, requires a
suppression response. By regulation, a fire cannot be termed a prescribed fire once it has been declared a
wildfire. A prescribed fire is defined as a fire burning within an approved, predefined and planned
prescription. It may result from a planned or natural ignition. When a prescribed fire exceeds the prescription
and/or planned perimeter, it may be declared a wildfire.
The use of prescribed fire for ecosystem management can restore processes that have been limited by fire
exclusion. Most plant communities in the planning area are adapted to fire, although the natural recurrence of
fire is at widely varying intervals. Some species require periodic fire for their persistence and many additional
species are well adapted to periodic use of fire. Prescribed fire can also be used effectively in the restoration
and maintenance of wildlife habitat.
The goal of wildfire hazard reduction in all land allocations is to reduce the risk of large-scale, high intensity
wildfire which would prevent land managers from meeting resource management objectives. It is essential to
seek a balance between reducing cost and reducing the risk of wildfire, while promoting management
objectives. The use of prescribed fire for hazard reduction has the potential to restore ecosystem processes,
lower smoke emissions from wildfire, limit the size of wildfire by facilitating fire suppression (while using
methods that have a lower environmental impact)and reduce the cost of wildfire suppression.
Prescribed Fire for Ecosystem Maintenance and Restoration
Appropriate resource management experts should be involved in the development of project-level, prescribed
fire plans. Planning and implementation of prescribed burns should be designed to meet stated objectives of
the project and land allocation.
Prescribed burning must adhere to smoke management and air quality standards and giudelines described in
the Final SEIS, Chapter 3&4, the Air Quality Analysis section.
The goal of prescribed burning in this context is to maintain or restore ecosystem process or structure.
Natural fire and Native American use of fire played an important role in the development of Southern
Oregon ecosystems. Consequently, land managers should strongly consider the use of prescribed fire when
developing alternatives to restore or maintain ecosystem process or structures in these areas.
Application of prescribed fire for ecosystem maintenance should vary in extent and frequency of application.
The difference in prescribed fire application should be related to the role of natural fire in specific landscapes
and current ecosystem needs. In general, dry provinces will require more frequent application of fire and can
benefit from carefully planned and implemented prescribed burns. Also, the wide natural variability in
provinces and individual stand histories may lead to fuels management prescriptions that are inconsistent
with the standards and guidelines of the selected alternative. The deviation from standards and guidelines
Draft Rough and Ready Management PlanI/EA :Appendtc C page 67

may be necessary to achieve the overall goal of reducing the threat of large-scale fire.
Fuels Management for Hazard Reduction
The goal of wildfire hazard reduction is to modify fuel profiles in order to lower the potential of fire ignition
and the rate of spread. Hazard reduction will also protect and support land allocation objectives by lowering
the risk of high intensity, stand-replacing wildfire. This will be accomplished by reducing fuel accumulations
to levels that provide the lowest cost plus net value change over time, while remaining consistent with the
objectives of the affected land allocation.
Appropriate resource management experts should be included in developing project level hazard reduction
plans. These plans should identify levels of coarse woody debris and snags (of adequate size and in sufficient
quantities) to meet the habitat requirements of species of concern. Additionally, these plans must provide for
the safety of fire fighting personnel and yield a fuel profile that supports land allocation objectives. It is
essential to seek a balance between reducing the risk of wildfire, and the cost efficiency consistent with
meeting land allocation objectives.
Hazard reduction activities will include, but not be limited to prescribed burning, mechanical or manual
manipulation of forest vegetation and debris, removal of forest vegetation and debris; as well as combinations
of these methods. While fuel break construction and underburning are both valid hazard reduction
techniques, prescribed underburning is generally more effective in reducing wildfire hazard.
Prescribed burning for hazard reduction must adhere to smoke management and air quality standards
described in this Final SEIS, Chapter 3&4, in the Air Quality Analysis section (RMP 1995).
Wildfire Suppression Standards and Guidelines Common to All Land Allocations
Address fire and fuel management for all land use allocations as part of watershed analysis. This will include
determinations of the role of fire and the risk of large scale, high intensity wild fires. Coordinate fire
management activities in rural inter-face areas with local governments, agencies, and landowners. During
watershed analysis, identify additional factors that may effect hazard reduction goals. Minimize the impacts
of wildfire suppression actions.
Fire managers will respond to all wildfires by taking appropriate suppression responses. In most cases,
responses will consist of aggressive initial attack to extinguish fires at the smallest size possible. A Wildland
Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA) will be initiated for all fires threatening to escape initial attack. The WFSA
will be used to determine the appropn ate suppression needed for the values at risk. This analysis should Nield
a suppression strategy that achieves fire suppression goals. Analysis teams should involve pertinent resource
management experts.
Watershed/landscape analyses or Late-Successional Reserve plans will provide direction for managing fire to
enhance and protect specific habitat areas and critical land allocation components. Depending on the results
of each analysis, specific suppression techniques will be recommended to mitigate damage to the key
components of that habitat.
The appropriate use of suppression tools such as aircraft, dozers, pumps, and other mechanized equipment
should be identified. In addition to suppression actions, support efforts (e.g., transportation, fueling,
Draft Rough and Ready Management Plan/EA: Appendix C page 68

sanitation) and facility establishment (e.g., camps, helibases, staging areas) should be evaluated for potential
adverse effects on attaining ecosystem management objectives.
Any restrictions to these activities or facility locations should be specified. Until watershed/landscape
analyses or Late-Successional Reserve plans are completed, suppression activities should be guided by land
allocation objectives in coordination with local resource management specialists.
Structural components such as snags, duff, and coarse woody debris should be protected from wildfire and
suppression damage to the extent possible. Trees and snags should be felled if they pose a threat to fire
fighter safety or contribute to the risk of wildfire spread. In general, those suppression actions which cause
more damage to critical resources (threatened and endangered plant or animal species, and their habitats) than
the fire itself should be carefully evaluated and alternative actions considered. Resource management experts
should be involved to evaluate potential suppression damage compared to potential wildfire damage.
When taking fire suppression actions in areas where land allocation are intermingled (such as Riparian
Reserves within Late-Successional Reserves), fire managers, in consultation with Resource Advisors, should
consider the most critical resource and apply standards and guidelines associated with that resource.
The rehabilitation of areas damaged by wildfire suppression activities should be planned with the advice of
applicable resource management experts.
Fire Management For Administratively Withdrawn Areas (ACEC)
Administratively Withdrawn Areas have been designated for a wide range of objectives. Fire management
activities should be guided by current plans and draft plan preferred alternatives when their objectives are not
addressed by the Medford District RMP. Administratively Withdrawn Areas will have no additional
standards and guidelines beyond those described in the section Wildfire Suppression Standards and
Guidelines Common to All Land Allocations.
Fire Management for Riparian Reserves
Fire risk in the riparian reserve area is usually low, the primary threat to the reserve is from fire spreading to
these areas from the out side.
Guidelines:
Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and activities to meet Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies will
recognize the role of fire in ecosystem and identify those instances where fire suppression and fuel
management activities could be damaging to long-term ecosystem function.
Locate incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots and other centers for incident activities
outside of Riparian Reserves. If the only suitable location for such activities is within the Riparian Reserve,
an example may be granted following a review and recommendation by a resource advisor. The advisor will
prescribe the location, use conditions, and rehabilitation requirements. Utilize an Interdisciplinary team to
predetermine suitable incident base and helibase locations.
Minimize delivery of chemical retardant, foam or other additives to surface waters. An exception may be
Draft Rough andReadyManagementPlanWEA4:Appendix C page 69

warranted in situations where over-riding immediate safety imperatives exist, or, following a review and
recommendation by a resource advisor, when an escape would cause more long-term damage.
Design prescribed burn projects and prescriptions to contribute to attainment of Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives.
Immediately establish an emergency team to develop a rehabilitation t. .itment plan needed to attain Aquatic
Conservation Strategy objectives whenever Riparian Reserves are significantly damaged by a wildfire or a
prescribed fire burning outside prescribed parameters.
Until watershed analysis is completed, suppress wildfire to avoid loss of habitat and to maintain future
management options.
Consider rapidly extinguishing smoldering coarse woody debris and duff.
Locate and manage water drafting sites (e.g., sites where water is pumped to control or suppress fires) to
minimize adverse effects on riparian habitat and water quality as consistent with Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives.
Risk from Ignition Sources
Fire occurrence on the Medford District during the current fire planning period (1985 to 1996) totaled 54,872
acres burned by 751 fires. This equals an average of 75 fires a year for 5,487 acres during the planning period
or 1.15 acre fire per 1,000 acres per year.
The break down by cause is: 527 lightning fires for 44,523 acres and 224 human caused for 10,349 acres or
and average of 53 lightning fires for 4523 acres and 22 human caused for 1035 acres during the planning
period.
The most significant threat of large catastrophic wild fire is multiple lightning starts late in the fire season
(Aug.-Sept.), or human caused fire spreading from lower elevation inter-face areas and threatening District
resources. These two scenarios have accounted for 95 percent of the burned acres on the District during the
recent planning period.
Threat from District prescribed fires escaping and causing resource damage or private burns spreading to and
damaging District lands has historically been minimal. Equipment and debris burning fires totaled 48 fires
for 4 acres during the planning period.
Wildfire Strategies
Provide appropriate wildfire suppression response, that will meet resource management objectives. Direction
for fire suppression action is found in BLM Manual 9214 and Medford District Record of Decision and
Resource Management Plan.
Draft Rough and Ready Management PlanJEA: Appendit C page 7O

General Management Direction:
During fire suppression activities, fire managers will consult with resource specialists familiar with the area
(ROD C-17 and C-18), and ensure that habitat damage is minimized. The responsible Line Officer(s) will
designate a resource advisor to the fire incident.
The designated resource advisor will have responsibility equal to other members of the fire suppression
organization and will be part of the team assembled by the Line Officer for development of the Wildfire
Situation Analysis (WFSA) as described in BLM Manual 9210.
Suppression Techniques to Minimize Habitat Damage
1) Avoid the draw-down of pools of water in creeks and rivers during periods of low water flows.
2) Do not allow the use of heavy equipment in stream channels.
3) Avoid the use of retardant and heavy equipment in riparian areas.
4) Locate base and spike camps outside of known locations of threatened and endangered species.
5) Minimize the building of any new roads or widening of existing roads.
6) Include construction of water bars as standard procedures on all firelines. AU roads opened to provide
access for fire equipment will be drained and seeded or obliterated.
7) Develop a fire rehabilitation plan through an interdisciplinary process. Select treatments on the basis of on
site values, probability of successful implementation, social and environmental considerations (including
protection of native plant communities) and cost as compared to benefits.
B. Specific or Additional Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for Rough & Ready ACEC
Objectives for Fire Management
Same as in General Objectives. Additional or specific objectives will be dependent on the Alternative
selected.
Standards and Guidelines for Fire Management
Same as in General Standards and Guidelines. Additional data and mapping of vegetation is needed to fully
recognize the role of fire disturbance regimes on natural processes and botanical values of the ACEC. This
is primarily necessary for plant associations and special status plants that are not currently well documented.
This mapping is necessary on an estimated 20 to 30 percent of the ACEC.
Prescribed Fire for Maintenance and Protection of ACEC Values
Prescribed fire would be used on 120 to 250 acres of the ACEC within a ten year period. Locations of
prescribed fire use would include areas adjacent to high risk locations such as along frequently used roads and
property boundaries. Additionally, plant series/associations that would have prescribed fire use are included
Draft Rough and Ready Management Plan/EA: Appendix C page 71

in the following table (Map Symbols are shown in Figure 4):
ROUGH & READY ACEC VEGETATION
POTENTIAL PRESCRIBED BURNING FOR MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION
POTENTIAL
MAP PLANT SERIES ACREAGE OF
SYMBOL ACRES /ASSOCIATIONS PRESCRIBED
BURNING/
10 YEAR PERIOD
I-Jeffrey Pine-Incense Cedar-
13 95 Douglas-fir 15-35
2-Douglas-fir-Incense Cedar-Jeffrey
Pine
1-Jeffrey Pine/Idaho Fescue
2-Ponderosa Pine Series-Unclassified
14 41 3-White Oak Series-Unclassified 0-10
1-White Oak Series-Unclassified
15 125 2-Ponderosa Pine Series-Unclassified 0-25
I-Douglas-fir/P.Pine/ Poison Oak
lB 84 2-Douglas-fir/Dry Shrub 10-20
1 -Douglas-fir/Creambush
48F 65 Oceanspray/Whipplevine 15-30
2-Douglas-fir/Dry Shrubs
61C, 61D 18 Douglas-fir-P.Pine/Poison Oak- 0-5
l-Jeffrey Pine/Buckbrush/Idaho
73, 74 643 Fescue 80-125
2-Jeffrey Pine/Idaho Fescue
3-Jeffrey Pine/Hoary
Manzanita/Idaho Fescue
4-Knobcone Pine Series
(successional)
84F 8 White Oak/Hedgehog Dogtail 0
ACRES/1O YEARS 120-250
Differences in prescribed fire techniques may be necessary based upon the plant association, objectives for
these specific associations and site specific fuel conditions. For instance, the knobcone pine series may
require different techniques because the fire management objective may be to reduce hazard fuel levels along
boundaries. Specific methods to achieve this objective would include slashing understory manzanita then
DraftRough andReadyManagementPlan/EA:AppendixC page 72

urning in the late fall/early winter to reduce chances for high intensity fire. For the Jeffrey pine/Idaho fescue
association, the fire management objective may be to reduce competition of grasses to provide more habitat
for special status plants. Specific methods to achieve this objective would be to also burn in the late fall/early
winter with no slashing required. For the Jeffrey Pine/Buckbrush/Idaho Fescue association, the fire
management objective may be to reduce competition from buckbrush to again allow for more habitat for
special status plants. Specific methods to achieve this objective would be to burn in winter without slashing
the buckbrush first.
Prescribed Fire for Restoration and Enhancement of ACEC Values
Prescribed fire would be used on 80 to 200 acres to meet these objectives within a ten year period. These
acres are in addition to those burned for maintenance and protection. The locations of this burning would be
determined following more detailed mapping and data collection to determine benefit and need of any
prescribed burning. It is anticipated that burning for these objectives would occur on the following
locations:
ROUGH & READY ACEC VEGETATION
POTENTIAL PRESCRIBED BURNING FOR RESTORATION & ENHANCEMENT
POTENTIAL
MAP PLANT SERIES ACREAGE OF
SYMBOL ACRES /ASSOCIATIONS PRESCRIBED
BURNING/
10 YEAR PERIOD
1-Jeffrev Pine-Incense Cedar-
13 95 Douglas-fir 5-15
2-Douglas-fir-Incense Cedar-Jeffrey
Pine
1-Jeffrey Pine/Idaho Fescue
14 41 2-Ponderosa Pine Series-Unclassified 0-10
3-White Oak Series-Unclassified
1-White Oak Series-Unclassified
15 125 2-Ponderosa Pine Series-Unclassified 20-40
I-Douglas-fir/P.Pine/ Poison Oak
lB 84 2-Douglas-fir/Dry Shrub 10-20
1 -Douglas-fir/Creambush
48F 65 OceanspravAWhipplevine 5-15
2-Douglas-fir/Dry Shrubs
61C, 61D 18 Douglas-fir-P.Pine/Poison Oak 0-5
Draft Rough and Ready Management PlanIEA: Appendix C page 73

.- Jeffrev Pine/Buckbrush/Idaho
73, 74 643 Fescue 40-90
2-Jeffrey Pine/Idaho Fescue
3-Jeffrey Pine/Hoary
Manzanita/Idaho Fescue
84F 8 White Oak/Hedgehog Dogtail 0-5
ACRES/10 YEARS 80-200
Total Prescribed Fire
Total prescribed fire use would reach a potential level of 200 to 450 acres over the ten year period. Any acres
burned as a result of wildfire occurrence within the 10 year period would be applied toward the prescribed fire
acreage total. Prescribed fire amounts are dependent on funding and availability of personnel.
Specific and Additional Wildfire Suppression Standards and Guidelines For the Rough & Ready
ACEC
The objective is to use minimum impact wildfire suppression methods. Limiting ground disturbing activities
will be emphasized. Vehicles will be limited to existing roads. No tractor use will be allowed. Hand line
construction will be limited, with the use of foam encouraged instead. In areas of knobcone pine where fire
intensity could be high, there may be a need to pre-burn to establish a holding line.
Draft Rough and Ready Management Plan/EA: Appendix C page 74 -

Appendix D: Bird Species List from Breeding Bird Study in Serpentine
Habitat.
Black-throated grey warbler
MacGillivary's warbler
Nashville warbler
Common flicker
Hairy woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker
Olive-sided flycatcher
Pacific-slope flycatcher
Western wood-pewee
Tree swallow
Western bluebird
Dark-eyed junco
Chipping sparrow
Lazuli bunting
Western tanager
Townsend's solitare
Wrentit
Plain titmouse
Red-breasted nuthatch
Stellers jay
Poor-will
Common nighthawk
Brown headed cowbird
Mourning dove
Purple finch
American robin
Spotted towhee
Mountain quail
Draft Rough and Ready Management Plan/EA: Appendix D page 75

Appendix E. Recreation Opportunity Setting for the Rough and Ready ACEC
I. Purpose
The purpose of the study is to develop a recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) inventory of the existing
recreation opportunities available in Rough and Ready Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
II. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes
ROS classes are the basic framework for inventorying, planning and managing the recreation resource.
Opportunity classes define the physical, social and managerial conditions considered desirable and
appropriate within the area (Hendee et. al. 1990). A recreation opportunity is the availability of a choice for
a user to participate in a preferred activity within a preferred setting (i.e. ROS class), in order to realize those
satisfying experiences which are desired (USDA, USFS 1982).
For practical purposes, ROS is subdivided into six classes. These classes, which represent a continuum,
cover the full range (spectrum) of activity, setting and experience opportunities from pristine environments to
highly developed environments.
This classification process provides the basis for inventorying these opportunities and, more importantly, for
developing recreation management objectives to guide future planning and management efforts. The classes
are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes
Primitive Semi-Primitive Non- Semi-Primitive Roaded Rural Urban
Motonzed Motorized Natural I
III. Area of Inventorv
The area of inventory is the Rough and Ready ACEC, a 1,164 acre parcel of BLM land approximately 10
miles southwest of Cave Junction, Oregon.
[V. Base Map
The base map that was used to inventory the ACEC was an aerial photo of the ACEC with section lines and
BLM ownership identified. The information was then transferred to an Autocad map for presentation.
V Inventory Methodology
A Level I inventory was completed for the area of analysis as stated in Chapter IV, Recreation Experience
Opportunities, in the Recreation Inventory Handbook (BLM Draft Manual Handbook H-8310-1 1987). This
inventory provides a rough approximation of the acres for each ROS class and a brief description of relative
importance of the experience opportunities available in the area of analysis. The onginal ROS setting criteria
Draft Rough and Ready Management Plan/EA: Appendix E page 76

were used for this area.
VI. Inventory
A. Introduction
The area was inventoried by visiting the area and hiking and driving throughout the ACEC. Aerial photos
were used with an overlay mapping the physical and social settings. Managerial settings were not used,
because there are currently no specific management activities or direction in the ACEC. The management
plan is addressing alternative management directions.
B. Inventory Results
The current recreation setting for the Rough and Ready ACEC ranges from Semi-Primitive Motorized to
Rural. There are no Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized settings, as there are open roads throughout
the ACEC and the entire area is within '/2 mile of any road influence.
The remoteness category is roaded natural and rural. Evidence of humans and social categories include semiprimitive
motorized, roaded natural and rural settings. The inconsistency is within the semi-primitive
motorized areas, which don't occur in the remoteness category. To adjust for this inconsistency, the SPM
areas were made smaller to include only those areas away from road systems, or areas with heavier/denser
vegetation which seem more remote, even though there may be roads nearby. See the attached map for
specific categories, which follow:
Semi Primitive Motorized (SPM): Approximately 85 acres are within this class. These areas have only nonmaintained
roads and trails, but are otherwise roadless. These areas receive little use and are generally
located on the outer edges of the ACEC in the uplands and more forested areas.
Roaded Natural (RN): 823 acres are within this class. This class comprises the majority of the ACEC and
includes roads which are used intermittently and lands around these roaded areas. The West Fork Illinois
River and Rough and Ready Creek also fall into this category.
Rural (R): 256 acres are within this class. These areas are the most heavily used in the ACEC and are
corridors along the major road systems through the ACEC. This includes highway 199, and the roads on the
east and west side, north of the creek. These are the main thoroughfares in the ACEC.
The majority of the recreational use occurs along roads and trails within the ACEC. The roads are all natural
surfaced, with the exception of State Highway 199, which is a paved 2 to 4 lane route that dissects the ACEC.
Camping occurs mainly where roads access the river or creek (specifically at the confluence of the West Fork
Illinois River and Rough and Ready Creek on the south side of the river, on some private land just east of
BLM land along the river, and along the northwest road into the ACEC, where it overlooks the creek.) Day
use includes botanizing, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, driving (OHVs as well as 2WD vehicles
on roads), fishing, hunting, target shooting, and nature study.
Draft Rough and Ready Management Plan/EA: Appendix E page 77

APPENDIX F:
FIGURES (following this page)
Draft Rough and Ready Management Pln/EA: Appendix E page 78

h &
Ready Creek
Area of Critical
Environmental Concern
Location Map
I
IT
Roads
Streams
Property LiUnes
ACEC
Contours
Legend
_ _ _ _
R8W
I
- N
I
Indian Hill
2000'
C
C
1 9
10OO 500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
20
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 1

a
~1
-V
-7
Al -~~-1
/ I
-
57,m-
I
o - -
Figure 2
R

a 4
all l~oI
III[
2
mZ
0 e
I-
I M
Ii;
il
tat

Rough &
Ready ACEC
Soils map
Ao
19 20
1000 5 0 1000 2000 . 3000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
Frawi 11w aol tu ydci asupl~i.C ciut.NIICS.W97
Figure 4

Rough &
Ready ACEC
Mining claim map
T40S R8W, Sec. 7,17, 18, 19
- r-_~ - --s-__
- - -____
- - - -_-__- -- - - - - - - -- t_-
- - - - -- - - - _-,- - _- '- _- _- , t - =
- _-_- _ - _-- -- ~- _- _-_----
- - _ - -_ =- __
_-_-- - -- -- - -- y~
-_ _
~~-_ - _-- - ~- -I e - __--__ /
- Z
.4I0
! i
1000 ~ 1 OCL ) 10 I 2000 FEET :3')000 4000
S'CALE IN FEET
Figure 5

h &
I
Ready Creek
Ameaof Critica
Envuvnmenf Concn
Alteratve A
LEGEND
Recreation Oppartunity
Spectrum Clauses
Rural :;?
Roacod Natural j
~~~Suml-Prlmtlvhe
Motorf2ed
Clad Roads
Opon Roads
Streams,
Properly Un..
ACEC
Contours
If Proposed Barriades S
40l
" 0
1000 goo0°
; H,4
r 1 9
1000 2000
SCALE IN FET
3000 4000
,
_ _ _1 !-&-F
Figure 6
20

Rough &
Ready Creek
- .- I~/ Area of Crtca
E:v-ronmental Concern
Ajkemat~e B
V7
. , ! 8i > ALEU
-________K~ 7 t; iA r / / | | 4 | i ~~~~~~~~~Se-Primlilve..
i ¢ -, -/ i - _J} S | e~~~~~~~~~~l~rized-
A~~~~~~~
/ ¢ ' , > */1 ROW Proosotd Barricades
; / K|XL -!~~~4- T _. ,+_ LS- - ' 1 J .teg tateia
. 1t
_
7i Kj c- ;It aI4 _ __- - - g t
=f X , _ S -r - - - - -L . t
100< 0 100 - 2000 - . -3000 T S0 4000 F/gure 7-;
- /~
SCAP
~
E
~ I ~~ FEET
F , . / f4 S7,
A.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 1
;_ _ 99 H~A /200 r
9 Qf'/Z= - - Figre 7 ,t!
SCL IN FEET 921>'{'i''/9

Rough &
Ready Creek
Area of Crtca
Environmental Concern
.- ':- A ,-_ : ,-
I t. -: - " ps ."
Is
- I Indian Hill
_ ~ . . ; i000
000 w
Iae L
1 0 0 0 w50
1000 2000 3000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 8