September 2001

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Prineville District Office

3050 N.E. 3rd Street

P.O. Box 550

Prineville, Oregon 97754

Analysis of the

Management Situation

(AMS) for the Upper

Deschutes Resource

Management Plan and

Environmental Impact

Statement (RMP/EIS)

Executive Summary

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
BLM/OR/WA/PL-01/032+1792

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and

natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation.

The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people.

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under

U.S. administration.
i

1610

Greetings:

This letter introduces the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) for the Upper Deschutes

Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). It prefaces both an

Executive Summary and a full copy of the AMS. If you wish a full copy of the AMS, please contact

the Prineville District Office at the address listed at the end of this letter.

The AMS compiles in one place important information about existing resource conditions, uses, and

demands. It also summarizes the existing management direction, describes the planning criteria that

will guide us in preparing the RMP/EIS, explains the preliminary issues (problems), and proposes a

range of preliminary alternatives and actions (solutions) we propose to analyze in the RMP/EIS.

Thus far in the process, we have identified nine issue categories that will be addressed in the RMP/

EIS. Issues are problems that we cannot solve using management direction provided in existing

RMPs. The nine preliminary issue categories are: Land Ownership, Transportation and Access,

Land Uses, Ecosystem Health and Diversity, Recreation, Special Management Areas, Archaeological Resources, Public Health and Safety, and Social and Economic Values. The issues are described

fully in Chapter 5 of the AMS. These issues came out of internal meetings of BLM specialists and

managers, meetings with tribal and local government representatives, calls and letters from the

general public received over the last ten years, and public scoping public meetings conducted in

1991, and again in 1994, for the “Urban Interface Plan” (an earlier attempt to amend the existing

RMP).

We are asking for your comments regarding this AMS. Specifically, please tell us:

• Is there new, relevant information or circumstances we have not considered?

• Are there errors in our descriptions of existing uses or resources?

• Have we accurately expressed the issues (problems) that need to be resolved, or are there

others we should address?

• Does the range of preliminary alternatives address the stated issues, or are there other

goals we have not considered? What is your vision of a desired future condition that

would address one or more issues?

• Are there management opportunities (actions) we have not listed, which would help

resolve issues?

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Prineville District Office

P.O. Box 550, (3050 N.E. 3rd Street)

Prineville, Oregon 97754

IN REPLY REFER TO:
ii

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton

There are three ways you can share your comments regarding this AMS: (1) Mail them to our office,

(2) Provide them verbally or in writing at one of three public meetings, and/or (3) Participate in an

Issue Team

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be retained on file in the

Prineville District Office as part of the public record for this planning effort. Individual respondents

may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public inspection, or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the

beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All

submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

Mail comments to the following address by November 30, 2001 so that we can consider them as

we prepare the RMP/EIS:

Bureau of Land Management

Prineville District Office

Attn: Mollie Chaudet

PO Box 550 (3050 NE Third Street)

Prineville, OR 97754

Public meetings will be held from 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM at the following locations:

Tuesday October 16 Wednesday October 17 Thursday October 18

Redmond High School Crook County Fairgrounds La Pine Middle School

675 SW Rimrock Carrie Foster Hall 16360 1st Street

Redmond, Oregon 590 Lynn Boulevard La Pine, Oregon

Prineville, Oregon

Issue Teams: A third way you can provide input is by participating on an “Issue Team” (see

attached application). These will be groups of ten or so people, chartered under the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, who will meet one to three times a month between fall 2001 and summer

2003. They will look at the issues in more depth, and help develop the alternatives that will be

considered in the Draft EIS. The Issue Teams will be composed of representatives of the general

public, specific interest groups, permit holders, other stakeholders, and representatives of relevant

government agencies. If you would be willing to serve on an Issue Team, please complete and

return the attached application by October 25.

We appreciate your help in this planning effort and look forward to your continued interest and

participation. For additional information or clarification regarding this document or the Upper

Deschutes RMP/EIS project, please contact Mollie Chaudet at (541) 416-6872. We have also set up

a web page (http://www.or.blm.gov/Prineville/Deschutes_RMP/Home.htm) where you can find

Upper Deschutes planning documents and information about public meetings.

Sincerely,

Robert Towne

Deschutes Field Manager
iii

Issue Team Application

Applications must be postmarked by October 20, 2001

The Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan will be developed using a community-based

collaborative process to help solve important problems facing long-term management of the public

lands within the planning area. To accomplish this vision, we will be using what we are calling

“Issue Teams” to focus our collaborative efforts.

Issue Teams are a variety of teams that will focus on specific planning issues. The teams will be

chartered by the Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee, and will be composed of representatives

of the general public, specific interest groups, permit holders, other stakeholders and relevant

government agencies. These teams would provide recommendations to be included in the planning

process concerning whether:

• issues and interests within the scope of the decisions have been adequately

recognized and described;

• a reasonable range of integrated alternatives have been identified that are

responsive to the issues;

• consensus on a preferred alternative is possible within the time available.

Issue Teams members will attend 1-3 meetings per month between Fall 2001 and Summer 2003.

Specific schedules will be developed later, but the bulk of the Issue Team work is expected to fall

within the first 6-8 months (October, 2001 - May, 2002), with another focused time after the close of

the public comment period of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Winter 2002-2003).

Meetings will be held weekdays whenever possible, but could also be in the evenings or on

weekends to accommodate members’ schedules. Issue Team members will be selected based on the

factors listed below. Issue Team members may serve on more than one Issue Team.

To apply to an Issue Team, please answer the following questions:

1. What Issue Team(s) are you interested in? Land Use, Transportation

and Access, Land Uses, Ecosystem Health and Diversity, Recreation,

Special Management Areas, Archaeological Resources, Public Health

and Safety, Social and Economic Values

2. What interest would you represent? (eg: commercial development, noncommercial recreation, adjacent land owner, grazing permittee)

3. Demonstrate how you meet the following selection criteria:

a. Personal knowledge of local and regional resource issues and understanding of public land uses and

activities.

b. Knowledge and understanding of diverse cultures, interests, or perspectives.

c. Ability to communicate orally and in writing.

d. Willingness to work toward mutually beneficial solutions to complex issues.

e. Respect and credibility in local communities.

f. Commitment to attending meetings held throughout the process (please also note any meeting time

limitations you have i.e. - can’t meet on weekdays, weekends, evenings).
iv

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton

Mail your responses to the above questions to:

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District

PO Box 550

Prineville, OR 97754

Attention: Mollie Chaudet, Project Manager, Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

All applications must be postmarked no later than October 20, 2001 to be considered
v

Analysis of the Management Situation

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) is the first step in revising the 1989

Brothers/La Pine Resource Management Plan (RMP). That land use plan governs the use,

protection, and enhancement of resources on public land it manages in central Oregon, and is

now largely obsolete for the western half of the plan’s area. The 1989 RMP failed to

anticipate issues related to the rapidly growing human population in Bend, Redmond,

Prineville, and surrounding areas. The combination of changed circumstances and new

information that have driven a need to revise the existing RMP are described in more detail

in Chapter 1. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the

BLM to develop and periodically update Resource Management Plans (RMPs) that guide

land management actions on BLM managed lands.

The Prineville District BLM has begun the process of revising the land use plan for the area,

to be called the Upper Deschutes RMP. This RMP will establish broad-scale desired

conditions, goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for the management of the BLM

administered lands and resources within the planning area. The Upper Deschutes RMP will

also amend a portion of the Two Rivers RMP.

The purpose of the AMS is to summarize the existing situation, explain the need for change

(preliminary issues), and propose a range of management opportunities (preliminary alternatives). The AMS is required to provide a starting point to describe the biological, physical,

social and economic components of the environment that would be affected by the decisions

made as a part of the proposed Upper Deschutes RMP. The AMS will serve as the basis for

the RMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Table E1 summarizes the preliminary issues, decisions that will be made, and the preliminary

alternatives that are described in more detail throughout the AMS.

Geographic Scope of Planning Area

The “planning area” covers approximately 885,883 acres of public and private land in two

separate blocks in central Oregon. The northern area is in Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson

counties, and is located between Sisters on the west, Lake Billy Chinook on the north,

Prineville Reservoir and State Highway 27 on the east, and Pine Mountain and Bend on the

south. The southern area, also called the La Pine area, encompasses La Pine, in southern

Deschutes and northern Klamath counties. Overall, 49 percent of the land in the planning

area falls in Deschutes county, 44 percent in Crook, 2 percent in Jefferson, and 5 percent in

Klamath.

The Upper Deschutes RMP includes about 36% of the total area considered in the 1989

Brothers/La Pine RMP. Map 1A shows the area to be covered by the Upper Deschutes RMP.

Boundaries for the planning area are based on the need for changing the existing plan. The

boundaries include the public lands most affected by the rapid growth in the areas of Bend,

Sisters, Redmond, Prineville, and La Pine. Map 1-Land Ownership Status provides a more

detailed view of the planning area and also graphically displays the land ownership in the

planning area and adjacent areas.
vi

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton

The eastern portion of the Brothers/La Pine RMP area is not included in the current planning

area because the growth and use pressure issues driving the need for change have had only

minor effects on lands east of the planning area. Bend and Sisters are not included within

the planning area, but all of the BLM managed public land nearby is. The urban center of

Madras is not included in the planning area, nor is most of the BLM managed land nearby.

While the issues adjacent to Madras are similar to those in the planning area, the Madras

area was not included because the BLM expects to address this area and others in a separate

RMP to be initiated within a few years.

Segments of the Middle Deschutes and Lower Crooked Wild and Scenic Rivers, and the

Badlands Wilderness Study Area (WSA) have existing management plans governing

resource management within those areas. The BLM managed lands within these areas are

included in the planning boundary, and the existing management plans will be incorporated

by reference into the Upper Deschutes RMP. However, the existing plans will not be revised

during this RMP process, though some minor amendments and further plan maintenance

could result in order to address transportation and access issues.

The planning area boundary includes a variety of other land ownerships besides BLM

managed public land. There is also land owned by private parties, counties, and the state,

and public lands managed by other federal agencies. However, this RMP will only make

decisions for the BLM managed lands, excluding that land falling in Wild and Scenic River

boundaries. Exceptions will be made if, through the collaborative planning process, those

jurisdictions having specific authorities over other lands within the planning area choose to

make joint decisions as a part of this process (see also Chapter 6, Collaborative Planning).

Collaborative Planning

The BLM is committed to a community-based planning process that respectfully considers

the diverse opinions and needs of local, regional, and national interests. To use this kind of

approach, a variety of stakeholders must be represented to help identify the issues, develop a

range of alternatives, and to have input as to how the plan, once completed, can be implemented. Pulling all of the interests and jurisdictions together efficiently and effectively,

while providing an open and sharing public process presents numerous challenges. Other

jurisdictions also have opportunities for cooperative decisions associated with this planning

process. The collaborative planning framework described below offers an opportunity for

that to occur.

The collaborative planning framework described here, and illustrated in Figure E2, is

designed to allow for inter-government and general public interaction to help resolve issues

identified for the planning area. An intergovernmental interdisciplinary team will work

together to help clarify issues and design alternatives to address those issues. The Deschutes

Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC), a chartered Federal Advisory Committee, will charter

a subcommittee of its members and a number of working groups - called Issue Teams -

representing a cross section of the general public. The Issue Teams will provide advice to the

intergovernmental interdisciplinary team about the issues to be addressed, and possible ways

to resolve those issues within the scope of the decisions to be made. Below is a brief description of the expected duties of each of the Issue Teams.

BLM or multi-agency decision-makers - federal or other partners that have legal authorities

to make decisions over affected lands (Cooperators).

Interagency Interdisciplinary Team - Intergovernmental Team primarily responsible for

producing staff work, including analyses, for decision-makers on the integrated components

of the plan.
vii

PAC Subcommittee - members of PAC that review the work of and/or participate on Issue

Teams and provide subsequent recommendations to the PAC on advice that should be

transmitted to the BLM within the scope of the Issue Teams charter.

Issue Teams - a variety of teams focusing on specific planning issues and composed of

representative members of the general public, specific interest groups, permit holders, other

stakeholders and relevant government agencies willing to work together to achieve the

purposes of the team charter. These teams would provide recommended advice to the PAC

Subcommittee and thence to the BLM regarding:

• whether issues and interests within the scope of the decisions to be made raised by the

public have been adequately recognized and described;

• development of a reasonable range of integrated alternatives that are responsive to the

issues and within the scope of the decisions to be made;

• whether consensus on a preferred alternative is possible within a given period of time.

The teams would work together on a consensus basis to meet these charges, with frequent

opportunities for the general public to review and comment on the nature of the work as it

progresses. The teams could include “sub-teams” that work on specific geographicallyoriented issues (e.g., land ownership patterns in a specific sub-watershed) in order to make

sure that issues are addressed at the appropriate scale. The charge of the subteams may be to

look at one area potentially affecting another area, while the Issue Team’s responsibility

would be to integrate those ideas into the “big picture.”

Products and Timeline of the Planning Process

Figure E3 illustrates the products and proposed timeline for the planning process. The

following summarizes and defines those products.

The Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (RMP) - prepared in accordance with a

number of laws and regulations (see also Chapter 2), but will primarily follow the process

prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act (FLPMA). These procedural and substantive laws provide the basis for

the planning process and the products that will be produced as a result of this effort.

Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS)- describes the existing condition of the

planning area, the scope of the decisions to be made by the RMP, the preliminary issues and

alternatives, and the collaborative planning process to be used. There will be a 60 day

comment period on the AMS.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)- builds on the AMS and identifies a range of

alternatives that meet the purpose and need for action and address issues within the scope of

the decisions to be made. The DEIS will analyze the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives, and identify a preferred alternative. There will be a 90 day comment period on the DEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Management Plan (FEIS)- based upon

comments on the DEIS and Preferred Alternative, the FEIS will modify the range of alternatives, including the preferred alternative, and/or the environmental consequences. The Proposed Management Plan will include a more detailed description of the preferred alternative.

The FEIS and Proposed Management Plan will have a 30 day public comment period, during

which protests to the proposed decision may be filed with the BLM State Director.
viii

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton

Record of Decision and Final Management Plan (ROD) - ROD will formally present the

rationale for the selected alternative, including the BLM State Director’s response to any

protests filed as a result of the Proposed Management Plan. The final management plan will

include goals, objectives, and standards for the selected alternative, as well as an implementation and monitoring plan.

The AMS Contents

The AMS is organized as follows:

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Describes the need for change to the Brothers/La Pine RMP and the geographic scope of the planning

area

Chapter 2 – Legal Mandates

Listing of the laws and previous policy decisions providing a context for the types of decisions that must

be made in an RMP. Specific Plan decisions are also summarized in table E1.

Chapter 3 – Area Profile

Describes the physical, biological, social, and economic components of the planning area based on information available at the time of publication.

Chapter 4 – Existing Management Direction

Describes of the current direction for resource management in the planning area. This information,

combined with information presented in previous chapters, helps form the framework for developing the

proposed management opportunities.

Chapter 5 – Preliminary Issues, Alternatives, and Management Opportunities

Describes the preliminary issues and management opportunities, including a range of actions and associated outcomes which will be analyzed in the RMP. These are also summarized in table E1.

Chapter 6 – Collaborative Planning

Summary of the collaborative planning process and a projected time-line for completion of the RMP and

associated planning and decision steps.
ix

Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

Issue

Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Land Ownership

Population growth in central Oregon has created increasing

demands on both private and public lands:

• Isolated private parcels surrounded by blocks of public

lands are being more intensively developed than in the

past.

• Urban development is beginning to surround small,

isolated blocks of public lands. This affects the ability

of these lands to provide wildlife habitat or other

public benefits.

• Public lands are increasingly desirable as a source of

land for urban growth and infrastructure to support

growth.

• Increase in development of private lands, and

increased recreational or casual uses on public lands

affects the ability of permittees to effectively or

economically manage grazing allotments.

• In some cases private land ownership blocks public

access public lands. 

• Land ownership status can affect management of

natural resources such as minerals or ground and

surface water and less tangible resources like scenery,

open space, and wildlife habitat. 

Determine the desired location and

arrangement of BLM managed lands in

the planning area. The RMP will

identify:

• Lands available for disposal

• Criteria for land acquisitions

• Proposed withdrawal areas, and

• Lands available for sales or leases

Examine a range of desired conditions for

land ownership patterns that would make

public land available for sale, exchange, or

lease: 

• for community growth and

infrastructure adjacent to major

population centers;

• for community or rural residential

recreation and open space;

• to block up public or private ownership

for improved efficiency; 

• to maintain or improve wildlife habitats

and populations for all life stages.

Examine conditions/criteria for the

acquisition of private parcels and the

retention or transfer of ownership of public

land parcels including identifying areas or

parcels of lands that would be priorities for

acquisition.

Transportation 

 and Access

Regional Transportation Systems

BLM managed lands are increasingly being identified as

necessary or desirable locations for transportation corridors.

Regional transportation includes both inter-county or

intra/interstate transportation.

Regional Transportation Systems

Determine the desired location and

arrangement of regional transportation

infrastructure within BLM managed

lands across the planning area. Identify

areas suitable for right-of-way

corridors expansion, avoidance, and

exclusion areas. 

Regional Transportation Systems

Examine the suitability of areas to provide for

new or relocated regional transportation

corridors and/or improvements within

existing corridors considering tribal, federal,

state and local government needs, wildlife

habitat fragmentation, and effects on public

land users.
x

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Issue Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Transportation and Access

 (continued)

Local Transportation Systems

Local transportation involves intra-county transportation or

primary access points to public lands sites.

• In some areas more access roads lead into public lands

than is necessary for public access. 

• Entry and exit to these roads are frequently unsafe and

risk of accidents increases as traffic increases. 

• In some areas, access to public lands requires trespass

across private lands.

• Some blocks of BLM managed public lands within the

planning area have been closed to motorized use

through “emergency” closures which have gone

beyond the emergency closure period. 

• Motorized uses adjacent to developed private lands

have resulted in complaints about unmanaged

transportation networks on BLM managed lands. 

• Road maintenance on BLM managed lands may not be

sufficient to meet changing standards for public safety

needs for evacuation of subdivisions or communities

during fires.

Rights of Way and Easements

The BLM is required under law to provide access to private

in holdings if no other access is available. County zoning

regulations, safety requirements, and historic rights can

influence which of rights-of-ways the BLM considers.

Private in-holdings are likely to be developed to the extent

permitted by zoning, thus requiring multiple grants of new

rights-of-way.

Local Transportation Systems

Determine the desired location and

arrangement of local transportation

infrastructure within BLM managed

lands across the planning area.

Establish criteria for determining

appropriate road densities based on

uses and values. 

Rights of Way and Easements

Establish guidelines for the granting of

rights-of-way to private land

inholdings.

Local Transportation Systems

The range of alternatives will examine local

roads within the planning area, focusing

primarily on the BLM managed primary

arterial and collector transportation system,

but also on local transportation corridors

needed to address growth and capacity

concerns by local communities. The

alternatives will identify conditions and/or

criteria by which BLM managed roads not

classified as part of the primary system would

be evaluated in the future to determine

whether they would be included into the

transportation system. The range of

alternatives will also examine long-term

desired conditions for integration with local

and regional transportation systems under

other jurisdictions

Rights-of-Way and Easements

The alternatives will examine desired

conditions for rights-of-way grants to

complement existing and projected local and

regional transportation system and other

needs. The range of alternatives will examine

criteria under which easements through

private lands to access public lands would be

sought, and identify likely parcels for

easement acquisition.
xi

Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

Issue

Category Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Transportation and Access

 (continued)

Utility Corridors/ Communication Sites

The demand for electricity, natural gas, and other energy

sources and new forms of digital communication is expected

to continue to increase. At the same time, an increased

awareness and importance of scenic values has created

conflict over the siting of communication or utility

structures. Utility corridors, because of their linear nature

and relatively easy vehicular access, also attract off-road

driving activities, illegal dumping, and vandalism to utility

structures

Utility Corridors/ Communication Sites

The alternatives will examine the conditions

under which utility corridors would be

managed, expanded or designated considering

energy, communication, domestic water,

sewage and related access needs, and noxious

weed potential. The alternatives will also

examine long term desired conditions for

vegetation, and examine suitable locations for

new corridors or sites considering factors

such as ACECs, cultural, geologic, scenic,

aesthetic, or other public values.

Land Uses

Visual Resources

Development within the planning area is expected to

increase the variety of applications for permits for activities

that may affect visual resources. The Brothers/La Pine

RMP does not address public viewsheds or viewpoints that

have developed within the past 10 years, nor does it address

new policy for visual quality objective designations within

Wilderness Study Areas.

Visual Resources

Designate areas into one of four Visual

Resource Management classes.

Visual Resources

The RMP will examine different visual

quality objective designations for BLM

managed lands within the planning area. 

Areas of Traditional Cultural Significance

These areas are places where local Indian people hunt, fish,

pasture livestock, collect roots, berries, medicinal herbs or

plants, and practice traditional religious beliefs. In some

cases, the use of these areas is protected by existing legal

rights, treaties, and other means. 

These areas can be affected by management actions such as

road gating or rehabilitation, weed control, fire

management, recreational improvements and land disposal. 

Areas of Traditional Cultural

Significance

Establish long-term desired vegetative

conditions for important cultural use

areas, and establish criteria for

determining allowable activities and

access to those areas. 

Areas of Traditional Cultural Significance

The range of alternatives will examine

conditions for local American Indian Tribes

to freely participate in activities on public

lands that are of traditional cultural

significance.
xii

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Issue Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

 Land Uses

ontinued) (c

Minerals

The growth of the communities in central Oregon have led

to an increased demand for the use of mineral resources,

particularly crushed aggregate, within the region. Local

communities and State agencies have looked to BLM

managed lands within the planning area to meet this

demand. Local residents and recreational users have

objected that the dust, noise, increased traffic of mineral

extraction can adversely affect the scenic or recreational

values of the lands.

Minerals

Identify areas as open or closed to

operation of the mining laws, mineral

material disposal, and nonenergy

leasing, consistent with the goals,

standards, and objectives for natural

resources within the planning area. In

open areas, identify any area-wide

terms, conditions, or other special

considerations needed to protect

resource values.

Minerals

The range of alternatives will examine the

conditions under which mineral extraction

would be permitted or withdrawn (consider

factors including conflicts with recreation,

residents, scenic, cultural, geologic or other

values). The alternatives will also examine

the criteria for site rehabilitation or change in

land ownership.

Commercial Forest Use

An insect epidemic and subsequent salvage harvest has

changed the forest structure, habitat, and fuels profile in the

La Pine portion of the Brothers/La Pine RMP since the

RMP was completed in 1989. 

The Brothers/La Pine RMP does not reflect projected

commercial forest product outcomes based on a

comprehensive, ecosystem approach that considers

biodiversity, special status plant or wildlife habitat, general

habitat connectivity, the role of old growth juniper, scenic

values, or strategies for continued urban interface fuels

treatments and insect and disease management. 

Commercial Forest Use

Identify the desired future condition for

forest/woodland types found within the

planning area, and identify

management actions and associated

best management practices that can be

applied to help us meet desired future

conditions. 

Commercial Forest Use

The alternatives will examine the conditions

under which conifer forests could be

managed to promote healthy ecosystems, a

safe environment for residents, regionally

important old-growth species in the central

Oregon landscape and provide marketable or

beneficial forest products. Alternatives will

be integrated with the “Ecosystem Health and

Diversity” alternatives
xiii

Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

Issue

Category Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

 Land Uses) (continued

Livestock Grazing

Increased urban development next to public land and

increased recreational and other uses on public land have

led to conflicts between these uses and public land livestock

grazing. Concerns vary from safety issues (stray cattle on

busy public roads) to aesthetics (“cowpies” at popular

recreation areas or next to private land) to economics (labor

costs to continually check gates in popular recreational

areas). Visitors to public land sometimes leave gates open,

cut fences, shoot or otherwise damage troughs or pipelines,

or harass, rustle, or kill livestock. Some individuals and

groups have asked the BLM to consider eliminating grazing

in specific areas.

Livestock Grazing

Determine areas where livestock

grazing (or other uses) will or will not

be allowed, or where seasonal

restrictions may need to be applied,

using criteria developed in the planning

process. Where information is not

currently available to determine

open/closed areas, the plan will guide

subsequent plan amendment decisions

regarding levels of permitted grazing

use, and provide guidelines for

allotment-specific implementation

decisions regarding season of use,

range developments, and other

livestock grazing management

practices. 

Livestock Grazing

The alternatives will examine a range of 

“conflict” thresholds, with the goal of

reducing conflicts between livestock grazing

and other uses and activities on or adjacent to

BLM managed land within the planning area. 

Some of the alternatives will lead to actions

that reduce or eliminate livestock grazing to

reduce conflicts, while other alternatives will

result in changes to other uses or activities. 

The desired conditions will span a range of

levels of conflict between uses and users and

would identify criteria to determine which

uses or actions need to be modified.
xiv

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Issue Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Land Uses

ontinued) (c

Long Term Leases and Temporary Land Use Permits

The District receives numerous requests for temporary use

authorizations for activities such as photography,

commercial filming, or educational purposes. There is no

current procedure for streamlining these requests nor does

the Brothers/La Pine RMP identify areas where these

activities may be preferred or discouraged based on other

resource needs. 

Oregon Military Department and National Guard

Military training was established by the US Army in the late

1930s. The Oregon Military Department (OMD) and

National Guard currently have a permit to carry out training

exercises on the BLM-managed lands adjacent to the Biak

Training Center just south and east of Redmond.

There is an increasing demand for other uses in this area

that may reduce the area available to the military to meet

their purposes.

Unauthorized Occupancy and Use

Unauthorized or illegal uses can result in damage to natural

resources that require restoration. Some unauthorized

occupancy and use of BLM managed lands is a result of a

lack of clearly identified boundaries. The Brothers/La Pine

RMP provides limited guidance for developing a

standardized approach for restoration of resource damage.

Long Term Leases and Temporary

Land Use Permits

Determine the long term desired

condition and set criteria, when

appropriate, for where and under what

circumstances land use authorizations

such as major leases and land use

permits may be granted.

Oregon Military Department and

National Guard

Determine what types of military

activity are desired in which locations

on BLM managed land in the planning

area. Establish criteria for deciding

how to resolve conflicts between

military and other uses or activities.

Unauthorized Occupancy and Use

Identify the desired level of protection

from and response to these illegal

activities. Determine whi BLM

actions could prevent unauthorized

occupancy and use. Decide how to

prioritize which areas will receive

implementation emphasis.

Long Term Leases and Temporary Land

Use Permits

The alternatives will examine conditions for a

smooth and timely process to obtain permits

or leases in areas where requests are often

concentrated and granted.

Oregon Military Department and National

Guard

The alternatives will examine a variety of

conditions under which continued military

uses of the planning area would be permitted.

This would include criteria by which either

the military or other uses within their permit

area could be altered to reduce or eliminate

conflicts between users.

Unauthorized Occupancy and Use

The alternatives will examine long-term

desired conditions to prevent trespass and to

prioritize, and, where possible, standardize

site restoration techniques to be used.
xv

Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

Issue

Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Ecosystem Health and Diversity

Water Quality and Quantity

Some rivers and streams within the planning area, have been

listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) as water quality limited This listing occurred after

completion of the Brothers/La Pine RMP and the concerns

have not been addressed

Juniper stands in densities and locations outside of their

range of historic variability, as well as activities such as offroad vehicle use, grazing, and horseback riding may reduce

ground cover, create ruts, and/or compact soils. As a result,

overland flow is increased and can cause erosion and shorter

flow durations in intermittent streams.

Water Quality and Quantity

Identify desired future conditions for

water quality and quantity within the

planning area. Incorporate standards or

goals under the Clean Water Act and as

a result of the Water Quality

Restoration Plan process. Identify

criteria or thresholds for determining

watersheds that may need special

emphasis because of human health

concerns, aquatic or upland ecosystem

health, or public uses. 

Water Quality and Quantity

Alternatives that are designed to protect and

enhance water Quality and Quantity are

found primarily under alternatives for

managing vegetation, grazing, and recreation.

Vegetation

Increasing urban development and human impacts have

resulted in the fragmentation of old-growth juniper

woodlands in Central Oregon. Old-growth juniper

woodlands are important for wildlife habitat, biological

diversity, and scenic values. 

Vegetation

Identify desired future conditions for

vegetative resources, including the

desired mix of vegetative types,

structural stages, landscape and

riparian functions, and habitat for

native plants, fish, and wildlife. 

Designate priority plant species and

habitats, including Special Status

Species and populations of plant

species recognized as significant for at

least one factor such as density,

diversity, size, public interest, remnant

character, or age. Determine the

location and arrangement of lands that

will emphasize native wildland habitats

and processes, and wildlife habitat

connectivity between BLM managed

and National Forest lands, and uplands

and riparian areas. 

Vegetation

The range of alternatives will examine a

variety of conditions that would restore and

support healthy ecosystems in conjunction

with expected population levels and human

uses, wildlife habitat needs, and economic

reliance of the population on public lands. 
xvi

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Issue Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Ecosystem Health and Diversity

 (continued)

Fire Management

Ecosystems within the Upper Deschutes Planning Area have

evolved over time in response to periodic fire disturbance,

and sustainable ecosystems are in balance with the inherent

frequency, size and severity of the natural disturbance cycle. 

Many acres within the planning area have missed one or

two disturbance cycles due to fire suppression. The

vegetative response to this disturbance deficit is a change in

species presence or prominence, and fuel quantity and

continuity.

The Brothers/La Pine RMP does not fully consider the

habitat needs of newly established special status or

emphasis species such as sage grouse and other sagebrush

obligates. Human expansion and increased recreational use

have added new emphases on ecosystem sustainability and

health, and the previous risk classes may no longer be 

representative of the conditions in the planning area. 

Fire Management

Classify lands into the following

categories: (a) Areas where wildland

fire is not desired at all, (b) Areas

where unplanned fire is likely to cause

negative effects, but these effects can

be mitigated or avoided through fuels

management (e.g., prescribed fire),

prevention of human caused fire, or

other strategies, (c) Areas where fire is

desired to manage ecosystems but

where there are constraints because of

the existing vegetation condition (i.e.,

more substantial non-fire fuels

treatments may be necessary prior to

use of prescribed fire in areas of heavy

fuel loads), and (d) Areas where fire is

desired, and where there are no

constraints associated with resource

conditions or social, economic, or

political considerations

Fire Management

The range of alternatives will examine the

conditions under which fire would play a role

in ecosystem management, the role of human

disturbances, and the historic role of natural

disturbances. 

The alternatives will utilize results of the ongoing joint water quality restoration/total

maximum daily load plan being prepared

with ODEQ and the Forest Service. 
xvii

Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

Issue

Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Ecosystem Health and Diversity

 (continued)

Wildlife

BLM managed public land in the planning area provides a

variety of wildlife habitat components. It may provide

important habitat connectivity between the Deschutes and

Ochoco National Forests and the Little Deschutes,

Deschutes, and Crooked River systems. There is potential

habitat for species such as the bighorn sheep, which once

populated portions of the planning area. In the process of

urban expansion, habitat connectivity can be reduced or

eliminated, affecting genetic exchange between populations.

Reductions in effective habitat increases the importance of

remaining suitable habitat. 

Conversion of private land from native dry-land shrubs to

irrigated agricultural or rural residential uses provides an

increase in the forage base and water sources for some

species.

Wildlife

Work in close coordination with State

wildlife agencies to describe existing

and desired population and habitat

conditions to support a wide variety of

game and nongame species. Designate

priority species and habitats, including

Special Status Species, and populations

of wildlife species recognized as

significant for at least one factor such

as density, diversity, size, public

interest, remnant character, or age; and

identify actions or restrictions on uses

needed to achieve desired population

and habitat conditions. 

Wildlife

Alternatives to protect and enhance wildlife

will be displayed under vegetation, minerals,

and recreation.

Recreation

Developed Recreation 

Campgrounds along the Crooked River south of Prineville

provide the only fully developed BLM managed sites within

the planning area. Sites near water, such as Mayfield and

Reynolds Ponds, or trailhead or staging areas for OHV trail

systems are partially developed. Other sites operated under

permit or lease by other providers, such as the La Pine State

Recreation Area, shooting ranges or golf courses, also meet

demands for developed facilities within the planning area. 

The Brothers/La Pine RMP does not provide guidance or

management policy for identifying conditions under which

developed sites could be pursued by either BLM or through

other permit or lease mechanisms to meet resource

protection and public demand needs.

Developed 

Recreation

Decisions will include the type,

location, and arrangement of recreation

facilities

Developed Recreation 

The range of alternatives will examine the

long-term desired conditions under which

developed recreational facilities on BLM

managed lands would be considered with

regard to projected recreation preferences and

levels of use, protection of resources affected

by dispersed uses, facilities provided by other

recreation providers in the area, and the

overall role of BLM-managed land in

providing developed recreation experiences.

The plan will examine long-term desired

recreational settings at existing developed

sites such as Mayfield and Reynolds Ponds.
xviii

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Issue Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Some BLM lands in the planning area are adjacent to

heavily used State Park units, such as Smith Rock State

Park. The BLM and the State Park manage these adjacent

lands differently though the boundaries between

jurisdictions are not clearly marked. This situation has led

to visitor confusion and resource damage. 

Recreation

ontinued) (c

Motorized Use

OHV use has increased in the planning area. The

Brothers/La Pine RMP provided some direction for future

clarification of OHV policy in “limited” areas. Many of

these areas with “limited” classification in the Brothers/La

Pine RMP did not undergo any further planning, and have

remained open for unmanaged OHV use. Unmanaged OHV

use has resulted in:

• Conflicts between recreationists and landowners. 

• The spread of additional roads and trails within the

planning area, resulting in impacts to wildlife, soils

and plants. 

Winter riding opportunities at existing trail systems are

limited by seasonal closures to minimize disturbance to

wildlife, leaving many recreationists without opportunities

or dislocating them to undesignated and unmanaged areas. 

Some small isolated parcels within the planning area are

classified as “open” to OHV use, are not legally accessible

to the public. OHV use on some small “open” parcels have

resulted in repeated complaints from adjacent landowners.

Motorized Use

Designate areas as “open,” “limited,”

or “closed” to OHVs. Establish criteria

by which motorized road and trail

densities can be developed for specific

areas.

Decision will include the type,

location, and arrangement of recreation

facilities to support the selected level of

OHV use.

The Final Decision in this Plan will be

based on consideration of an

Environmental Impact statement that

meets the requirements of the

Central Oregon Forest Committee v.

Kenna, Civil No. 98-29-ST (D. Or.),

litigation decision.

Motorized Use

The range of alternatives will examine the

long term desired conditions for areas within

the planning area that would be “open,”

“limited,” or “closed” to OHV use. The

alternatives will examine conditions where

joint or segregated motorized and nonmotorized uses would be considered into the

future, and the conditions under which those

activities would be conducted.
xix

Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

Issue

Category Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Recreation

ontinued) (c

Non-Motorized Dispersed Use

Non-motorized dispersed use includes trail-oriented uses

such as hiking, running, horseback and mountain bike

riding, and other dispersed uses such as rock climbing, rock

hounding, hunting and target shooting. Issues associated

with these uses include:

• Conflicts between trail users. 

• New user-created trails are being developed without

consideration of recreation and land use goals. 

• Current mandates for the use of the Millican Valley

OHV area limits trail system use by mountain bikes to

the OHV trail system, eliminating options for single

track mountain bike experiences in that area. 

The Brothers/La Pine RMP does not provide guidance for

the development and maintenance of non-motorized trails.

There have been proposals by the county for regional trail

systems that would depend upon trail alignments on BLM

managed lands. 

Non-Motorized Dispersed Use

Designate areas available or not

available to each type of dispersed use. 

Establish criteria that can be used to

determine the desired level of

development/designation for each use,

prioritize implementation, and decide

which use(s) will be modified and how

when conflicts arise.

Non-Motorized Dispersed Use

The range of alternatives will examine longterm desired conditions for providing a

variety of dispersed, non-motorized uses

across the planning area considering resource

protection needs and recreation demands

within specific areas. The range of

alternatives will identify criteria under which

trail systems would be developed and

designated, or where dispersed activities

would be encouraged without the use of

developed trail systems

Special Recreation Permits

Special recreation permits (SRPs) are issued for commercial

recreational activities or large group events. Population

growth and increased visitation/awareness of BLM

managed public lands has resulted in increasing numbers of

requests for SRPs. These permit requests include annual or

multi-year permits for outfitter/guides (flyfishing, nature

hikes, equestrian trail rides, etc.) and for single day events

(photo shoots, filming, group events, concerts, OHV and

mountain bike races, etc.).

Special Recreation Permits

See: Long Term Leases and

Temporary Land Use Permits

Special Recreation Permits

Examine different criteria for allowing

commercial or non-commercial permitted and

authorized recreational activities. Criteria for

considering group activities will include:

• Provide a needed service not available

on private lands;

• Support tourism and economic

development;

• Be compatible with other public land

uses and resources;

• Maintain public health and safety
xx

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Issue Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

ecial Management Areas Sp

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

The Brothers/La Pine RMP identifies a number of ACECs

but does not identify any that are based on old growth

juniper or visual resource characteristics. There has been

public interest in placing some special area designations on

unfragmented blocks of old growth juniper. As with many

of the public lands in the area, increased growth increases

the recreational and other casual uses within existing

ACECs. The Brothers/La Pine RMP did not provide

direction for conditions under which new ACECs could be

established or existing ACECs could be expanded or

reduced in response to new information or changed

circumstances.

Areas of Critical Environmental

Co

ncern (ACECs)

Identify the long-term desired

condition, distribution and location of

areas with special management

emphasis. Such areas may contain

unique or representative vegetation,

geologic, wildlife, scenic, recreational,

or cultural values. Recommend, as

appropriate, areas for designation as

National Conservation Areas, National

Wild and Scenic Rivers, National

Historic or Scenic Trails, or National

Recreation Areas. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACECs)

The range of alternatives will consider: 

• Designation of new ACECs that meet

the criteria

• Review existing ACECs for changes in

boundaries to better protect or interpret

key resources or to enable recreational

use 

• Consider management guidelines for

existing and proposed ACECs. 

• Examine criteria for implementing

actions and a range of possible actions

based on existing conflicts or concerns.

• Identify opportunities to develop public

education and interpretation strategies.

• Review existing ACEC proposals for

Alfalfa Market Road, Columbia

Southern Irrigation, Juniper Woodland,

and Smith Rock.

Caves

Many of the caves located within the planning area are

being managed under “emergency closures.” Some of

these emergency closures will expire in the near future. 

Increased population growth in the area has resulted in more

cave visitors. The popularity of rock climbing in caves, and

the likelihood of new cave management policies in adjacent

national forests may affect future use and management

needs at BLM managed caves. 

Caves

Designate which activities and uses

will be allowed in and around caves. 

Determine actions necessary to protect

cave resources, and prioritize

implementation of these actions.

Caves

The range of alternatives will: 

• Examine criteria to determine conditions

for public use and access in and around

caves. 

• Consider the location and public and

resource values associated with the

caves and appropriate jurisdictional

responsibilities for each cave. 
xxi

Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan

Issue

Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

ecial Management Areas Sp

 (continued)

Wilderness Study Areas

Interim travel management policy within the Wilderness

Study Areas is not always clearly understood by users or

other agencies, resulting in sometimes inappropriate or

uncoordinated activities within those areas. Motorized uses

within the Badlands WSA is specifically limited to the

interim policy by Court order (see Area Profile - Millican

Valley OHV, Chapter 3). Non-motorized uses are

increasing, and the Brothers/La Pine RMP does not address

management of those uses. Requests for commercial uses

within the WSAs are increasing, and the Brothers/La Pine

RMP does not identify clear guidelines for prioritizing or

permitting those activities (see also Land Uses - Temporary

Uses, Chapter 5 ).

Wilderness Study Areas

Designate Wilderness Study Areas to

be managed under current interim

management policy; and review

undesignated river segments for

eligibility for inclusion in the National

Wild and Scenic River System. 

Wilderness Study Areas

The range of alternatives will: 

• Examine long-term desired conditions

for motorized and non-motorized use

• Develop criteria under which actions to

maintain Wilderness suitability would

be taken

• Determine what actions could be taken

to maintain Wilderness suitability. 

Archeological ResourcesCurrently, uncontrolled use of public lands is the most immediate and pervasive threat to archaeological resources. Increased visitation often results in intentional or inadvertent damage to archaeological resources due to collection, vandalism, and other disturbances. In addition to a rise in recreational use, authorizations for rights-of-ways, mining, public facilities, habitat improvements, land exchanges, urban growth and other legitimate and necessary uses of the public lands have increased. Those uses will continue to result in an everdiminishing archaeological resource base, even when data

recovery or other forms of mitigation are employed.

Establish long-term desired conditions

for archaeological resources. Identify

restrictions that may affect the location,

timing, or method of development or

use of other resources in the planning

area. Identify measures to pro-actively

manage, protect, and preserve cultural

and heritage resources and areas of

traditional cultural significance.

The range of alternatives will examine

conditions under which archaeological

resources can be managed pro-actively

considering their scientific, sociocultural,

educational and recreational values.
xxii

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton Table E-1. Summary of Issues, Decisions, and Alternatives in the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Issue Category

Preliminary Issues Decisions Preliminary Range of Alternatives

Public Health and SafetyIncreasing population densities in the central Oregon area have resulted in a growing number of situations that have the potential to affect public health and safety. These include such things as fire management, illegal dumping that can include hazardous materials, shooting, and increased collisions livestock and vehicles. Most of these issues overlap other issues discussed previously. Identify conditions that can lead to public health and safety concerns, define the BLM’s goal for public safety associated with each risk, and determine which BLM actions would produce or prevent unacceptable risks. The range of alternatives will: • Examine criteria to resolve public safety issues, with an emphasis on potentially life-threatening conflicts. • Consider conditions under which activities such as shooting or campfires would be permitted • Examine fuel conditions by area, considering life and property at risk, ecosystem, and wildlife values. • Involve adjacent landowners in

property protection 

• Identify programs to educate

homeowners about fire in the

ecosystem.

Socio Economic

The public and stakeholders demand that management of

public lands reflect their social and economic values. 

These values vary from individual to individual, from

organization to organization, and from region to region of

the nation. Some values may conflict, for example the value

of natural resources in their natural setting versus the value

of using those resources to meet the society’s need for a

resource such as aggregate. The BLM planning process

must consider these competing values in the planning

process.

The final decision will consider the

social and economic consequences of

all alternatives.

Based on the range of alternatives designed to

address the previous issues, the Upper

Deschutes RMP will display the social and

economic trade-offs between alternatives.
xxiii

40 40 80 Miles 0

40 40 80 Kilometers 0

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management



Prineville District



Upper Deschutes

Analysis of the Management Situation

2001

O R E G O N

Douglas

Coos

Curry

Josephine

Jackson Klamath

Deschutes

Jefferson

Wasco

Sherman

Gilliam Morrow

Umatilla

Wheeler

Crook

Grant

Lake

Malheur Harney

Baker

Wallowa

Union

Multnomah

Prineville

Salem

PORTLAND

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay/

North Bend Burns/

Hines

Vale

Medford

Lakeview

LEGEND

BLM State Office

BLM District Office

BLM Resource Area Office

County Boundary

Upper Deschutes Planning Area

Klamath Falls

Tillamook

Baker City

Hood

Clackamas

Columbia Clatsop

Marion

Washington

Yamhill

Polk

Tillamook

Lincoln Benton

Lane

Linn

N

S

W E

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or 

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from various 

sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy 

Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may 

be updated without notification.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

March 3, 1849

Map 1-A: General Location D07-02-01 : CP
xxiv

Upper Deschutes Analysis of the Management Situaiton

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Prineville District Office

3050 N.E. 3rd Street

Prineville, Oregon 97754

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76