Plan

Upper Deschutes Upper Deschutes

Record of Decision Record of Decision 

and and 

Resource Management Resource Management

Plan 

Prineville District Office 

BLM

October 2005 
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. 
United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Prineville District Office 

3050 N.E. 3rd Street 

[:>.' REPLY Rr.rUl TO Prineville, Oregon 97754 

16 10(OR056) 

Dear Interested Pal1 y: 

I am pleased to announce that, after several years of collabora tive eITon, the Upper Deschutes Resource Managemenl Plan 

(RMP) is complete. This document will provide guidance for the management of over 400,000 acres oflands administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Central Oregon. This plan covers the western portion of the area prc:viously 

managed under the Brothers/La Pine RMP published in July 1989. Since that time the population in the region has grown 

dramatically and demands on public lands have grown along with the population. This new plan will guide management of 

lands facing a level of demands not anticipated by the earlier plan. 

The staff oftne Deschutes Resource Area of the Prineville District of the BLM has prepared the attached Record of 

Decision (ROD) and RMP in accordance with the Federa l Land Policy and Management Act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The ROD links final land use plan decisions to the analysis presented in the Proposed 

RMP/Final Environmental lmpaci Statement (FEIS). Minor changes or points of clarificatiOl1, incorporated into the RMP 

in response to stafT review and issues raised in the protest process, are also briefly described in the ROD. Note: A land 

exchange was completed in the La Pine Area after the RODIRMP went to the printer. All necessary changes in the text 

htlve been implemented. RMP Maps 6 and 15 have been modified. All other maps that display land ownership in the La 

Pine Area do not reflec t this change. Consequently Maps 6 and 15 are the authoritative maps concerning land ownership 

and travel management in the La Pine area. 

The ROD serves as the final decision for l.and Use l'lannlng Decisions described in the attached RMP. Land Use 

Planning Decisions provide management direction and gu ide fu ture actions. Land Use Planning Decisions were 

protestable after the publication of tile Proposed Upper Deschutes RMPfFEIS. Sixteen protest letters were received. 

Aft er careful consideration of all points raised in these protests, the BLM Dire<:tor concluded the responsible planning 

team and decision makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and pertint:nt resource considerations in 

developing the proposed plan. The ROD provides more detail about Land Use Planning Decisions, protests and, protest 

resolution. 

The ROD also describes a sing le Implementation Lt:vel Dt:cision. This dec ision will authorize the issuance of a long 

term (non-exclusive) least: to the Oregon Military Department that will make available almost 44,000 acres ofland for 

Oregon National Guard training. rn the past this training has bet:n authorized through a series of short term permits. 

An appeal opportunity fo r this decision is being provided at this time. The process is described in the ROD and the 

appea l period will c lose 30 days from the dale the Notice of Availability of the ROD/RM P appears in the Federal 

Regisler. This date will also be announced via local news releases, Prineville Distric t website (if operational), andlor 

individual newsletter mailings. Please review the ROD carefully for a more detailed discussion of the appeal process. 

Additional hard copies and CD-ROM versions of the RMP/ROD may be obtained at the address above. The document 

will be available on the internet at http://www.or.blm.gov/Prineville/Deschutes_RMP/Home. htmin the fulure. 

We appreciate your help in this planning effort and look fo rward to your continued participation as the plan is 

implemented. For additional information or claritication regarding the attached document or the planning process, please 

conlact Teal Purrington at 54 )/4 16·6700 or bye-mail at tpurring@or.blm.gov. 

~m~ ~ I ( 

' 

TAKE PRIDEINAMERICA 

Robert B. Towne 

Field Manager, Deschutes Resource Area 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Prineville Disitrict Office 

3050 N.E. 3rd Street 

Prineville, Oregon 97754 

Upper Deschutes
1

Record of Decision
1

and
1

Resource Management Plan
1

Robert B. T

Deschutes Resource 

by the Bureau of Land Management.

___________________________________ 

Area Field Manager 

Acting Prineville District Manager 

___________________________________

Robert B. Towne

Deschutes Resource Area Field Manager

___________________________________

Mark E. Johnson

Acting Prineville District Manager

owne

Record of Decision —
1

Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan
1

September 2005 

Managers’ Recommendations 

Having considered a full range of alternatives, associated effects, and public input, I recommend 

adoption and implementation of the aĴached Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan, as described 

in this Record of Decision. This plan will replace the 1989 Brothers/La Pine Resource Management 

Plan for the western half of that plan’s area. This plan also revises a portion of the Two Rivers Resource 

Management Plan by changing the boundaries of the planning areas in order to address issues common 

to the two planning areas. The approved plan addresses all issues raised that are relevant for resolution to the two planning areas. The approved plan addresses all issues raised that are relevant for resolution 

Acting Prineville District Manager

State Director Approval 

I approve the aĴached Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan and approve the change in the 

boundary between the Upper Deschutes and Two Rivers planning areas, as described in this Record of 

Decision. This document meets the requirement for a Record of Decision, as provided in 40 CFR Part 

1505.2 and for a Resource Management Plan, as described in 43 CFR Part 1610.0-5(k). 

1 

___________________________________ 

Elaine M. Brong 

Oregon State Director 
Upper Deschutes Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan ce Management Plan 

2 
Record of Decision —
1

Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan
1

Introduction Introduction 

The planning area contains about 400,000 acres of BLM-administered lands in Klamath, 

Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties, Oregon (see Map 1A). The planning area 

is within the Upper Deschutes portion of the Deschutes Resource Area and land 

management is currently directed by the 1989 management is currently directed by the 1989 Brothers/La Pine Resource Management Plan. 

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the aĴached Upper Deschutes Resource 

Management Plan (RMP), and the modification of the boundary between the area covered 

by the RMP and the area covered by the Two Rivers RMP (USDI-BLM, 1986). The RMP 

will provide management direction for all resources on BLM-administered land in the 

planning area. planning area. 

An environmental impact statement was prepared for this RMP in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The RMP is the same as the preferred 

Alternative 7 described in the Proposed Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) published in January 2005 except for 

one substantive change and several non-substantive changes involving formaĴing and 

the consolidation of continued and new direction (see below). Specific management 

decisions for public lands under the jurisdiction of the Deschutes Resource Area are 

described in the aĴached “Resource Management Plan.” ached “Resource Management Plan.” 

The RMP includes two levels of decisions in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act and BLM regulations. These are land use planning and implementation 

decisions. Land use planning decisions were protestable during the January 14 2005 

– February 14, 2005 protest period in accordance with BLM regulations 43 CFR 1610.5-2. 

Sixteen protest leĴers were received. There is a single implementation decision made in 

the RMP (see below). This decision may be appealed in accordance with the Department 

of Interior regulations at 43 CFR 4 and 43 CFR 4 and 43 CFR 2450. 

Changes between the Proposed and Final Management

Plans 

There have been some changes between the Proposed and Final Resource Management 

Plans in response to protests and comments received on the Proposed RMP. In addition 

to one substantive change, format and text were edited to improve the usability of the 

RMP. 

The substantive change involves the proposed closure of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

to geocaching. AĞer consideration of relevant protests, it was determined that geocaching 

could be managed under the Interim Management Policy for WSAs without adversely 

impacting the wilderness suitability of each WSA. This decision was based in part on the 

consideration that current levels of geocaching use have not been determined to affect 

wilderness suitability. This decision is fully described in the RMP. It contains a set of 

mitigation measures for geocaching that would protect wilderness values within the two 

WSAs (Badlands and Steelhead Falls). This decision does not restrict the ability of the 

BLM to institute closures in the future if use levels and impacts increase or if Congress 

designates either WSA as Wilderness. ilderness. 

3 
 

 

Upper Deschutes Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan ce Management Plan 

Land Use Plan Decisions Land Use Plan Decisions 

Land use plan decisions are identified in the aĴached RMP and include: and include: and include: 

1) Goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that define desired outcomes or future 

conditions. conditions. 

2) Land use 2) Land use Allocations/Allowable Uses and restrictions including: able Uses and restrictions including: 

• Right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas; oidance/exclusion areas; 

• Land tenure zoning classifications; cations; 

• Designations of Special Recreation Management Designations of Special Recreation Management Areas; 

• Visual Resource Management classifications; cations; 

• Travel Management Designations of Open, Closed, or Limited; el Management Designations of Open, Closed, or Limited; 

• Designation of Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; 

• Criteria for establishing future areas available for livestock grazing; estock grazing; 

• Primary transportation system classifications and road management objectives; 

• Wildland fire management; and re management; and 

• Lands available for military training. ailable for military training. 

Protest Opportunity Protest Opportunity 

A 30-day protest period was provided on the land use plan decisions contained in the 

“PRMP/FEIS” in accordance with 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2. Sixteen protests leĴers were 

received. This ROD serves as the final decision for the land use plan decisions described 

above and becomes effective on the date this ROD is signed. No further administrative 

remedies are available at this time for these land use plan decisions. ailable at this time for these land use plan decisions. 

Implementation Decisions Implementation Decisions 

It is the BLM’s intent to implement, over time, a number of specific project level decisions 

described in the aĴached RMP, as funding and staff are available. These are called 

“implementation decisions” (as opposed to the land use planning decisions described 

above). 

Some decisions in the RMP will require the preparation of detailed, project-level NEPA 

analyses prior to implementation. Public involvement opportunities, including further 

protest or appeal opportunities, may be provided at that time. Other decisions have been 

addressed to a sufficient level of detail in the RMP/EIS process to be implemented over 

time without further NEPA analysis. An appeal opportunity for these decisions is being 

provided at this time as described in the following section. provided at this time as described in the following section. 

The following Implementation Decision may be appealed by affected parties: ected parties: 

• Decision to provide a long-term non-exclusive lease to the Oregon Military 

Department for use of 43,985 acres of BLM administered lands for training. Department for use of 43,985 acres of BLM administered lands for training. 

Appeal Procedures for Implementation Decisions Appeal Procedures for Implementation Decisions 

Any party adversely affected by the decision to grant the lease to the Oregon Military 

Department may appeal within 30 days of receipt of this decision in accordance with the 

provisions of 43 CFR Parts 4.4. The appeal must include a statement of reasons or file a 

separate statement of reasons within 30 days of filing the appeal. The appeal must state if 

4 
 

 

 

Record of Decision Record of Decision 

a stay of the decision is being requested in accordance with 43 CFR 4.21 and must be filed 

with the Field Manager, at the following address: , at the following address: 

Deschutes Resource Deschutes Resource Area
1

Bureau of Land Management
1

3050 NE 3rd Street
1

Prineville, Oregon 97754
1

A copy of the appeal, statement of reasons, and all other supporting documents should 

be sent to the Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Lloyd 500 Building, Suite 607, 500 N.E. Multnomah Street, Portland, OR 97232. 

If the statement of reasons is filed separately it must be sent to the Interior Board of Land 

Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. It 

is suggested that any appeal be sent certified mail, return receipt requested. ed mail, return receipt requested. 

Request for Stay Request for Stay 

Should you wish to file a motion for stay pending the outcome of an appeal of these 

implementation decisions, you must show sufficient justification based on the following 

standards under 43 CFR 4.21: 

1) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied. e harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied. 

2) The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits. s success on the merits. 

3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. 3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. 

4) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay. 

As noted above, the motion for stay must be filed in the office of the authorized officer. 

Continuity of Previous Decisions Continuity of Previous Decisions 

Within the aĴached RMP are a number of valid, existing decisions that were previously 

made in other land use plans, plan amendments, and project or activity level plans 

which will remain in effect and continue to be implemented (see Appendix A). They do 

not represent new decisions that are subject to protest or appeal. Administrative relief 

opportunities were provided when those decisions were made. ere made. 

Overview of the Alternatives Overview of the Alternatives 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

During the early stages of the planning process a number of alternatives were considered, 

but dropped from detailed analysis for a variety of reasons. These alternatives included: es included: 

1) Alternatives that would eliminate from the entire planning area certain activities such 

as livestock grazing, mineral sales, military use, and off highway vehicle use; ehicle use; 

2) Certain proposed restrictions on rockhounding; 2) Certain proposed restrictions on rockhounding; 

3) An area wide restriction on shooting within 1⁄4 mile of private land; ate land; 

4) Developing BLM managed shooting ranges on BLM administered lands. eloping BLM managed shooting ranges on BLM administered lands. 

5) Restricting types of weapons that may be fired on certain areas of BLM administered 

lands. 

5 
 

 

Upper Deschutes Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan ce Management Plan 

A brief description of each alternative and the reason for dropping it from further 

analysis is contained in Chapter 3 of the “Proposed RMP/Final EIS” (USDI-BLM 2005). analysis is contained in Chapter 3 of the “Proposed RMP/Final EIS” (USDI-BLM 2005). 

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

Seven alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Proposed RMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2005). 

The overall theme determined the types of management actions that would be applied. 

Most of the alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1, were designed to meet the 

RMP management goals. Public input received throughout the planning process was 

considered in the development of alternatives. The alternatives varied in their ability 

to meet the management goals over the life of the plan (up to 20 years). Funding and 

staffing levels would affect rates of implementation, and projected implementation rates 

could vary by alternative, depending on the costs. e, depending on the costs. 

All alternatives included maintenance of existing facilities; however, the level of 

maintenance could vary by alternative and the amount of annual funding. All 

alternatives incorporated or complied with the management direction provided by the 

“Standards for Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

in the States of Oregon and Washington” (USDI-BLM 1998); and the “Interim 

Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review” (Wilderness IMP, USDI-BLM 

1995). Most alternatives incorporated the “Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe 

Ecosystems Management Guidelines” (USDI-BLM, USDI-FWS, USDA Forest Service, 

ODFW, and ODSL. 2000). , and ODSL. 2000). 

General Management Themes of the Alternatives General Management Themes of the Alternatives 

This section provides a brief overview of each of the alternatives considered in detail. 

Alternatives considered in detail include one “No Action/No Change” Alternative 

(Alternative 1), and six “action” alternatives (Alternatives 2-7) that would reflect various 

levels of change from the existing Brothers/La Pine Resource Management Plan direction. 

All alternatives contain Continuing Management Direction that is not being revised (see 

PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1 and PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1 and Appendix C, USDI-BLM, 2005). Appendix C, USDI-BLM, 2005). 

Some of the issues identified early in this planning process were resolved using one 

approach for all of the “action alternatives”. These are identified under the category 

“Management Direction Common to Alternatives 2 - 7” in the Alternatives Considered 

in Detail section. This management guidance represents areas where there was liĴle 

controversy over the best way to resolve the issue. One example of this approach is 

the common management direction for the “action” alternatives for Archeological 

resources considered “at risk.” The common approach categorizes “at risk” resources, 

prioritizes those resources for future actions, and limits uses that have a high likelihood 

of significantly impacting the integrity of those resources. These components are not 

included in this overview. 

All of the “action” alternatives strive to develop a balance of uses, and so it is difficult to 

briefly characterize them. Generally, none of the alternatives eliminates any one type of 

use entirely. In many cases, if a use is more limited in one geographic area in a particular 

alternative, there may be an increase in that use elsewhere in the planning area in the 

same alternative. Each “action” alternative, then, is designed to achieve a different mix of 

uses within the planning area. uses within the planning area. 

Alternative 1 (No Action/No Change) Alternative 1 (No Action/No Change) 

Alternative 1 continued present management and was considered the “no action” 

alternative. This alternative continued management under the existing Brothers/La 

6 
 

Record of Decision Record of Decision 

Pine RMP and various existing activity plans. It included the management direction 

and protections provided by all currently approved activity plans such as allotment 

management plans or habitat management plans. Resource values or sensitive habitats 

received management emphasis at present levels. This alternative included existing 

direction for the Millican OHV area from the Millican OHV Environmental Assessment 

and Millican litigation seĴlement agreement (Findings and Recommendations of 

November 5, 1998, as modified by the Order of February 26, 1999). ed by the Order of February 26, 1999). 

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 

This alternative involved the least amount of overall change from current management. 

In general, this alternative continued a mix of uses throughout the planning area, 

resolved conflicts on a case-by-case basis rather than by separating uses, or applied 

specific conflict and demand thresholds. Alternative 2 emphasized shared trail use 

(motorized and non-motorized) throughout most of the planning area. (motorized and non-motorized) throughout most of the planning area. 

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 

This alternative increased emphasis on reducing conflicts between human uses and 

wildlife habitat management objectives while separating recreational uses. It relied on 

the use of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) as a management strategy 

to meet wildlife and other management objectives. This alternative placed a greater focus 

on managing for primary or secondary wildlife habitats with a primary or secondary 

emphasis across the planning area than does emphasis across the planning area than does Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 combined the approaches used in Alternatives 2 and 3, and included more 

emphasis on providing for recreation opportunities (more than Alternative 3, but less 

than 2) in areas and during seasons when the demand is greatest. This alternative also 

placed a greater emphasis than Alternative 2 on reducing conflict between land uses and 

other users or adjacent residents. Recreation uses were more separated than Alternative 

2, but less than Alternative 3, and there was an emphasis on certain types of recreation 

over others within geographic subdivisions. ACECs were provided special management 

objectives that emphasized ecosystem and wildlife habitat management, but there were 

fewer and smaller areas than in er and smaller areas than in Alternative 3. 

Alternative 5 Alternative 5 

The emphasis in Alternative 5 was to focus lower conflict activities and higher quality 

wildlife habitat within the “urban” areas (generally includes most of Deschutes and 

Jefferson counties). There would be limited use of ACEC direction to protect resources, 

and more reliance on broad-scale conservation approaches across the planning area. ation approaches across the planning area. 

Alternative 6 Alternative 6 

In contrast to Alternative 5, Alternative 6 emphasized the future of effective wildlife 

habitats outside of the areas most likely to be affected by residential and urban 

development. This alternative put less emphasis on reducing conflicts between land 

uses, recreational users, and residents in the “urban” areas adjacent to residential areas 

than did Alternative 5. More emphasis was placed on reducing conflicts between wildlife 

management objectives and human activities away from residential development areas in 

the “rural” areas (generally includes most of Crook County). the “rural” areas (generally includes most of Crook County). 

7 
 

Upper Deschutes Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan ce Management Plan 

Alternative 7 (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 7 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 7 is based in part on areas of consensus developed with our Issue Team and 

includes changes made in response to comments made on Alternative 7 of the DraĞ 

Environmental Impact Statement. Although specific direction changed in response 

to those comments, the overall emphasis of the Alternative 7 remains as described in 

the PRMP/FEIS. Alternative 7 takes an approach that combines various features of the 

previous alternatives. It places more emphasis on primary and secondary wildlife habitat 

emphasis areas in the southeast or “rural” portion of the planning area, the portion 

with the greatest potential concentrations of species needs, but also allows for increased 

amounts of year-round motorized use in much of that area. However, for the North 

Millican area, Alternative 7 modifies habitat effectiveness goals and place limitations on 

winter motorized use in order to balance wildlife habitat and recreation use needs. It 

emphasizes more separation of recreational uses than shared uses. Alternative 7 would 

modify the “conflict and demand” threshold criteria used in “Common to Alternatives 2 

- 7” to determine areas available for continued livestock grazing use during the life of the 

plan. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the Record of Decision 

identify the Environmentally Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Environmental 

Impact Statement. This is judged using the criteria in the NEPA and subsequent 

guidance by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1981). The CEQ has defined 

the environmentally preferable alternative as the alternative that will best promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of the NEPA. This section lists 

six broad policy goals for all Federal plans, programs, and policies: six broad policy goals for all Federal plans, programs, and policies: 

1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations; 2) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, 

and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3) AĴain the widest range 

of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, 

or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4) Preserve important historic, 

cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; 

5) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit 

high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and 6) Enhance the 

quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum aĴainable recycling of 

depletable resources. depletable resources. 

Each alternative analyzed in the PRMP/FEIS contains a different mix of elements 

that provide for a range of uses and other elements that protect natural and cultural 

resources. All alternatives would meet the BLM legal mandates and directions to provide 

for public health and safety, to preserve important heritage components, to balance - in 

different ways – between population and resource uses, and to enhance the quality of 

our renewable resources. Many of these requirements are baseline requirements that do 

not change by alternative. The primary differences between the alternatives involve how 

that balance between population and resource use is addressed. Consequently there is 

no alternative that stands out clearly as the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative.” 

Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 all include significant resource protection measures as well as a 

mix and balance of uses across the planning area. mix and balance of uses across the planning area. 

Of all alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the least potential to disrupt hydrologic 

function, particularly within the Bear Creek drainage and in the Cline BuĴes area 

adjacent to the Deschutes River. In addition, Alternative 3 would have more closed 

areas to motorized use in the south-central portion of the planning area, in the vicinity 

8 
 

Record of Decision Record of Decision 

of Horse Ridge, Smith Canyon, the Badlands, and in the Tumalo area. Motorized use on 

designated roads only in the area south of Prineville Reservoir and Bear Creek BuĴes 

would be least with Alternative 3 and would reduce the effects of sedimentation to 

intermiĴent and perennial stream channels such as Bear Creek, Sanford Creek, and 

Deer Creek. Infiltration and compaction effects from livestock grazing would likely be 

less with Alternative 5 compared to other alternatives as more area would be closed to 

livestock grazing. Consequently Alternative 5 would have the least potential for transport 

of sediment and water to the ephemeral channels in the Horse Ridge area. ater to the ephemeral channels in the Horse Ridge area. 

In terms of wildlife habitat Alternative 3 allocates the greatest amount of the planning 

area for primary wildlife emphasis while allocating the least area to general wildlife 

emphasis. However, Alternative 7 provides more favorable conditions than all other 

alternatives by limiting motorized travel to a greater extent. el to a greater extent. 

Alternative 7 provides the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment and balance 

of population and resource use, because it provides for a mix of uses across the planning 

area in a manner that will mitigate adverse impacts of those uses. erse impacts of those uses. 

Alternative 3 provides the greatest amount of area managed with an emphasis on nonmotorized uses and Primary wildlife habitat, thus significantly reducing the potential 

for unintended resource impacts because of the types of uses allowed. AĞer reviewing 

the entire management mix of all alternatives Alternative 3 is deemed to be the 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative because it has the strongest emphasis on resource 

protection over resource uses of all alternatives considered. es considered. 

Rationale for the Decision Rationale for the Decision 

The RMP builds on areas of consensus identified during the planning effort and reflects 

a balance of uses that meet the needs of local communities as well as national mandates 

for management of public lands. It provides direction to maintain and restore healthy 

and diverse ecosystems. It provides a mix of management emphases that recognizes the 

individual identities and social and economic values of the local communities. It will 

meet long term military training needs and provide a flexible framework for managing 

livestock grazing that responds to changing conflicts and demands. icts and demands. 

Resolution of Issues Resolution of Issues 

The RMP provides guidance to maintain and restore a healthy and diverse ecosystem 

within the planning area by preventing future impairments and restoring existing 

impairments to hydrologic function in high priority watersheds, and by limiting OHV 

travel to designated roads and/or trails within the planning area. The RMP emphasizes 

restoration of shrub-steppe habitats – recognizing the limitations and challenges that 

restoration of these and other “historic conditions” present throughout the fast growing 

and developing planning area. Restoration of high quality source habitats for a variety of 

species – including sage grouse - is a keystone to long-term conservation strategies. ation strategies. 

Lands within the planning area provide serious challenges for integrating winter range 

protection and motorized recreation use. The RMP emphasizes winter range over 

motorized recreation use more than some of the alternatives, but allows an increase in the 

amount of winter riding opportunities over what is available currently. 

The RMP establishes a Special Recreation Management Area in recognition of the 

importance of recreational activity on BLM administered lands. It addresses some 

recreational conflicts by providing a beĴer balance of separated and mixed motorized 

and non-motorized uses than other alternatives. Over 60 percent of the planning area is 

9 
Upper Deschutes Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan ce Management Plan 

available for designated motorized use opportunities, and this includes some increase in 

the amount of trails available during the winter. Trail systems for OHVs that can provide 

longer riding opportunities, like the Millican Valley OHV area, are located farther away 

from urban centers, while mixed use emphasis was maintained in the some of the most 

popular “close in” areas such as Cline BuĴes. The RMP reduces the total area available 

for motorized users compared to the current situation. However it increases the area 

available to motorized users during the winter. 

The demand for non-motorized recreational opportunities is increasing rapidly and 

the mixture of motorized and non-motorized recreational activities becomes less and 

less compatible as the number of each type of user increases within the planning area. 

Consequently, the RMP provides larger blocks of land farther from the urban centers 

that are designated non-motorized exclusive, such as the Badlands, or non-motorized 

emphasis for future trail development such as Horse Ridge. In the long-term, separation 

of motorized and non-motorized use will support a quality experience for a wider variety 

of users. The size and configuration of the separate use areas in the RMP provides a 

reasonable balance that capitalizes on existing infrastructure and considers other factors 

such as wildlife and residential growth activity, but will not completely mitigate all 

conflicts between wildlife and recreationists, between different types of recreationists, or 

between recreationists and adjacent landowners. een recreationists and adjacent landowners. 

The RMP resolves the issues associated with land uses such as livestock grazing, 

mineral materials extraction, and military training. A grazing decision matrix allows 

the most flexibility of any of the alternatives to integrate economic and administrative 

considerations of ranchers with the social and ecological components of the fast growing 

urban interface. The identification of a mineral materials site within the Cline BuĴes 

area, a highly desirable source because of its quality, quantity and proximity to future 

anticipated road projects, will also provide the opportunity for substantial taxpayer 

benefit. Guidelines for development of mineral materials sites protect important 

resources and private property interests, while making it possible to meet the needs 

for high quality aggregate in Central Oregon. The RMP allocates more land than has 

been available in the past for military training and under terms and conditions of a long 

term lease that will provide training opportunities requested by the Oregon Military 

Department while protecting resources and interests of adjacent landowners. Department while protecting resources and interests of adjacent landowners. 

The need to update land tenure classifications was also identified as an issue. It was the 

consensus of the planning partners that most of the BLM administered lands be classified 

Z-1 because of the value of the lands for the ecosystem. Exceptions include isolated 

parcels of BLM administered lands scaĴered throughout the planning area that would 

be classified Z-3 (suitable for disposal) and other parcels located near areas where the 

planning team determined there would be benefits in acquiring lands in order to create a 

contiguous block of public lands. These lands are identified as Z-2, suitable for retention 

but may be exchanged for land of higher value (See RMP Map 6). Map 6). Map 6). 

The designation of the expanded Peck’s Milkvetch ACEC, the Tumalo Canals ACEC, and 

the decision to manage old growth juniper with a broad-scale conservation approach 

also represents a key integration of ecological, social, and economic concerns that are 

uniquely present in the RMP. A broad scale conservation approach for managing old 

growth juniper provides more flexibility to consider the important facets of this unique 

ecosystem throughout its limited range rather than focusing on discrete pieces of that 

ecosystem as represented in alternatives that encompass portions of the old growth 

juniper in ACECs. Designation of the Peck’s Milkvetch ACEC in the heart of the range 

of juniper old growth will also indirectly provide protection for the juniper ecosystem as 

well as the rare plant and limit uses likely to conflict with adjacent residents. ict with adjacent residents. 

The RMP supports scientific approaches to ecosystem management and management 

of hazardous fuels in the urban interface, provides for multiple uses while protecting 

10 
Record of Decision Record of Decision 

resources and the interests of adjacent landowners, establishes and expands special 

management areas, manages motorized and non-motorized recreation, integrates 

recreation and wildlife management objectives throughout the planning area, manages 

firearm use to protect public health and safety, establishes an interim road system and 

guidelines for rights-of-way designed to provide necessary access and protect resources, 

establishes visual resource management classifications appropriate to the location and 

conditions of the land, establishes land tenure classifications, and establishes a proactive 

framework for managing at-risk significant archeological resources. cant archeological resources. 

Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 

In order to minimize impacts from implementation of the decisions contained in the 

RMP, the best management practices (BMPs) identified in Appendix F and stipulations 

and guidelines for mineral operations identified in the RMP and Appendix B would be 

utilized where appropriate. utilized where appropriate. 

Plan Monitoring Plan Monitoring 

The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-9) call for the monitoring of resource 

management plans on a continual basis with a formal evaluation done at periodic 

intervals. Implementation of the Upper Deschutes RMP will be monitored over time. 

Plan evaluations will occur on about 5-year intervals. Management actions arising from 

activity plan decisions will be evaluated to ensure consistency with RMP objectives. This 

is described in more detail in the monitoring section of the aĴached RMP. 

Public Involvement in the Planning Process Public Involvement in the Planning Process 

Scoping Scoping 

The planning process has followed the direction of The National Environmental Policy 

Act, The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), as amended, 43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq., and the more detailed BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook 

1601-1). The emphasis of the process has been to provide an open, inclusive forum for 

the discovery and discussion of the important issues within the planning area. Scoping 

for this plan revision covered a period of 10 years and culminated in the publication of 

the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) in October 2001. The AMS, coupled 

with subsequent public meetings, served as another scoping period as over 100 new 

comment leĴers were received by the BLM in response to these events. Over this period, 

new information that is relevant to the planning process was generated both locally and 

throughout the northwest. 

Collaboration Collaboration 

The final formulation of the issues and alternatives benefited from the advice of a group 

that was chartered under the Federal Advisory CommiĴee Act through the Deschutes 

Provincial Advisory CommiĴee. This group, called the “Issue Team,” consisted of tribal, 

local, state, and federal governmental representatives as well as private stakeholders, 

including representatives of a diverse range of interest groups. erse range of interest groups. 

Chapter 5 of the PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2005) details the membership of the Issue 

Team, as well as describing how our collaboration with tribal, local, state and federal 

representatives implements the direction of the legal mandates for collaboration and 

consultation as described under Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints. e Constraints. 

11 
 

 

 

 

Upper Deschutes Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan ce Management Plan 

Analysis of the Management Situation Analysis of the Management Situation 

In October 2001, the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) was published. The 

document identified preliminary issues based on internal meetings of BLM specialists 

and managers, meetings with tribal and local government representatives, calls and 

leĴers from the general public received over the previous ten years, and public scoping 

meetings conducted during earlier aĴempts to amend the existing RMP. Comments on 

the AMS served as a resource for members of the Issue Team during the collaborative 

process. The AMS also included an Issue Team Application and an invitation to 

participate in the collaborative planning process. e planning process. 

DraĞ Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

The DraĞ Upper Deschutes RMP/EIS was published in October 2003. The comment 

period extended from October 17, 2003 to January 15, 2004. The BLM received 1,360 

responses in the form of leĴers, emails, faxes, telephone conversation transcripts and 

organized leĴer campaigns. These responses were analyzed and responded to in Vol. 2 of 

the PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM, 2005). the PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM, 2005). 

Public Meetings & Field Tours 

During the scoping/comment period for the AMS, public meetings were held in 

Redmond on October 16, 2001, in Prineville on October 17, 2001, and in La Pine on 

October 18, 2001. These meetings were advertised in local newspapers, and in the cover 

leĴer on the AMS (mailed to about 1,200 people in October 2001). The BLM also held 

public field tours to various sites of interest within the planning area as part of the 

scoping process. These field trips took place on October 20, 2001 in the area west of the 

Powell BuĴe Highway; on October 21, 2001 in the La Pine area; and on October 27, 2001 

in the area east of the Powell BuĴe Highway. 

Another round of meetings was held in November 2003 aĞer publication of the DraĞ 

RMP/EIS to provide information to the public, answer questions, and facilitate public 

comments. These meetings were held November 12 in La Pine, November 18 in 

Prineville, November 19 in Redmond, and November 20 in Bend. There were also two 

meetings specifically to answer questions for the grazing permiĴees, in the morning and 

in the evening on November 13. ember 13. 

There were numerous other meetings open to the public, including Provincial Advisory 

CommiĴee and Issue Team meetings (see further discussion of these meetings in the 

PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM, 2005) under Collaborative Planning, BLM Process). e Planning, BLM Process). 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

A 30-day protest period, beginning January 14, 2005, was provided for the “Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS” in accordance with 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2. A total of 16 leĴers were 

received by the Washington Office of the BLM. These protests were resolved by the BLM 

Director. All those who provided protests or comment leĴers to the Washington Office 

received a response from the BLM Washington Office. 

Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ildlife Service 

In August 2004, the BLM requested informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) regarding potential impacts of actions proposed in the Upper Deschutes 

RMP to federally listed species or species proposed for listing. Accompanying this 

request was a Biological Assessment evaluating the effects to federally listed species from 

12 
 

Record of Decision Record of Decision 

the Proposed Resource Management Plan. This is in conformance with the memorandum 

of agreement between the BLM and the USFWS dated August 30, 2000. In May of 2003 

the USFWS sent the BLM a list of species either federally-listed or proposed for listing 

that may occur in the planning area. Species that are known to occur in the planning area 

were addressed in the planning process. On September 9, 2004 the USFWS concurred 

with the Biological Assessment that the RMP “may affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect, and may beneficially affect bald eagles.” 

Tribal Participation ribal Participation 

Under Federal law and regulations, consultation with Native American Tribes who have 

an interest in the planning area is required. To accomplish this, district staff have met 

with or phoned Tribal groups regularly, BLM managers have made repeated updates at 

Tribal Council meetings, and Representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation actively participated in the Issue Team Meetings and as a member 

of the Deschutes Provincial Advisory CommiĴee that advised the BLM on its decision. 

Copies of the scooping packet, Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation” 

(USDI-BLM 2001), “DraĞ RMP/EIS” (USDI-BLM 2003), and “Proposed RMP/Final EIS” 

(USDI-BLM 2005) were sent to each of the Tribal groups for review and comment. Tribal 

consultation is documented further in Chapter 5 of the proposed plan. consultation is documented further in Chapter 5 of the proposed plan. 

13 
Upper Deschutes Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan ce Management Plan 

14