United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Prineville District Office 185 East Fourth Street P.O. Box 550 Prineville, Oregon 97754 August 26, 1986 Dear Public Land User: The Prineville District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is starting to work on the Brothers/LaPine Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/E IS). This land use plan will consider the various uses of the public lands managed by Phneville District BLM in Crook, Deschutes, Klamath, Lake and Harney Counties. The plan, which is scheduled for completion in 1 988, will guide several resource management programs in this areafor the next 1 0-1 5 years. The purpose of the RMP/EIS is to identify and resolve multiple use conflicts (issues) related to the management of public lands in this area. The plan is intended to fulfill requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This Act requires the BLM to prepare land use plans under principles of multiple use and sustained yield. It also requires public participation and close coordination with other agencies. The RMP/EIS process results in decisions as to how the various resources will be managed to best meet present and future public needs. When completed, this plan will establish specific land use allocations for all resources on BLM managed land in the planning area, except livestock grazing, forestry, wildlife habitat, watershed and riparian management in the Brothers portion of the planning area. Problems or issues relating to the managementof these resources in the Brothers portion of the planning area were addressed and resolved in the Brothers Land Use Plan completed in 1 982 and the Brothers Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement and Rangeland Program Summary completed in 1983. Each of these resources will, however, be addressed in the LaPine portion of the planning area. If issues are identified, they will be analyzed and resolved in this planning process. The seven areas currently under consideration for wilderness designation are also significant issues, however, the designation or non designation of these areas as wilderness will not be addressed in this plan. They are being analyzed separately. The wilderness study process has been ongoing since 1 979 and has progressed beyond the scope of this RMP. Recommendations as to whether or not the areas are suitable for wilderness designatbn are being analyzed in a statewide EIS. In 1 985, a proposal was made by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to interchange certain lands currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. This proposal includes lands currently under BLM administration in LaPine to be transferred to the Forest Service. In the interim, BLM will manage those lands involved in the interchange under the decisions of this plan. If the lands are eventually transferred to the Forest Service, the lands will still continue to be managed in accordance with the decisions made in this plan. The preliminary issues and tentative alternatives discussed in this brochure were developed from public comments, earlier contacts with local governments, known user or interest groups and staff discussions. After you have had a chance to review and comment, we will take your comments and prepare a more detailed list of issues, resource objectives and alternatives for you to review. This will be sent to you later. Once these issues, alternatives and objectives are finalized, they will form the basis of the draft RMP/EIS which will analyze the effects of each alternative in resolving the various issues. This document will be completed in 1 987. Public involvement is an essential step in ensuring that this land use plan incorporates the many possible uses of the land in away that best serves the public interest. 1 encourage you to cbsely review this brochure and submit your comments to our Prineville Office by October 1 5, 1 986, or attend one of the scheduled public meetings so we may benefit from your thoughts as we proceed with this planning process. Public meetings will be held on T uesday, September 9, 1 986, at 7:00 PM in the Catholic Parish Hall located at 1 50 East 1st in Prineville, on Wednesday, September 10, 1986, at 7:00 PM at the Riverhouse Motor Inn located at 3075 North Highway 97 in Bend, and on Thursday, September 11, 1986, at 7:00 PM in the Community Park Center located on Finley Butte Road in LaPine. Thank you very much for reviewing this brochure. We lookforward to any comments you may have. I. About Public Concerns and How They Become BLM Resource Management Plan Issues A concern is a matter of interest or importance to an individual or group of individuals. A concern may become an issue when it is determined that: (1 ) a potential for conflict with legally identified values exists; (2) there may be a potential for a major or serious loss of a resource, or an environmental value; (3) there is a potential for major conflict overtheuseof resources;or{4) if there is high public concern relating to use or preservation of a resource value. Any one of these factors could cause a concern to be regarded as an issue. An RMP issue is an unresolved question about the use of a resource which may have a significant environmental impact. The RMP will only address significant land use allocations or resource management issues where BLM has the authority to control or influence resource uses. II. Planning Criteria and How They Are ■ Used Administration of the public lands within the Bureau of Land Management's Prineville District is guided primarily by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1 976 (90 Stat. 274.43 USC 1701) also known as "FLPMA." FLPMA, BLM's "organic act," governs and directs management activities for all lands under Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction. Its major provisions include: 1 . Under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, the BLM has broad management responsibility over certain federal lands. 2. The public lands will remain in federal ownership unless, as a result of the land use planning procedures, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest. 3. The BLM will conduct periodic and systematic inventories of the public lands and the condition of the resources they contain. 4. Comprehensive land use planning will be accomplished in order to properly utilize the public lands and the resources they contain. (It is this provision that the RMP/EIS will satisfy.) 5. Management activities will strive to protect scientific, scenic, ecological, environmental, hydrologic and cultural values. All land use alternatives will comply with Federal Laws, Executive Orders, regulations and policies relating to land use and resource management. The application of these laws, regulations and policies automatically determines some minimum land use allocations and management practices such as protection or enhancement of water quality. Copies of those laws, regulations and policies which are most significant to BLM activities are available at the Prineville District Office. III. What Resource Management Planning Is The Resource Management Plan (RMP) is a "land use plan" as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The RMP establishes in a written document: (1 ) land areas for limited, restrictive, or exclusive use orfor transferfrom BLM administration; (2) allowable resource uses and related levels of production or use to be maintained ; (3) resource condition goals and objectives to be reached; (4) program constraints and general management practices; (5) identification of specific plans required; (6) support actions required to achieve the above; (7) general implementation schedule and (8) intervals and standards for monitoring the plan to determine its effectiveness. The underlying goal of the RMP is to provide efficient and responsive on the ground management of the public lands. The procedure for preparing the Brothers/LaPine RM P involves nine interrelated actions as shown in the accompanying table. The RMP which results from this process is a general decision document designed primarily to help district and area managers make decisions and to guide BLM efforts on a day to day basis. Where more detailed management direction is required, activity plans will be prepared afterthe RMP is completed. Brothers/LaPine Resource Management Planning Process 1 . Identification of Issues 2. Development of Planning Criteria 3. Inventory Data & Information Collection 4. Analysis of the Management Situation 5. Formulation of Alternatives 6. Estimation of Effects 7. Selection of a Preferred Alternative a. Draft RMP/EIS b. Final RMP/EIS 8. Selection of the Resource Management Plan 9. Monitoring & Evaluation Sep - Oct '86 Sep '86-Mar '87 Sep '86-Mar '87 Nov '86-May '87 Jun - Aug '87 Sep - Nov '87 Jan -Mar '88 July '88 Sep '88 Ongoing IV. About the Area The area to be covered in the RMP/EIS includes 1 ,1 17,405 acres of surface and 130,633 acres of subsurface mineral estate where the Prineville District, Bureau of Land Management is the administering agency. This land is scattered throughout five counties in Central Oregon as shown on the enclosed Central Oregon Public Lands map and the LaPine Planning Map on the opposite side of this brochure. The acreages by county are shown below: County Federal Surface Acres Privale/Stale Surface, Federal Subsurface Mineral Estate Total Approximate Acreage ol County Crook 512,107 108,514 1,914,000 Deschutes 485,537 17,180 1,955,000 Harney 1,080 3,001 6,546,000 Lake 92,129 1,858 5,350,000 Klamath 26,552 3,926,000 Total Acreage 1,117,405 130,633 19,691,000 Brothers/LaPine Resource Management Plan Preliminary Issues and Alternatives Prineville District Office 185 E. 4th Street Prineville, Oregon 97754 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management V. About the Resources and Preliminary Issues Forestry Issues relating to forestry in the Brothers portion of the planning area were addressed and resolved in the Brothers Land Use Plan completed in 1982. The decisions made in that plan applied to 1 2,497 acres of timberland in the Brothers area of which 6,751 acres were excluded from planned timber harvest. These exclusions were made due to low timber production capability as well as the protection of other resource values such as wildlife habitat, visual quality and fisheries. A total of 5,746 acres of public land will remain in the allowable cut base from which an average of 463,000 board feet/year could be harvested on a sustained yield basis. Consideration of forestry in the Brothers LaPine RM P will be limited to those commercial forest lands in the LaPine portion of the total planning area. There are 46,849 acres of commercial forest land in the LaPine Planning Area. This acreage is almost equally divided between Deschutes and Klamath Counties and is predominantly lodgepole pine. Presently the area is heavily infested with Mountain Pine Beetle. Current estimates show 50 to 75% mortality due to this insect. An accelerated harvest program to salvage the Mountain Pine Beetle mortality has been in effect since 1981 with approximately 7 to 8 million board feet of lodgepole pine harvested annually. Approximately 1 5 miles of forest corridors along Highways 97 and 31 are considered as special timber harvest areas. Special consideration has been given to these areas in harvesting practices so as to preserve or enhance the visual resources that exist along these highly traveled corridors as well as for wildlife migration through and within the area. Issue: What should BLM's forestry program be in the LaPine area as a result of the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation? What should the harvest method and level be to adequately protect other resources such as scenic qualities, wildlife habitat and deer migration? What should BLM's smoke management policy be along the highway corridors when disposing of debris from harvesting operations? Firewood Approximately 4,500 cords of juniper and lodgepole pine firewood is han/ested from public lands in the Brothers/LaPine Planning Area each year. An effort has been made to manage woodcutting areas on a sustained yield basis. The majority of the wood harvested is juniper taken by individual woodcutters for personal use. A significant amount of firewood is taken illegally without a permit. Enforcement efforts have reduced the amount of illegal woodcutting, however, it still remains a problem. Other woodland products such as juniper boughs, Christmas trees, posts and poles are harvested periodically. However, demand for these products is not considered significant at this time. Issue: What should BLM's woodland products program be? Which areas should be open to woodcutting and in which areas should woodcutting not be permitted? Should the volume of firewood and other woodland products made available each year be changed? Wildlife Habitat Management Issues relating to wildlife habitat management in the Brothers portion of the planning area were addressed and resolved in the Brothers Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement and Rangeland Program Summary completed in 1 983. Decisions made in that plan were aimed at providing a variety of vegetative successional stays and a corresponding variety of habitats for wildlife. The long term forage allocation to wildlife accommodates Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife proposed population increases of 27 percent for deer, 23 percent for antelope and 71 percent for elk. Livestock grazing systems in deer and antelope winter ranges are expected to improve or maintain habitat condition on 97 percent of the crucial deer winter range and 95 percent of the crucial antelope winter range. Consideration of wildlife habitat in the Brothers/LaPine RM P will therefore be limited to the LaPine area where commercial forest or woodland products have been or are proposed to be harvested. Wildlife habitat in the LaPine area is dominated by the lodgepole pine type. This dominance limits the diversity of wildlife species in the area. Big game species occurring are primarily mule deer with a small but increasing population of elk. In addition, a variety of non game species represented by hairy woodpeckers, great horned owls, great grey owls, golden mantled ground squirrels, western grey squirrel, coyote and red-brested nuthatches require management attention due to their dependence on elements of the lodgepole pine habitat type. Issue: What actions should be taken to protect and manage deer migration corridors? What management practices or habitat improvement projects are appropriate to provide a more diverse range of habitats in the LaPine area for wildlife? Land Tenure and Access Population centers in the Brother^LaPine planning area are Bend, Redmond, Prineville and LaPine with the smaller communities of Paulina, Hampton, Brothers and Post. Each of these communities are surrounded by or are in close proximity to large tracts of public lands. Residents of each of these areas are dependent upon or utilize the public lands for a variety of activities including rights of way for roads, communication sites, water facilities, airstrips and utility corridors. Other tracts of public land have been leased to accommodate a variety of public activities. Some unauthorized agricultural use of public lands occurs on small tracts adjacent to private lands currently under cultivation. Significant acreages of public land have been transferred into other ownerships (especially around LaPine) to accommodate community expansion or for other public purposes. An active land exchange program has been used to increase public land holdings in areas with high resource values and improve access to larger blocks of public land. A significant amount of public land acreage possesses moderate or high public values, however, it is inaccessible to the public due to surrounding private land where public access is denied by the landowner. Various major existing utility rights of way pass through the Brothers LaPine planning area. Other proposed utility corridors have been identified by the western Regional Corridor Study. Issue: Is there a need to consolidate public land through exchange into areas with high public values? If so, what areas are most important? What lands, if any, should be identified for disposal by public sale or transfer to another agency? What should BLM's policy be in regard to public access and utilityAransportation corridors? What type of access, if any, should be acquired and for what purposes and to which areas? BLM will continue to resolve unauthorized agricultural use of public lands. What considerations should be made in deciding whetherto authorize the use (lease) or to allow the land to revert back to a natural condition? Recreation Management Outdoor recreation use of the public lands within the Brothers/LaPine Planning Area totals over 250,000 visitor days each year. Off road vehicle use, rockhounding, driving for pleasure, hunting and camping are the dominant recreation activities accounting for nearly 80% of the total recreation use within the area. A 94 square mile area in the Millican Valley has been designated as an off road vehicle use area. Use by individuals as well as large scale events attract participants from throughout the northwest during the fall and winter months. Outstanding rockhounding opportunities exist on many of the public lands within the planning area. The large diversity and high quality deposits of semi precious stones make many of these areas nationally significant. Issue: Are there areas where off road vehicle use should be limited? Should off road vehicle use on certain areas be prohibited altogether? If so, which areas should be limited or closed? Should the designated boundary of the Millican Valley ORV area be modified or the management emphasis in this area changed? Should deposits of semi precious stones be set aside and managed specifically for public recreational use? Driving Off>road Vehicles on Public Lands Special Management Areas There is one designated special management area in the Brothers/LaPine Planning Area: Horse Ridge Research Natural Area. The 600 acre area is representative of the western juniper big sagebrush thread leaf sedge association and is located east of Bend. Other potential special management areas that are being considered include Barnes Butte, Benjamin, Glass Butte Ecological Area, Logan Butte, Lower Crooked River Palisades, Powell Butte and Tumalo Natural Area. Issue: Which areas, if any, are suitable for formal designation as areas of critical environmental concern, research natural areas, etc.? What other areas, if any, should receive special management to preserve outstanding or unique scenic, botanic, geologic, zoologic, cultural, or other resource values? Livestock Grazing Issues relating to livestock grazing in the Brothers portion of the planning area were addressed and resolved in the Brothers Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement and Rangeland Program Summary completed in 1983 and updated in 1986 (the Brothers Rangeland Program Summary Update will be sent to you in the near future). Consideration of livestock grazing in the Brothers/LaPine RMP will be limited to those areas within the LaPine portion of the total planning area. Nine livestock operators currently hold grazing leases in the LaPine area. Two of these derive a significant portion of their income from livestock production. Of the 3,031 animal unit months (AUMs) of available forage for livestock in the LaPine grazing allotments, 2,01 9 were utilized by livestock in 1 986. Most of the public land in the LaPine area remains unallotted (55% of the public land is not currently within a grazing allotment) . Issue: What should BLM's grazing management program be in the LaPine area? Should BLM maintain the existing management program, eliminate it or provide more intensive management? Wild Horses A herd of approximately 15 wild horses exists in the Upper Table and Liggett Table areas located southwest of Paulina. They currently roam in an area of approximately 4,000 acres, however, historically have roamed over an area as large as 25,000 acres of predominantly public land. These horses existed in this area prior to the passage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act on December 1 5, 1 971 . The were not claimed and as a result are considered as "wild and free roaming horses" under that Act. Issue: Should the wild horse numbers be maintained or increased and managed to preserve the herd, or should they be completely removed from the area? Resource Programs Where No Issues Have Been Identified Air and Water No activities on public lands are anticipated that would significantly affect air or water quality in the planning area. All prescribed burning will comply with Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality smoke management standards particularly in the special air qr/ality management areas around Bend and LaPine. The ground water issue in LaPine will not be affected by any activities on public lands. Riparian Management Issues relating to riparian management in the Brothers portion of the planning area were addressed and resolved in the Brothers Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement and Rangeland Program Summary completed in 1 983. Decisions in that plan were designed to manage all riparian areas to reach full potential with a minimum of 60% percent of vegetative potential being achieved within 20 years. Riparian areas on public land administered by BLM in the LaPine area are limited to less than one mile of perennial stream adjacent to the Little Deschutes River. This small amount of riparian vegetation is in good or excellent condition. Management of these small areas will continue to maintain or, if possible, improve overall condition. Minerals Management Nearly all of the Brothers Area (except LaPine) is classified as prospectively valuable for oil and gas. Much of the northeastern portion of the planning area is currently leased for oil and gas under 1 0 year noncompetitive leases. This leasing has been in effect for 5 to 1 0 years. Nearly all exploratory wells that have been drilled in this area have had shows of oil and/or gas. Exploration, however, has virtually stopped in the planning area' due to the severe downturn in the petroleum industry. Oil and gas potential in the LaPine portion of the planning area is considered low. The LaPine area, Glass Buttes, and Twelvemile Creek area are prospectively valuable for geothermal resources. Many shallow arid several deep temperature gradient holes were drilled in the Glass Butte area in the late 1 970's. This exploration effort showed a small area of geothermal potential, but not large or hot enough to be of commercial interest. Exploration has been minimal in the 1 980's with no drilling being done during that time. The east flank of the Cascades including LaPine is classified as potentially valuable tor geothermal resources. Most of the public land probably has low/ potential while the surrounding national forest lands has moderate to high geothermal potential. Known exploration for traditional beatable minerals is minimal in the planning area. Bentonite is produced by two operators along Camp Creek in Crook County. The clay is used for pet absorbent, pond sealant, and floor sweep. Sand, gravel, clay and cinders are sold or given as free use in small to moderate amounts from throughout the planning area. These minerals are made available for sale on a limited basis when a pubito need is demonstrated and the sales will not compete with private enterprise. Visual Resource Management There are approximately 288,000 acres of public land in the Brothers /LaPine Planning Area which are frequently seen by the public and which may possess high scenic quality. All surface disturbing activities such as timber sales, juniper thinning, rangeland developments may be allowed in these areas if those activities are not highly visible on the land. An additional 483,000 acres, located away from main highways, which are not frequently seen by the public, however, still possess scenic qualities are managed so that surface disturbing activities do not dominate or significantly change the character of the area. Approximately 346,000 acres of publb land in the planning area is located away from main highways and possesses bw scenic quality. They are managed to allow surface disturbing activities to be dominate features on the landscape, however, activities are designed to f'rt into the landscape as much as possible. Sensitive Species At the present time 1 8 plant species either occur or are suspected of occurring on public lands in the Brothers/LaPine Planning Area which are regarded as sensitive. Of these, 5 are candidates for Federal listing for which further information is needed. There are no species listed on the Threatened or Endangered Species list known or believed to exist on public land in the planning area. There are two federally listed animal species known to occur within the planning area; the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. The bald eagle is listed as threatened in Oregon while the peregrine falcon is listed as endangered. The bald eagle is a winter resident particularly in the Crooked River Valley. Cultural and Paleontological Resources There have been 41 5 prehistoric and 1 08 historic sites recorded on public land in the planning area. None of them are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Surveys for cultural resources have been completed on approximately 40,000 acres (3.5 percent of the planning area). Relatively little is known about the overall extent or density of paleontological resources within the planning area. A total of 42 paleontological sites have been located on or near public lands in the planning area. There are approximately 380,000 acres of geological formations (or 1 6 percent) in the planning area which may contain fossils (paleontological sites). Several laws have been enacted to protect cultural and paleontological resources. BLM's responsibility is the identification, protection and management of these resources. Federal law and BLM policy regarding these resources will continue to be carried out. Fire Management The current fire management program has two primary thnjsts: 1) protection of resources from fire through fire prevention, presuppression, and fuel treatment, and 2) the use of fire to meet management goals and objectives, which includes the use of prescribed fire to protect, enhance, and maintain resource productivity. Approximately 1 07,000 acres within the Bear Creek area are managed for natural ignition prescribed fire. The identified areas will be allowed to burn naturally under prescribed conditions. There are seven wilderness study areas identified that require a modified suppression action with limited equipment use. These areas contain approximately 120,000 acres. All other areas are presently managed under an immediate suppression strategy. The interface areas between high value public or private lands and other BLM lands are managed as top priority suppression areas. These areas are primarily in the LaPine, Bend, Redmond, and Prineville areas, A total fire management plan is presently being developed for the Brothers/LaPine planning areas. Additional natural ignition areas and limited suppression areas are being considered. Limited suppression areas are areas in which less than full suppression efforts would be used. This fire management strategy is used where controlling fire is extremely difficult, or where resource values do not warrant the expense normally associated with full suppression. VII. What We Would Like You To Do We ask that you consider each of the preliminary issues that have been presented, and the tentative alternatives that have been developed along with the goals and objectives for each resource that are described for each alternative. Do you agree that the important resource conflicts (issues) have been identified? Do you feel the various alternatives present a reasonable range of possible ways in which the resources of f he Brothers/LaPine Planning Unit could be managed? If you feel we have missed something or are not looking at a particular resource situation properly, we would be very interested in hearing from you. For a comment to be helpful to us it must relate to a concern or conflict that is within the legal responsibilities of the Bureau of Land Management to administer and it must be a concern or conflict that can be resolved effectively in the BLM planning process. We would also encourage you to attend the public meetings to be held on September 9, 1 986, at 7:00 PM in the Catholic Parish Hall located at 1 50 E. 1 st Street in Prineville on September 10, 1986, at 7;00 PM at the Riverhouse Motor Inn located at 3075 North Highway 97 and Bend, and on September II, 1 986, at 7:00 PM in the Community Park Center located on Finley Butte Road in LaPine. We would also be willing to meet with individual groups on an informal basis if requested anytime before the close of the comment period which ends October 1 5, 1986. VIII. The Next Step The Prineville BLM staff will analyze all public comments that are received. With this input the preliminary issues and alternatives will be expanded or modified if needed to make them accurate and representative. In early 1 987, a booklet will be published which includes the final issues to be addressed in the RMP/EIS and the alternatives, including the BLM's preferred alternative. Public meetings will again be held as determined to be necessary. The purpose of these meetings will be to present the management plan alternatives, to discuss the level and type of analysis to be done in the RM P/EIS and answer any questions. If you have any questions about BLM planning, or if you are not on our mailing list but would like to, please let us know. Also, if your address changes or you are receiving duplicate copies of our material, please contact: Prineville District Manager Bureau of Land Management PO Box 550 Prineville, OR 97754 Phone: (503) 447-4115 VI. What the Tentative Land Use Alternatives Are The purpose of developing and analyzing several land use alternatives is to give BLM managers a tool in selecting or developing a preferred land use alternative. The alternatives also serve as an information matrix Alternative A Goal: Emphasize Commodity Production and Enhancement of Economic Benefits Objectives: 1 . Public lands with high public values (wildlife, recreation, riparian, watershed) would be retained in ubiic ownership or exchanged for other lands with igher public value. Other public lands would be considered for sale if they are: (1 ) difficult and uneconomic to manage and are not needed by another agency; (2) no longer needed for the specific purpose for which they were acquired or for any other federal purpose; (3) provide greater benefits to the public in private ownership. Agricultural use of public land would be authorized through permit, lease or sale. Legal access to public lands to maximize public use, would be acquired. 2. Commercial forest lands in LaPine and woodland areas throughout the planning area would be intensively managed with minimal constraints for protection of deer migration or other resources. 3. The public lands, except areas being significantly damaged by OR V, use would be designated as open to off road vehicle use. Areas having moderate to high potential for semi precious stones would be specifically managed for recreational mining where it did not conflict with valid existing mining claims. Management could include the use of equipment to systematically expose new beds, developing mining and reclamation plans, publication of public information brochures, signing and pther measures to improve public access and utilization of semi precious stones. 4. Existing restrictions in the formally designated Horse Ridge Research Natural Area would be continued. Areas of critical environmental concern would be designated where no significant conflicts exist. Remaining areas woukTbe managed primarily for timber, grazing and mineral development. 5. Existing wild horses would be gathered and removed from the area in which they now roam. 6. Forage production and altocation for livestock use in the LaPine area would be increased as a result of an intensive rangeland management program. showing the result of a range of resource management options. Each alternative has an overall goal and a number of objectives which describe management direction for each of the resources where issues have been identified. Alternative B Goal: Continue Existing Management (No Action) Objectives: 1 . A limited number of isolated tracts would be sold which are; (1 ) difficult and uneconomicto manage and are not needed by another agency; (2) no longer needed for the specific purpose for which they were acquired orfor any otherfederal purpose; (3) provide greater benefits to the public in private ownership would continue to be sold. Other parcels of public land would be exchanged for lands with higher public value. Agricultural use of public lands would be authorized by permit or lease wherever no significant conflicts with other resources exist. Limited acquisition of easements for public access would occur. 2. The sustained harvest level of timber on specific lands in LaPine would be adjusted when appropriate to accommodate other resources such as visual resources and deer migration. Commercial forest lands would be excluded from planned timber harvest only when restrictions and/or mitigation would not adequately rotect other resources. Woodland products would be arvested from those areas where values for firewood, etc. are greater than other resource considerations. 3. The pubib lands would be open to off road vehicle use except in areas where significant damage is occurring. Recreational mining opportunities would be managed for in some areas having moderate or high potentiai for semi precious stones. 4. Ongoing efforts to protect identified special management areas would continue. Cooperative management responsibilities with other agencies would also continue. 5. Wild horse populations would be maintained at present levels without intensive management. 6. Current allocations of forage and management systems for livestock grazing in the LaPine area would continue. Alternative D SHl Goal: Emphasize natural values. Alternative C Goal: Emphasize natural values while accommodating commodity production. Objectives: 1 . Emphasis would be placed on retention and expansion by exchange of public land holdings in: (1 ) areas of national significance, (2) where management is cost effective, or (3) where land is most appropriately managed in public ownership due to significant multiple resource values. Those public lands having no reasonable opportunity for exchange would be offered for sale if they are: (1) difficult and uneconomicto manage and are not needed by another agency; (2) no longer needed for the specific purpose tor whicn they were acquired or for any otherfederal purpose; (3) provide greater benefits to the public in private ownership. Agricultural use of public lands would be authorized if no conflict with public values exist. Acquisition of legal public access to large parcels of public land with high recreational values would be emphasized if it did not conflict with protection of natural values. 2. The intensity of management on forest lands in LaPine would be changed by adjusting timber harvest to provide maximum wildlife habitat diversity and deer migration with protection or enhancement of scenic qualities. Cktmmercial forest lands would be excluded from planned timber han/est when significant resource conflicts occur. Woodcutting and thenarvest of other woodland products would be allowed if it did not conflict with other resource values. 3. Off road vehicle use would be restricted on public lands where significant damage is occurring to wildlife, riparian, ecological, or primitive recreation values. Those areas where ORV use is not presently occurring, but would be damaged if ORV use was to occur, would also be limited or closed. Some areas with high potential for semi precious stones would be managedtor recreational mining if no signifi¬ cant conflict with the protection of natural values exist. 4. Areas with identified outstanding natural values would be designated as areas of critical environmental concern. Other unique wildlife or ecological values would be maintained or enhanced. 5. Existing wild horse populations would be maintained at between 1 0 and 25 animals and intensively managed. 6. Livestock grazing would be excluded from areas where conflicts with other resource values are identified. Objectives: 1 . No public lands would be offered for sale. Exchanges to enhance wildlife, riparian, watershed and other natural values would be emphasized. No agricultural use of public lands would be authorized. Limited acquisition of legal public access to providefor primitive and unconfined types of recreation use would occur. 2. No regularly scheduled forest or woodland product sales would occur except in LaPine to control further infestation by ktountain Pine Beetle. Harvest of diseased or dying timber would occur if it did not conflict with wildlife habitat, scenic, riparian or fish habitat protection and enhancement. 3. Public lands where significant damage is occurring, or would occur if off road vehicles were to use the area, would be limited or closed. Public lands with significant wildlife, riparian, ecological, primitive recreation or scenic values which would be adversely affected by off road vehicle use would be closed. Recreational mining would not be managed for, or recognized in land use decisions. 4. Areas with outstanding natural and/or scenic values would be designated as areas of critical environmental concern. Remaining special management areas would be protected. 5. Wild horse populations would be allowed to increase with intensive management to approximately 50 animals. 6. Livestock grazing would be eliminated from the public lands in LaPine. Wickiup Butte .Wright Butte Haner Butte' 5 Eaton Butte Gilchrist Butte 168-4 9 Mastei Butte 1488 6 DeoJys Well< Oescent Butte .. i.*V ml t/flr Ik j ' 7 / ^ / /m / i-l ’ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management PRINEVILLE DISTRICT 1986 BROTHERS/LA PINE PLANNING AREA La Pine Planning Area