Prineville District Office
PO. Box 550
Prineville, Oregon 97754
Rangeland Program
Summary (RPS)
Record of Decision
Brothers Grazing Environmental
Impact Statement Area
IN RL?LY lCll!.D TO
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
The Brothers Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) and Record of Decision is
e n c l o s e d f o r y o u r r e v i e w . This document is the result of a planning and
environmental statement process that has been ongoing since 1981 for 1.1
m i l l i o n a c r e s o f pub1 i c l a n d i n C r o o k , D e s c h u t e s a n d L a k e C o u n t i e s .
The RPS contains grazing decisions to be implemented in most of the
allotments in this area.
In s o m e a l l o t m e n t s , a f i n a l d e c i s i o n c o u l d n o t b e
made at this time because consultation with the affected livestock operator
is still continuing. Decisions regarding livestock grazing in these
allotments will be made as soon as consultation is completed.
These
d e c i s i o n s , as well as progress made in the allotments where management or
projects have been implemented, will be discussed in future RPS updates to be
published periodically.
Release of this document serves as public notice of the proposed range
management program and will be the start of a 30 day comment period.
If you
feel that you will be adversely affected by the decisions for a particular
a l l o t m e n t ( s ) c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s R P S a n d w i s h t o p r o t e s t o r a p p e a l the
d e c i s i o n , you must notify the Prineville BLM District Manager in writing
which allotment decision(s) adversely affect you before the close of the
comment period.
Thank you for your interest in public land resource management in the
Brothers area. Please feel free to contact us if you have any quest ions on
the RPS.
Sincerely yours,
Gerald E. Magnuson
Prepared by
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
Rangeland Program
Summary (RPS)
Record of Decision
Brothers Grazing Environmental
Impact Statement Area
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use Planning Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................. 1
.............................
............................. :
............................. 2
What the Rangeland Management Program Is . . . . . . . .
..
..
. ..
What the Rangeland Management Program Does ....
Range Condition and Forage Production . . . . . . . . . . .
Soil and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aquatic and Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Socio-Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
..
,.
..
..
..
... .
..
..
How the Rangeland Management Decision Was Developed. ........................... 10
Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS .......................................................10
Environmental Preferability of the Alternatives .......................................11
Relationship of the Rangeland Management Program to the
Brothers EIS Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12
Public lnvolvement.....................................................................l 2
How the Rangeland Management Decision Will Be Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grazing Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Range Improvements and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resource Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opportunities for Protest and Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Periodic Progress Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.14
.14
.15
.15
.15
.16
.16
Introduction
Purpose
This document summarrzes the Bureau of Land
Management’s program relatrng to range
management In tne Prrnevrlle Distract The
Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) IS based on
the Brothers Grazrng Envrromental Impact
Statement (EIS). The RPS constitutes the
proposed record of decrsion on grazrng
management in the EIS area The proposed
program consists of five parts
1 The allocation of forage for lrvestock and
wildlife.
2. The grazing systems to be implemented.
3. The categorization of all allotments,
4. The range improvements to be constructed,
5. The monitoring and evaluatron program to be
conducted
The RPS also describes how the inrtral and
subsequent grazing adjustments needed to
implement the program WIII be made
The grazing management decrslon to be
implemented IS . with certain modifrcatlons. the
proposed actron described in the Brothers Draft
EIS These modrfrcatrons are descrrbed 111 this
RPS Refer to the EIS for detailed descrrptrons of
livestock grazing management and range
conditions
1
Land Use Planning Objectives
The following objectives for grazing
management of public lands within the Brothers
EIS area resulted from land use planning
completed in February 1982:
1. Improve range condition through the
development and implementation of economically
feasible grazing systems and range improvements.
Allocate available forage between competing uses.
2. Protect sensitive or fragile soils from excessive
disturbance. Use prescribed fire (both natural and
control burning) as a preferred vegetation
manipulation method.
3. Maintain or improve riparian vegetation
condition by restricting or excluding livestock use
(period and/or numbers) in all riparian zones
adjacent to perennial water.
Decisions relating to the above grazing
management objectives were deferred in the land
use plan until a grazing management
environmental impact statement was completed.
The Brothers Grazing Management Environmental
Impact Statement has since been finalized. The
findings of that EIS coupled with public comment
received and subsequent economic analyses have
been the basis for the decisions contained in this
document.
Background
The Prineville District administers the
grazing on nearly 1 .l million acres of public land
within the Brothers EIS area. There are an
additional 6,000 acres of public land administered
by other federal agencies, approximately 55,000
acres of state land, 15,000 acres of county land
and about 1.2 million acres of private land within
the EIS area. The district public rangelands are
divided into 178 allotments (Map 1).
During 1981 there were 119 operators with 74,769
AUMs of active preference, however, only 65,269
AUMs were actually sold. Range improvement
projects completed prior to 1981 include 40,821
acres of seedings, 406 miles of fencing, 71
cattleguards, 84 miles of pipeline, 225 reservoirs or
water catchments, 47 spring developments, and 14
wells.
The present range condition and trend data are
shown on Table 1.
Wildlife habitats of special concern consist of
approximately 143,000 acres of crucial deer winter
range; about 64,000 acres of crucial antelope
range; and nearly 39,000 acres of elk winter range;
407 acres of stream riparian habitat; 336 acres of
reservoir riparian habitat; and 96 stream miles of
fish habitat. There are 46 miles of stream and 5
reservoirs presently fenced to exclude livestock.
2
The bald eagle is classified as threatened by the
Secretary of the Interior on the Federal
Endangered Species list (44 FR 12:3544. 1979) and
is a winter migrant to the area. Peregrine falcons
are classified as federally endangered, also found
in the previously mentioned list. and were sighted
twice in 1978 during the nesting season although
no nest sites were located.
Table 1
EIS Alternatives, Comparison of Long Term Effects
Atl.2
EXlStlng
8lRu8on
(E&IL
-)
(m-j
Mm-
Upland Vegetation
Ecco~l$cal Condition
Climax (excellent)
Late-seral (good)
Mid-seral (fair)
Early-seral (poor)
Other
Aiparian Vegetation, Streams
F;c;LzoicaI Condition
Climax (excellent)
Late-seral (good)
Mid-seral (fair)
Early-seral (poor)
Riparian Vegetation,
Reservoirs
pc;;oical Condition
e
Climax (excellent)
Late-seral (good)
Mid-seral (fair)
Earfy-seral (poor)
Endangered or Threatened
Species
Sensitive Species
41,007
803,978
260,815
45,641
116,336
574,635
22r ,687
5,803
182,033
12,922
421,442
378,389
197,361
57463
20
97
204
86
148
134
118
7
!A
175
65
iii
145
113
321
86
0
0
11
12
28
285
11
11
11
12
ii
284
2
284
22
2z
0
0
NC7
NC’
N&
NC
132,795
7,427
37,135
201,777
7,427
4.811
177,357
214.015
+8
-1
Avallabls Forage ProductIon AUfvls
Livestock allocation
74,7693
Wildlife allocation
5,331
Nonallocated
884
TOTAL AVAILABLE
FORAGE PRODUCTION
89,104
Wlld8fa HabItat Conditions
Upland Habitat Diversity
Changes in Habitat
Diversity (percent)
Fish (miles)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
83,639
24.010
234,657
565,928
165.499
57.463
0
18
40
36
74‘7893
7,427
51,115
133,311
27
14.023
487,504
467,889
iz!t
321
88
0
0
2s
0
0
58.831
7,427
75.021
7.2
135,779
139,279
143,298
+17
+12
89
25
89
25
z
2
:
45
20
39
27
f
f
+hV
+M
+M
+M
+L
+L
+L
+L
-M
-Ii
+L
+L
+L
NC
NC
+M
+L
+M
+H
+H
+L
+L
+M
+M
4M
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
8olb
Erosion Rate
+M
+M
NC
+M
+L
W8tM
Ouality
Quantity (runoff)
Channel stability
+L
+L
+L
NC
NC
NC
NC
4H
H-f
4H
4M
4H
+I4
Wildlife habitat
Deer
Antelope
Elk
Upland Birds
Waterfowl
Endangered or Threatened
Animals
f-2
Au. 2
Exbting
Rasource
w -1
Cultural and Pabontologkal
Racreatlon
Recreation activities
Visitor use (visitor days)
Recreation opportunities
vbual
Visual contrast
235,ooo
wlldameaa
Wilderness Characteristics
-L
-M
-L
-L
4L
+2,Qoo
+L
-7.500
-L
0
NC
+9,4CKl
+M
+5,800
NC
-L
-M
NC
-L
NC
-L
-H
NC
+L
+M
10
83
&cl-k Values~
Operators losing more than
10% of annual forage needs
Average change in forage as
percent of annual need
Livestock forage ($000)
Recreation ($GQO)
Employment (jobs)
1
$11,300
s 2.291
1,890
+11
+$1.508
+$24
+219
+23
+$3,074
4 50
+X34
-520:
+$72
-21
5
What the Rangeland
Management Program Is
The program to be Implemented consrsts of
the followrng major actrons
1. The initial allocation of existing available forage:
82,804 AUMs
Livestock
5,331 AUMs
Wildlife
Nonallocated
969 AUMs
Existing available forage production 89,104 AUMs
2 Use of grazing systems on all 178 allotments
(One allotment was drvtded into two, thus
increasing the total of 177 allotments described In
the Brothers Draft EIS to 178.)
3. Categorization of allotments into the Improve
category (44 allotments and 580,000 acres), the
Maintain category (66 allotments and 407,000
acres), and the Custodral category (68 allotments
and 70.000 acres) has been designed to
concentrate public funds and management efforts
on allotments which have the most srgnrfrcant
problems and potentral for Improvement Refer to
the AdmInIstratIve Actions section for tha category
criteria
4 Constructron of new range rmprovements at a
cost of $3.141.200 to achieve an Increase of 49.991
lrvestock AUMs for a potential long term sustarned
6
livestock forage production of 132,795 AUMs and
an overall improvement in range condition.
5. Monitoring and evaluation of changes in
resource condition and uses caused by
implementation of this decision.
The grazing management program includes a
forage allocation to livestock and wildlife to meet
resource objectives. Forage allocations for each
allotment are shown in Appendix I. Overall, the
initial livestock forage allocation is a 10 percent
increase over the current active preference. This
initial livestock allocation is an increase over the
current active preference on 58 allotments, no
change on 105 allotments, and a decrease on 15
allotments. Reductions will be made in accordance
with regulations as provided in 43 CFR 4110.32(c). The initial livestock forage allocations will be
subject to some change as a result of new data
gathered during the ongoing consultation,
allotment agreement and allotment management
plan (AMP) process.
Management actions that are included in the
program to maintain or improve aquatic and
riparian habitat and improve water quality on 96
miles of streams and 5 reservoir riparian areas are:
Maintain livestock exclusions along 46 miles of
stream and 5 reservoirs;
l
Exclude livestock from an additional 49 acres of
stream riparian habitat;
l
Provide additional stream stabilization through
artificial stream structures and streambank
stabilization.
l
In order to improve wildlife habitat and to provide
an adequate supply of forage for wildlife needs,
big game is initially allocated 5,331 AUMs of
competitive forage. This is unchanged from the
present allocation, however, it will increase to
7,427 AUMs of competitive forage over the long
term.
Long term forage allocatrons would meet the
forage demand for the existing management
objective numbers of the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for deer, elk, and
antelope.
This program enables ELM to meet the
multiple use mandates and agency mlsslon spelled
ot~t In the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA. 1976). the Public Rangeland
Improvement Act (PRIA. 1978). and the NatIonal
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969) The
followtng discussion st1rnmaruf!s thr? tbffects of the
proposed rar>gc?land mnnngornc~rlt proyrnnl
Range Condition and Forage
Production
The planned level of grazing (IX combined
with grazing systems and range Irnprovomt:nts WIII
Improve range r~colog~cal condltlon on 46 pttrcorlt
of the EIS area and malntaln current condlttorl on
50 percent Approxlmatoly 3 percent of the area
will be seeded and less than 1 percent will decllrlc:
In ecologrcal condltlon due to I”nlper Invasion In
areas that will not be treated Over the long term
followlng fllll program Implernentatlon, lIvestock
forage productton IS expected to increase to
132,795 AUMs Of the projected 49,991 AUMs of
livestock forage increase. approximately 19,463
AUMs will be prodtlced through land trc?atrncnts,
such as brush control and seedtng and 30,528
AUMs from Improved grazing management
systems
8
Soil and Water
Overall soil and watershed conditions WIII
be improved by the rangeland management
program. Streambank stability will improve and
less bank erosion will occur along 96 miles of
perennial streams.
Aquatic and Riparian Habitat
Livestock exclusion or restricted use along
46 miles of stream, 55 miles of stream stabilization,
620 stream structures, and 15 acres of debris
removal will maintain or improve water quality and
fish habitat. New water development and fencing is
expected to improve livestock distribution,
providing better forage utilization and reducing the
impact of concentration areas. Riparian vegetation
is expected to improve on 75 percent of the stream
riparian habitats. This is an increase of 20 percent
over the EIS proposed action. The remaining acres
will be maintained in current good to excellent
condition class. Reservoir riparian habitats will
improve through fencing on 7 percent of the area
and be maintained or slightly improved through
grazing management on the remaining 93 percent.
Reservoir riparian was created with the
establishment of livestock waters. It is not a
naturally occuring situation and generally does not
have high habitat potential. Where exceptional
riparian potential does exist, measures have been
taken to provide both livestock water and riparian
improvement for wildlife species.
use for 82 operators (105 allotments) and 33
operators (58 allotments) will receive an increase.
An immediate increase In grazing use of 8,035
AUMs is expected to increase net annual local
personal income by S100.000. In additron. because
of the estimated personal income effect during the
ten-year implementation of the range improvement
program, total local personal rncome should
increase by 9340.000.
The local personal income of permittees. their
employees and other local business owners would
be increased by S700.000 per year due to forage
increase in the long term. Thus Increase could also
lead to a net increase in ranch valuation based on
an income apprarsal for mortgage loan collateral
or for ranch sale purposes of 52.3 million over the
long term.
Wildlife
Wildlife species differ widely in their
habitat requirements. This program will help
provide a variety of vegetative successional stages
and a corresponding variety of habitats for wildlife.
The long term forage allocation to wildlife is
designed to accommodate ODFW proposed
population increases of 27 percent for deer, 23
percent for antelope and 71 percent for elk.
The grazing systems planned in deer and antelope
winter ranges are expected to improve or maintain
habitat conditions on 97 percent of the crucial
deer winter range and 95 percent of the crucial
antelope winter range.
Socio-Economic Conditions
That portion of the ranching industry that
uses public lands the construction industry and
recreational activities will be most affected by this
proposed rangeland management program. The
initial livestock forage allocation is a 10 percent
net increase (8,035 AUMs) over the 1981 active
preference level.
Initially, livestock use will be reduced for three
operators by over 10 percent and for an additional
9 operators by less than 10 percent (15
allotments). There will be no change of livestock
9
How the Rangeland
Management Decision was
Developed
Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS
The Brothers EIS analyzed the envlromrtntal
consequences of the proposed rangeland
management program and fotlr alternatIve
programs Refer to the EIS for detallod
descrlptlons of the alternatIves and to Table 1 for a
comparison of the long tc?rm effect of the EIS
alternatives The folIowIng IS a brief dlsctlsslon of
each alternative It also explains why each
alternative was not self:ctod
The Proposed Actlon, the Optlrnlre Llvt:stock and
Optimize Wlldllfr> and Wattlrshod Valtlc?s
alternatlves were developed foIlowIng p(lhllc
meetings durlny the land 11%: plannlrlq procc!ss
and EIS scoping The Corltlntle Present
Management (No ActIon) alternatIve IS rf:qiIIrr:d by
CEQ regulations and thrt ElIrnlnatf: Llvt!stock
Grazing alternnttvc was Int;llldetl for cor11parlsorl
purposes to show tho t!ffoc;t of c:ornplr:tc~ Ilvostock
removal from pi~blic lands
Proposed Action
The proposed nctlon wo~~ld Irlcr(:ast: the!
present allocatlon of llvcstock forage by 8.318
10
AUMs. The projected long term Increases,
amounting to 58,026 AUMs more than present
levels (active preference), would be accomplished
through range improvement projects and changes
in grazing systems.
While this proposal benefits most resource
conditions including social and economic
conditions it was not accepted in its entirety. This
is due to an analysis of the benefits that would be
derived from rangeland improvements compared
to the cost of those projects. Several projects were
not considered further because they were not cost
effective. The RPS decision reflects these changes
(Appendix I, II & III).
Optimize Livestock Grazing (Alternative 1)
In the long term, this alternative would
provide 68,982 more AUMs of forage for livestock
than the Proposed Action through the
implementation of additional rangeland
improvements and changes in grazing systems.
This alternative was not selected because of the
range improvement costs and the adverse impacts
to plant diversity, residual ground cover, wildlife
habitat diversity, recreation activities, visual and
cultural resources.
Continue Present Management
(Alternative 2)
Under this alternative, present management
actions would continue. The existing forage
allocation for livestock would remain at 74,769
AUMs. Forage allocated for wildlife would increase
to 7,427 AUMs in the long term. Existing range
improvements would be maintained but no new
projects would be developed.
This alternative was adopted in some allotments
where no change was felt to be necessary. It
would, however, fail to solve present resource
problems in many other areas, such as allotments
where grazing systems would encourage
downward ecological change.
Optimize Wildlife Habitat and Watershed
Values (Alternative 3)
Long term livestock forage allocations would
be 75,964 AUMs fewer under this alternative than
the proposed action. Livestock grazing would be
eliminated from allotments within deer and
antelope winter ranges as well as sage grouse
nesting areas. In addition, no livestock grazing
would be allowed on any riparian area or on any
area with critical or severe soil erosion hazards.
Although this alternative would benefit resource
conditions in some allotments, it would not make a
significant change on the majority of the area.
One example where it would make a significant
change and where it was adopted is in the River
pasture of the Prineville Dam allotment, located
adjacent to the Crooked River downstream from
Prineville Reservoir.
Overall local personal income would have
decreased by an estimated $207,000 annually from
present levels under this alternative. For these
reasons it was adopted only in those areas where
significant improvement was expected to occur.
Eliminate Livestock Grazing (Alternative
4)
This alternative would eliminate all
livestock grazing from the public lands in the EIS
area with the exception of trailing use.
This alternative was not selected because it is
inconsistent with BLM land use policies and would
reduce local personal income by $1,307,000
annually. A total of 186 jobs would also be lost in
the local economy.
Environmental Preferability of
the Alternatives
Environmental preferabiity IS judged using
the criteria in the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). Title I, Section 101(b) of
NEPA establishes the following goals:
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as
trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
(2) assure for all Americans a safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of benefrcral 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 a diversity and variety of individual
choice;
(5) achieve a balance between populatron 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 attainable recyclrng of
depletable resources.
The proposed action in the EIS ranked frrst in
environmental preferability. It was felt to be in
compliance with all NEPA goals, especially goals
1, 3, 5 and 6. The proposed action was followed by
the Optimize Wildlife and Watershed Alternative
(Alt. 3). The reason for this was because while
NEPA emphasizes biological and physical
components, it also deals with social and
economic values. While alternative 3 was felt to be
in greater compliance with goal 2 than the
proposed action. it was felt that it did not comply
as well with goals 5 and 6 as did the proposed
action.
11
The Optimize Livestock Alternative (Alt. 1) was in
greatest compliance with goal 6 and to a lesser
degree goals 1 and 5 because of its emphasis on
maximum productrvrty and enhancement of overall
ecological condition. The continue present
management or No Action Alternative (Alt. 2) was
felt to be in compliance with goals 2 and 4 because
it marntains current conditions. This alternative
was not In compliance with goals 1, 3, 5 and 6
since it makes no attempt to enhance
environmental quality or diversity and does not
improve social or economic well being. The
Eliminate Livestock Grazing Alternative (Alt. 4)
was In compliance with goals 3 and 4 since It
removes all impacts of livestock grazing. It is not In
compliance with goals 2, 5 and 6 because of
adverse effects on economic condition.
Relationship of the Rangeland
Management Program to the
Brothers EIS Proposed Action
The grazing systems, forage allocation and range
improvements listed below are similar to the
proposed action described in detail in the Draft
Brothers Grazing Management EIS.
Changes to the proposed action are identified in
Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2
Comparison of Initial Forage AllocatIons
Livestock
Wildlife
Nonallocated
EIS
AllocatIon
83,087
5,331
RP$
AllocaHon
82,804
5,331
969
Table 3 Comcwison of Prooosed
R a n g e lmpr&ements EIS
PW0-d
TYW of
ACtlOll
Range Improvement8
Fence (miles)
391
13
Spring (each)
Pipeline (miles)
487
7
Wells (each)
25
Reservoirs (each)
2
Waterholes
Vegetrtlon Manlpuktion (acres)
3,200
Spray/Seed
42.330
Bum/Seed
8,825
Plow/Seed
57,835
Brush Control/Spray
47,488
Brush Control/Burn
Brush Control/Chain 5,000
97,733
Juniper Control
RPS
D147
11
1
7
0
400
38,220
0
27,300
51,938
0
69,020
Forage Allocation
The differences between the RPS forage
allocation and the EIS allocations outlined in Table
2 are minor. Changes were made as a result of
land exchanges, allotment boundary adjustments,
and printing errors.
Grazing Systems
The differences between the EIS proposed action
and the RPS initial decision are the results of the
selective management policy, benefit/cost analysis
and the ongoing consultation process. The revised
grazing systems are shown in Appendix II.
Changes in grazing systems occurred on less than
1 percent of the area.
Range Improvements
There is a significant difference between the
proposed range improvement program shown in
Table 3 and those included as part of the EIS
proposed action. Changes are the result of project
elimination or modification based upon benefit/
cost (B/C) analysis and implementation of the
selective management policy. Range
improvements shown on Table 3 are only those
projects in Improve (I) category allotments. The
Range Improvements and Appropriations section
discusses this classification and Appendix II and
III show which allotments are in the Improve (I)
category and which projects are proposed for
implementation.
12
Public Involvement
Many formal and informal contacts were made
by BLM personnel during the planning process
Four major land use planning issues were
identified relating to grazing management in the
Brothers EIS area. They were: 1) the Impacts of
BLM land use allocation on the socral and
economic structure of local communrties. 2) the
availability of forage for livestock grazing, 3)
providing a diversity of wildlife habitats on BLM
managed lands, 4) protection of riparian areas and
enhancement of water quality.
Public meetings to scope the Brothers Grazing
Management Environmental Impact Statement
were combined with meetings to discuss
development of the preferred alternative for the
Brothers Management Framework Plan (MFP). The
MFP at that stage consrsted of three land use
allocation alternatives whtch had been developed
from criteria established with earlier public input.
All three alternatives called for Increased long term
allocation of forage for livestock. As a result of
scoping, an additional alternahve was developed
which called for an overall decrease In lrvestock
forage allocatrons.
Alternatives presented In the MFP were discussed
in public meetings In Portland, Prrnevrlle and Bend
with 58 people attendrng. and with the Prinevrlle
BLM District Advrsory Councrl In September 1981
Fifty-six oral and written comments were recerved
and used in developing the proposed action and
other alternatives analyzed In the Brothers EIS
On April 29, 1982, 310 copies of the draft EIS were
marled to the public and government agencres.
On May 25 and 26. 1982, public meetings were
held in Prrneville and Bend to drscuss the draft
EIS. Eighteen people were In attendance. A total of
27 comment letters were received during the
comment period which closed on June 30. 1982.
The primary concerns expressed were related to
the cost versus benefits of rangeland Improvement
projects in the proposed action and the
management of wildlife habitat and rrparran areas.
After the completion of the Brothers EIS a
benefit/cost analysis was done. As a result of this
analysis several range improvement projects were
modified or not considered feasible due to low
economic efficiency. Livestock grazrng has already
been excluded from some riparian areas and IS
planned for other riparian areas where this IS the
most effective way of achievrng riparran habitat
improvement. In the Prrneville Dam Allotment all
livestock grazing has been eliminated from the
pasture which Includes the Crooked River
downstream from Prineville Reservoir
The 27 comment letters received on the draft EIS
and responses to those comments or questrons
were Included In the frnal EIS which was released
on September 14. 1982.
How the Rangeland
Management Decision will
be Implemented
Administrative Actions
Release of this Brothers Rangeland Program
Summary and Record of Decision serves as public
notice of the proposed range management
program and WIII be the start of a 30-day comment
period.
After release of the RPS. allotment management
plans may be developed Consultation and
coordination with the operators and other
Interested parties will be a part of allotment
management plans and allotment agreements
Appendix I, II & III outlines the major actions to be
taken on each allotment and IS in essence the
Record of Declslon req(llred by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEO) regulattons
The order of range Improvement completion and
annual expenditures by BLM for range
supervision. monltorlng arid project maint(:n;111c~:
has been based upon the allotment categorization
under the selective management policy (Appendix
II). Under this policy each allotment was placed In
one of three management categories The policy IS
14
designed to concentrate public funds and
management efforts on allotments which have the
most significant problems and potential for
improvement.
The three categories and their respective criteria
are as follows: Improve (I) category are those
allotments where present range condition is
unsatisfactory, resource potential is high, there is
a positive return on investment, and/or serious
resource conflicts or controversy exist.
The Maintain (M) category are those allotments
where present overall range condition is
satisfactory, resource potential is moderate to
high, there are no serious resource conflicts or
controversy, and some opportunity may exist for
positive economic return from public investment.
The Custodial (C) category are those allotments
where present range condition is not a factor,
allotments have a low resource potential. there are
limited conflicts or controversy, a positive
economic return from public investment does not
exist or is constrained, and present management
appears satisfactory.
Grazing Decisions
Forage allocation, categorization and
grazing systems proposed for each allotment are
shown in Appendix I and II.
Where the proposals are the same as what is
presently occuring this RPS serves as the Record
of Decision.
In those cases where changes from the present
situation are proposed, the changes will be
implemented by agreement with the concerned
parties if possible. Where consultation does not
result in agreement, individual decisions will be
issued to implement the proposal.
In those cases where individual decisions are
required they will be issued prior to the 1984
grazing season.
Increases in livestock forage allocations will be
granted on a temporary basis until subsequent
monitoring indicates that permanent increases in
the grazing preference can be allowed.
Range Improvements and
Appropriations
Achieving the resource objectives of the
Brothers Land Use Plan is dependent upon
receiving sufficient funding to complete range
improvements, and adequate staffing to implement
grazing systems, supervise grazing use and
monitor resource changes. A list of the projects,
an allotment ranking by priority and the
approximate cost for implementation is shown in
Appendix III, Ranking of allotment priority is based
on resource condition and proposed projects at
the present time. Allotment analysis will be an
ongoing and continuing process which reflects
current conditions. Ranking is subject to change
based on changes in resource conditrons, project
redesign, or contributrons by individual operators.
Consistant with Bureau policy, first priority for
rangeland improvements will be given to Improve
(I) category allotments (shaded entries on
Appendix I, II and Ill). Exceptions may be made to
prevent loss of a critical resource value or to
assure continuing operation of an existing
management plan. Range improvements in the
Maintain (M) category and Custodial (C) category
allotments will generally only be implemented if
the necessary funds are provided by the individual
operator. All project work is subject to benefit/cost
analysis.
Until Congress has determined whether the
wilderness study areas will or will not be
designated wilderness, projects in those areas will
be governed by wilderness interim management
guidelines.
Installation of the proposed rangeland facilities
will begin in fiscal year 1984 and continue as funds
are available. BLM’s range management and range
improvement programs are funded through
congressional appropriations and return to the
district of one-half of the grazing fees collected.
Resource Monitoring and
Evaluation
A number of different resource studies will
be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the
range management program and will be included
in the district monitorrng plan to be completed by
March, 1984. Both the type and intensity of
monitoring WIII vary considerably between the
three allotment management categories outlined in
the selective management policy. Monitorrng in
the Improve (I) category will be most intensive and
will be designed to measure progress toward
objectives and the environmental factors which
affect that progress.
In the Maintain (M) category allotments,
monitoring intensity will be reduced and the
primary emphasis will be on monitoring changes
from current resource conditions.
Monitoring in the Custodial (C) category
allotments will be limited to periodic inventories
and observations of resource uses to measure
long-term resource condition changes
The followrng are the major rangeland elements to
be monitored.
Plants
Trend and Utilization - Studies will be conducted
primarily on those allotments in the Improve (I)
15
category and in riparian areas in order to
determine changes in plant species composition in
relation to vegetation objectives. Forage utilization
studies will be conducted to determine pattern of
grazing and how much vegetation is removed by
grazing animals. Browse utilization studies will
continue in the deer winter range.
Sensitive, Threatened or Endangered Species There are eight species in the Brothers EIS area
being considered for listing as either endangered
or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
or the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Trend
studies will be done to determine the effects of the
management program when it is felt that studies
are needed.
Animals
Livestock - Where needed, livestock use
data will be obtained from the permittee annually.
These records will reflect the number and kind of
animals grazing in each pasture and the amount of
time livestock graze there. Livestock counts and/or
marking will be made periodically by the Bureau to
verify these records.
Wildlife - Use data will be obtained on antelope
and deer from Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife and supplemental BLM studies. Important
habitats will be monitored to identify wildlife
needs, and habitat trends and use. Use patterns,
periodic observation and consultation with other
agencies will be the principal monitoring methods.
Nesting success studies will be continued for
raptors.
Aquatic Animals - Studies will be conducted in
representative riparian areas to determine changes
in habitat conditions and populations of fish and
wildlife. Such monitoring would comply with BLM
Manual procedures. Studies will include collection
of data on aquatic insects, water temperature,
riparian aquifer recharge, and fish composition.
Water Quality
Water quality monitoring will be initiated
in accordance with BLM policies and Sections 208
and 313 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Weather
Weather data will be gathered annually and
evaluated to determine the effects of crop year
precipitation on herbage yields and for correlation
with utilization studies.
Opportunities for Protest and
Appeal
This RPS outlines the decisions developed
for the Brothers EIS area. The program and related
decisions are the result of land use planning
completed in 1982 and the analysis of several
alternative programs contained in the Brothers
Draft EIS published in April 1982.
16
The release of this RPS to interested groups and
individuals serves as public notice of the final
decisions relating to range management on the
BLM administered allotments in the Brothers EIS
area where consultation has been completed
(Appendix I).
Agreement with the affected operators has been
reached on many of these allotments. Where
agreement was not reached, individual decisions
implementing the program will begin to be issued
30 days after release of the RPS.
Anyone who has indicated in writing that their
interest may be affected by the decision will be
issued a Notice of Proposed Decision. This notice
may be protested or appealed under provisions of
the Federal Grazing Regulations (43 CFR 4160.2
and 4160.4). Except where appeals are filed, these
decisions will become final 30 days after issuance
of the proposed decision.
Copies of agreements that have been completed
will be available for public inspection during
regular work hours at the Prineville District BLM
Office.
Periodic Progress Reports
As this rangeland management program is
implemented, a record of progress will be
maintained and the specific program details will be
outlined in periodic updates of the RPS. These
publications will contain a summary of livestock
grazing agreements and decisions, monitoring
results, range improvement progress, improvement
efforts made by permittees and management
system information. This record of progress will be
reflected in future RPS updates which will be
distributed for public information and comment.
APPENDIX I
RPS Livestock Forage Allocation
Allotment No. and Name
0001
ALASKA PACIFIC
0003
0004
0006
0007
0009
0012
0013
0014
HAMPTON
MINERS FLAT
POST
RIVER
COLD SPRINGS
WINDMILL
SHEEP MTN. COMM
SHEEP MTN INDIVIDUAL
0016
INDIAN CREEK
0017
0018
BONNIEVIEW
Acres
Public
Land
Game
AUMs
Big
Livestock
Present
Act.Pref.
EIS Prop.
Livestock
AIIOC.
2,172
30
57,438
2,908
1,720
240
37,134
920
6,072
1,820
152
52
22
4
64
4
37
18
123
6,629
m
6,629
al
6,629
1,831
41
812
20
44
201
98
0
2,142
70
282
245
81
109
291
98
0
2,554
70
474
270
93
96
291
118
0
2,554
70
460
253
93
60
187
910
884
187
910
684
193
8w
193
600
125
125
0019
0020
JUNIPER SPRINGS
IBEX BUTTE
LOWER 12 MILE TABLE
0021
MID FK TWELVEMILE CK
1,795
14
0022
0023
LAUGHLIN
ANGELL
7,672
1,517
18
11
UPPER BUCK CREEK
HUMPHREY
UPPER POCKET COMM
FERIAN
JIMMY MCCUEN
CONGLETON
LOWER POCKET COMM
BULGER CREEK
DELORE
FOSTER,V.
6.991
5.650
4,936
4,853
446
865
2,128
1,968
2,560
80
160
112
47
103
93
11
19
79
31
9
10
624
271
635
274
30
0
197
160
775
12
15
2i
28
:t
08
241
242
10,744
295
10
2
331
65
2
244
19
26
89
0024
0025
0026
0027
0028
0029
0033
0034
0035
0036
0037
BUCK CREEK FLAT
1,625
12,230
9,722
18
2,4.8
2,4
11
11
2,3,11,4
2.4
562
330
30
83
203
160
855
10
15
165
194
194
87
123
103
111
103
111
z
iti
10,088
326
lO,oee
328
2,155
39
10
548
125
22
740
82
487
404
2.614
39
5
493
148
13
752
82
868
404
2.614
39
5
493
148
13
752
82
868
404
4
11
2
2
3:
ii
ii
68
ii
68
:1
17.861
ii
1,122
&4
1
1
25
27
0
2
3
1
1
5
5
5
6
0
9z
13
1,122
80
160
8,797
4,266
1,690
160
481
120
40
15
63
107
506
80
5
5
2
2.10
6::
468
82
15
45
7
10
2
6
0
19
2
4&i
609
52
15
45
7
10
2
6
20
19
2
4G
609
82
15
45
7
10
2
6
20
19
2
4,389
5,150
131,678
5,133
LISTER
DURGIN
MCCULLOUGH
RABBIT VALLEY
PAULINA CREEK
MILLER
NORTH FORK
BEAVERCREEK
DAGIS LAKE
COYOTE SPRINGS
DRY LAKE
27,174
324
163
15,160
2,622
120
10,999
880
11.401
4.418
610
FLAT TOP BUTTE
1.706
BENNETT FIELD
1,314
COFFEE BUTTE
MILTENBERGER
WEIGAND
WEST PINE CREEK
WHITAKER
SANOWSKI
BROADDUS-CARTER
LAMB
EMMRICH
HARSCH
HARRINGTON
2.4.11
562
330
30
83
203
160
855
10
15
OWENS WATER COMM.
BARNEY BUCK CREEK
G. I.
EAST MAURY
CLOVERCREEK
11
2.4.9
x3.9
2
0042
BUTLER
INDIAN
11
2,4
2.3.4
1,642
1,418
CAMP CREEK COMM.
2x4.8
644
3,035
0066
0069
0070
0071
0072
0075
0076
5001
5002
5003
, 5004
5006
5007
5010
11
2.4.11
325
PAULINA
LAYTON
0062
141
PA
644
CAVE
0047
0048
0049
0050
0051
0052
0053
0054
0056
0058
0059
AZ
684
193
483
Comments
325
0039
0041
E
112
91
RPS
lnltlal
Allot.
285
68
92
2.4
4.11
11
2
2
2.4
2
2,ll
le2.4
2.4
;34
2;3:4
2,3,4
2,3
2.3
2
2
2.11
23.4
2.11
2.3.4.8.9
2.4
5
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Allotment No. and Name
5018
5022
5024
5029
5030
5031
5032
5050
5051
5052
5061
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5086
5088
5089
5090
5092
5093
5094
5096
5097
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5124
5125
5127
5130
5131
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
WIERLESKE
AIRPORT
COUCH
CLAYPOOL
KEYSTONE
MAYFIELD-HARRIS
BARRETT
GREY BUTTE
SHERWOOD CANYON
SMITH ROCKS
MCWEIZZ
WILLIAMS
LOWER BRIDGE
PINE RIDGE
FISHER
STEVENS-FREMONT
SQUAW CREEK
LAFOLLETTEBUTTE
ODIN FALLS
STRUSS
CLINE BUTTE
FRYREARBUTTE
DESERT SPRINGS
HOME RANCH
WHISKEY STILL
MASTON
PAULUS
BULL FLAT
LONE PINE CANYON
BURNS-MONTGOMERY
KNOCHE
ZEMLICKA
RED CLOUD
CRONIN
BROWN
FOSTER
RUSSELL
CAIN FIELDS
ZELL POND
HOHNSTE;N-TATTI
BRUCKERT
COOK
DRIVEWAY
HACKER-HASSING
WE1GAND.N
ALLEN
REDMOND AIRPORT
PIPELINE
CRENSHAW
BLACKROCK
HUTTON
OERTLE
HOWARD
SMEAD
MAYFIELD POND
POWELL BUTTE
PILOT BUTTE
MCCLELLAN
LONG HOLLOW
STEARNS
DRY CREEK
DAVIS
PRINEVILLE DAM
PLATEAU
DUNHAM
SALT CR. ALKALI BU.
Acres
Public
Land
892
597
768
RO
296
1,509
238
809
1.117
174
6,065
763
5,521
358
389
285
192
3.875
3,869
2,294
4,422
6,994
1,947
3.831
1,034
3,382
152
116
120
160
185
344
717
321
493
200
277
114
1,228
5,096
126
1,860
3.058
4.019
2,651
3,554
5,467
8,227
7,267
254
4.818
2,629
1,394
755
4,549
13,158
1,394
861
300
18,407
7,055
3,584
3,925
5,477
6,128
10,118
Big
Game
AUMs
4
4
3
5
3
0
26
107
Livestock
Present
Act.Pret.
49
49
49
49
30
30
124
24
28
51
9
:10
124
34
IU
65
17
348
44
3 10
34
14
46
17
258
252
143
202
498
150
246
111
209
14
44
3 10
34
4
54
40
10
15
20
10
0
4
13
4
3
3
4
17
4
8
10
13
9
a
17
21
21
0
13
9
4
2
13
30
26
15
106
67
34
0
15
37
32
EIS Prop.
Livestock
Allot.
0
0
0
143
202
498
112
193
111
209
14
0
5
17
6
lt3
33
19
40
24
16
36
75
262
35
0
100
99
177
110
228
513
392
0
254
120
68
23
305
680
84
75
17
852
334
213
276
252
323
688
5
8
6
18
62
19
40
24
16
36
75
262
35
49
138
99
177
110
228
513
405
24
254
1XI
68
23
305
6t30
84
75
852
x34
234
276
252
338
800
RPS
Initial
Allot.
49
49
:w
4
30
l/4
24
78
51
9
348
44
3 10
34
14
46
17
2%
252
143
202
498
112
193
111
209
14
5
17
6
18
33
19
40
24
16
36
75
262
35
49
138
99
177
110
228
5 13
405
14
154
120
68
23
305
6RO
84
7!,
17
852
334
134
139
252
338
800
Comments
11
11
11
1I
1I
11
6.11
6.1 1
11
11
11
11
11
11
6.1 1
6.11
11
11
11
11
6.1 1
11
11
6.1 1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
4.11
19
Allotment No. and Name
5141
5142
5145
5149
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5182
5183
5198
5201
5204
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5229
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5254
9998
9999
TOTALS
SANFORD CREEK
CAREY
EAGLE ROCK-BAILEY
BEOLETTO
MCCABE
REYNOLDS
GRIZZLY MTN
LYTLE CREEK
GOLDEN HORSESHOE
F JONES
RAIL HOLLOW
LAIER-GOVE
ALFALFA MKT
SINCLAIR
ARNOLD CANAL
MICHAELS
BARLOW CAVE
LAVA BEDS COMM
HORSE RIDGE
PINE MOUNTAIN
MILLICAN
RAMBO
WILLIAMSON CREEK
COATS
GRIEVE
KLOOTCHMAN
WEST BUTTE
NYE
SCOTT
HAUGHTON
MOFFITT
BEAR CREEK
BROTHERS
zx
GRASSY BUTTE
FEHRENBACHER
RICKMAN-MCCORMACK
SPRING CREEK
BRIGHT
IMPERIAL
RAM LAKE
HATFIELD
LIZARD CREEK
POTHOOK
MCCORMACK HOME RANCH
COFFELT
96 RANCH
MEISNER
BARBWIRE
C 0 UNALLOTTED
DESC UNALLOTTED
Acres
Public
Land
6,924
1,129
4,766
968
350
1,838
701
120
197
1,027
115
529
2,436
630
2.791
6,353
9.101
16,354
22,152
5,323
32,560
15,997
12,905
10,514
84
210
11,386
8,627
4,625
18,437
30,506
1,750
28,465
76,498
25,701
6,605
7,991
6,245
6,269
12,332
10,235
127
3 263
2,454
1,274
440
6.771
124
7.029
414
1 1.580
Big
Game
AUMs
10
20
45
24
0
15
3
1
3
25
2
3
8
3
16
22
84
80
107
21
106
53
44
28
1
5:
34
5
30
107
4
65
223
50
7
23
28
22
37
41
0
7
1S
13
2
19
4
12
Livestock
Present
Act.Pref.
EIS Prop.
Livestock
Allot.
152
46
262
55
10
101
69
8
14
77
10
15
141
38
0
280
600
729
1,624
320
1,705
672
1,007
853
4
26
806
422
255
1,061
2,334
98
2,429
7,100
3.018
492
398
401
643
777
499
11
1HO
140
!,‘I
20
482
:bl
f94
152
46
262
84
22
176
69
8
14
166
10
15
141
30
87
196
600
508
1,839
320
2,800
605
1,007
1,063
4
942;
422
255
1,552
2,830
200
3,008
7.100
1 100
fW0
567
401
1 000
777
519
‘)
:,Uil
140
flfi
20
482
:+I
frill
RPS
Initial
Allot.
152
46
262
55
22
101
69
8
14
77
10
15
141
38
87
280
600
508
1,843
320
2,600
605
1,007
1,115
4
26
942
422
255
1,552
2,830
200
3,008
7.100
4,100
114!1
567
401
1.000
i i i
519
5
YfHl
140
f,fl
XI
482
:(‘I
U/O
Comments
11
11
11
6.1 1
6.11
11
11
11
6.1 1
11
11
11
7.11
7.11
11
2.
5.11
11
11
11
11
2.5
11
11
2
11
11
4.11
2
2
4,ll
11
4 11
4 I, I 1
4.11
11
4 11
11
2
11
11
1I
,I I 1
1I
11
11
:’
1.069.703
COMMENTS
1 AllocatIon dependent on profcct inil)lonlentatlorl
2 Consultation contlnulng
3 AllocatIon dependent on Irnpl~~rn~~nt;jttc)n of grazlrlci systrlrll
4 AllocatIon dependent on utlllzatlon momtortrlq rfasolts
5 AddItIonal land and grazing capnclty ;Ic(jillretl III Dc~sch~rfc~s (:ollrlty f. XC tl,lll(jl.
6 EIS compllatlon contaIned f’rrot
7 Consultation r?%llted 111 chanqt>tl yr;lr~n!] syst~~nl sf~~sor~ of ~JV’ r;ttllrar ttb,crl II~~IIII /.‘I ,~II( )I ,I:*~,’
8 PLI~IIC land acreagr’ nnrl grazing (:il/);i(.lty chanqcxrl tllr(a to la1111 I’X( tl<lrlcif,
9 Public land acreage and grarlnq cnpaclty changcx ~IW to ;Illotrrlc~rlt hc)llrltl,iry ( tl,lilclt,,, , Illit itl;lliIi~/ ~“‘~f”““” I’ tl,lrl~.tl*l”
10 Newly created allotment due to allotmftrlt boundary chanqrl arltl clrazlrlcl I)rc,ffbrc,rlc.l, tl,lrl,,ff,t
11 AllocatIon becomes flnal 111iless protostr~d In wrltln(l wlthlrl 30 d;lyS aftrsr I~~I~*;I’,I* 01 tt11, III”,
0
Improve (I) Category nllotmr~nt
20
APPENDIX II
Grazing Systems
Allotment No. and Name
0001
0003
0004
0006
0007
0009
0012
0013
0014
0016
0017
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
0024
0025
0026
0027
0028
0029
0033
0034
0035
0036
0037
ALASKA PACIFIC
HAMPTON
MINERS FLAT
POST
RIVER
COLD SPRINGS
WINDMILL
SHEEP MTN COMM
SHEEP MTN INDIVIDUAL
INDIAN CREEK
BONNIEVIEW
JUNIPER SPRINGS
IBEX BUTTE
LOWER 12 MILE TABLE
MID FK TWELVEMILE CK
LAUGHLIN
ANGELL
UPPER BUCK CREEK
BUCK CREEK FLAT
HUMPHREY
UPPER POCKET COMM
FERIAN
JIMMY MCCUEN
CONGLETON
LOWER POCKET COMM
BULGERCREEK
DELORE
FOSTER, V
Allotment
Categorization ‘1 ObjectIves ‘/
LISTER
I
M
M
M
C
M
C
M
M
I
C
I
I
I
M
I
I
M
I
M
M
C
C
M
M
M
C
C
I
M
M
I
I
I
I
M
0048
0049
0050
0051
0052
0053
DURGIN
MCCULLOUGH
RABBIT VALLEY
PAULINA CREEK
MILLER
NORTH FORK
C
C
M
M
C
M
0054
0056
0058
0059
BEAVERCREEK
DAGIS LAKE
COYOTE SPRINGS
DRY LAKE
M
M
M
M
I
M
I
C
C
I
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
M
M
CAVE
0039
0041
ii2
0045
0047
PAULINA
LAYTON
OWENS WATER COMM.
BARNEY BUCK CREEK
G. I.
EAST MAURY
FLAT TOP BUTTE
0062
BENNETT FIELD
CAMP CREEK COMM.
0066
0069
0070
0071
0072
0075
0076
5001
5002
5003
5004
5006
5007
5010
5018
5022
BUTLER
INDIAN
CLOVER CREEK
COFFEE BUTTE
MILTENBERGER
WEIGAND
WEST PINE CREEK
WHITAKER
SANOWSKI
BROADDUS-CARTER
LAMB
EMMRICH
HARSCH
HARRINGTON
WIERLESKE
AIRPORT
Prerent
Grazing
Systems I/
A
s/s
A.B.E.F.G
A.B.E.G
A
D
A.B.C.G
6.E.F
A.B.C,D
A.B.C.D
A.&D
B
RR
RR,FFR
SiS.DR
REST
RR
DR
DR.EX
DR.FFR
DR
B
FFR
s/s
s/s
s/s
D
A,B,E.G
A.E,G
E
E,FFR
A.B.E
A,B,C,E,G
A,B,C,E,G
A,B,C,E,F,G
ProDosed
El!3
RPS Initial
Actlon
Grazing Sys.
Oeclrlon ‘1
Grazing Syr.‘/
OR
RR.DR
RR.DR
DR
REST
RR
DR
RR.DR.EX
DR.RR
OR
DR
OR
RR.DR
RR,DR
DR
REST
RR
DR
RR.DR.EX
2.4
ii
24
RR
RR
RR
R”Fl
RR
RR
1.294
1,2,4
ii::
OR
DR.R
DR
OR
OR
DR
A,B,E,F
OR
RR
A.B.D.E
A
B
B
A
A
B.E.G
B
B
DR,FFR
DR
FFR
D
RR
RR
DR
S/S/F
FFR
w s
DR. S/S/F
S/S/F.FFR
WS
DR
DR
DR
DR
RR
RR
DR
DR
DR
A
A
A&
A&F
A,B,C.E,F,G
A
A
A
A.B.E
A
i:;
E. S/S/F
Comments’/
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
124
1~2~4
1 s2.4
ii
DR
DR
DR
DR
RR
RR
DR
DR
1.2,4
ii:
DR
1 n2.4
DR
ii:
ii
224
cn3,E Ex
1 .i,4
2,4
DR
RR
R.DR,RR,EX
DR
RR.DR.S/S/F.RR,DR,EX
EX.FFR
FFR
DR
FFR
DR
S/S.EX
DR.EX
DR
s/s
E
DR
RR.DR.EX.
DR.RR.EX
FFR
E.S/S/F
DR
RR
RR
E
DR
4
2
2
2.4
2
2
2.4
DR’
2.4
RR,DR.EX
2. 4
DR
DR
DR,EX
DR
DR
DR.RR,EX
2
2
1.2
1.2
2
2
DR
RR
DR
2
2.4
2
E
s/s
R, D
FFR
FFR
ii::
;::
i
2
RRDRU(
RRDRW
1,2,4
dR
dR
2
2
A.B,C
RR
i::
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
S/S/F
E
FFR
FFR
E
E
E
E
E
s/s
s/s
S/F
E
DR
SD
DR
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
:il
DR
SD
DR
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
A.C%,Ci
B
A
2,4
1.2.4
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
21
Allotment No. and Name
5024
5029
5030
5031
5032
5050
5051
5052
5061
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5086
5088
5089
5090
5092
5093
5094
5096
5097
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5124
5125
5127
5130
5131
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5145
5149
5176
22
COUCH
CLAYPOOL
KEYSTONE
MAYFIELD-HARRIS
BARRETT
GREY BUTTE
SHERWOOD CANYON
SMITH ROCKS
MCWEIZZ
WILLIAMS
LOWER BRIDGE
PINE RIDGE
FISHER
STEVENS-FREMONT
SQUAW CREEK
LAFOLLETTE BUTTE
ODIN FALLS
STRUSS
CLINE BUTTE
FRYREARBUTTE
DESERT SPRINGS
HOME RANCH
WHISKEY STILL
MASTON
PAULUS
BULL FLAT
LONE PINE CANYON
BURNS-MONTGOMERY
KNOCHE
ZEMLICKA
RED CLOUD
CRONIN
BROWN
FOSTER
RUSSELL
CAIN FIELDS
ZELL POND
HOHNSTEIN-TATTI
BRUCKERT
COOK
DRIVEWAY
HACKER-HASSING
WEIGAND
PLLEN
REDMOND AIRPORT
PIPELINE
CRENSHAW
BLACKROCK
HUTTON
OERTLE
HOWARD
SMEAD
MAYFIELD POND
POWELL BUTTE
PILOT BUTTE
MCCLELLAN
LONG HOLLOW
STEARNS
DRY CREEK
DAVIS
PRINEVILLE DAM
PLATEAU
DUNHAM
SALT CR. ALKALI BU.
SANFORD CREEK
CAREY
EAGLE ROCK-BAILEY
BEOLETTO
MCCABE
Allotment
Categorization ‘/ Objectlves ‘l
C
C
C
C
C
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
I
I
M
I
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
M
C
C
C
C
M
M
C
C
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
C
M
C
C
C
M
M
M
M
C
I
M
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
:
G
B
G
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
E.G
R
B
‘2.0
A.C
AC
A,C.D
A,C,D
AC
A.C.D
B
B
Proposed
EIS
RPS lnitlal
Present
Grazing
Actlon
Grazing Sys.
Decision ‘1
Systems ‘I Grazing Sys.‘l
E
FFR
FFR
SF
FFR
5s
s/s
S!S
E
S’S
D
SJS
E
E
E
E
E
E
R
R
s s
E
E
ss
E
E
E
E
s.s
E
E
E
5s
S!S
s.s
E
E
SF
S,F
E
n
R
ss
ss
R
RR
R
E
R
DR
R
ft
R
E
ss
E
FFR
DR
Df1
E
D
R
R
DR
E
s/s
RR
SSF
SSF
SD
SD
SD
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
SD
DR
DR
OR
DR
DR
DR
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DH
SD
SD
rj R
r1 f3
DH
DR
Dfj
[If{
[IfI
IIf{
r)fq
Dfi
DR
r)fj
Df?
Df3
Sl)
sr)
SD
DR
Df?
IIf?
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
RR
DfJ
c
SC
SD
SD
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
SD
DR
DR
OR
DR
OR
DR
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DH
SD
SD
DR
Df?
DR
Dfj
DR
DH
II R
DR
DH
OR
Dfj
rjfj
DR
Df?
sD
sr)
sr1
OR
oft
f)fI cx
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
OR
RR
I) Ii
E
Comments ‘1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Allotment No. and Name
5177
5178
5179
5180
5182
5183
5198
5201
5204
5206
5207
5206
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5229
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5236
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5254
9998
9999
REYNOLDS
GRIZZLY MTN
LYTLE CREEK
GOLDEN HORSESHOE
F JONES
RAIL HOLLOW
LAIER-GOVE
ALFAFA MKT
SINCLAIR
ARNOLD CANAL
MICHAELS
BARLOW CAVE
LAVA BEDS COMM.
HORSE RIDGE
PINE MOUNTAIN
MILLICAN
RAMBO
WILLIAMSON CREEK
COATS
GRIEVE
KLOOTCHMAN
WEST BUTTE
NYE
SCOTT
HAUGHTON
MOFFITT
BEAR CREEK
BROTHERS
zx
GRASSY BUTTE
FEHRENBACHER
RICKMAN-MCCORMICK
SPRING CREEK
BRIGHT
IMPERIAL
RAM LAKE
HATFIELD
LIZARD CREEK
POTHOOK
MCCORMACK HOME RANCH
COFFELT
96 RANCH
MEISNER
BARBWIRE
C.0 UNALLOTTED
DESC UNALLOTTED
Calegorlzatlon’l
M
C
C
C
M
C
C
M
M
C
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M
M
I
I
M
C
I
C
M
C
C
M
I
C
C
0
0
‘1 Categorrzahon (see Admrnrstratrve Actrons sechon
for definrtrons)
I - Improve (shaded entrIes)
M - Marntarn
C - Custodral
“! Allotment 0b)ecttves
A Improve ecologrcal condrtion
B Marntarn ecologrcal condrtron
C Stabrlrze or Improve watershed condmon
D Improve rrparran habitat
E Maintain or improve wfnter range for mule deer
andior antelope
F Marntain or improve sage grouse habitat
G Increase avarlabrlrty of lrvestock forage
Allotment
Objectlves ‘1
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A.E
B
AG
B
AG
B
A.G
B
B
B
A,C
A,C
A,C
AGG
A,G
A.C
A,G
A.G
B
ABC
A:C
B
Grazing
Systems ‘1
E
E
s:s
s;s
E
E
FFR
s/s
R
s/s
STS
s/s
D
DR
RR
R
RR
DR
s/s
FFR
DR
A
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
DR
DR
DR
DA
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DR
SD
DR
SD
DR
iii
ifi;
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
SD
SD
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
SD
;::
Tl
DR
DR
DR
2
SD
DR
RR
DR
DR
ii;
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
2
2
1
1
El
ssps
DR
RR
DR
PI::
A
s/s
ABG
il
6
B
B
B
o”R
DR
R
DR
DR
AC
D”R
E
DR
0
0
B
B
B
B
Proposed
EIS
Actlon
Grazing Syr.
Grazing Sys. ‘1
Decision 11 C o m m e n t s ’/
‘1 Grazmg
RR
DR
R
D
E
s/s
ii!
DR
ii
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
SD
DR
0
0
Systems
rest rotatron
deferred rotatron
rotation
delerred
early
spnng/summer
Ei
RR
DR
El
DR
DR
ii
DR
DR
DR
DR
zl
SD
DR
0
0
SiS/F
S/F
w
SD
EX
FFR
sprrngisummerlfall
sprrng/fall
wrnter
short duratron
exclusion
fenced federal range
a/ Comments
1 Grazrng system dependent on prefect lmplementatlon or
other work requrrrng fundlng not now avarlahlc
2 Consultatron contrnurng
3 Grazrng system dependent on change rn forage allocatron
4 Monttortng reqmred
5 Grazrng system changed as a result of consullatron
23
Allotmenl No. L Name
5086
5088
5069
5cm
5092
5093
5094
5096
5097
5107
5106
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5116
5119
5120
5121
5122
5124
5125
5127
5130
5131
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5135
5132
5140
5141
5142
5145
5149
5176
5177
5176
5179
5160
5162
5163
5198
5201
5204
5206
5207
5208
52W
5210
5211
5212
5213
3214
5215
5216
5229
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
z-ii
5235
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5254
9999
LONE PINE CANYON
BURNS MONTGOMERY
KNOCHE
ZEMLICKA
RED CLOUD
CRONIN
BROWN
FOSTER
RUSSELL
CAIN FIELDS
ZELL POND
HOHNSTEIN- TATTI
BRUCKERT
COOK
DRIVEWAY
HACKER- HASSING
WEIGAND
ALLEN
REDMOND AIRPORT
PIPELINE
CRENSHAW
BLACKROCK
HUTTON
OERTLE
HOWARD
SMEAD
MAYFIELD POND
POWELL BUTTE
PILOT BUTTE
MCCLELLAN
LONG HOLLOW
STEARNS
DRY CREEK
DAVIS
PRINWILLE DAM
PLATEAU
DUNHAM
SALT CR.- ALKALI
SANFORD CREEK
CAREY
EAGLE RK.-BAILEY
BEOLETTO
MCCABE
REYNOLDS
GRIZZLY MTN
LYTLE CREEK
GOLDEN HORSESHOE
F JONES
RAIL HOLLOW
LAIER~ GOVE
ALFALFA MKT
SINCLAIR
ARNOLD CANAL
MICHAELS
BARLOW CAVE
LAVA BEDS COMM
HORSE RIDGE
PINE MOUNTAIN
MILLICAN
RAMBO
WILLIAMSON CREEK
COATS
GRIEVE
KLOOTCHMAN
WEST BUTTE
NYE
SCOTT
HAUGHTON
MOFFITT
BEAR CREEK
BROTHERS
2x
GRASSY BUTTE
FEHRENBACHER
RICKMAKMCCORMAC
SPRING CREEK
BRIGHT
IMPERIAL
RAM LAKE
HATFIELD
LIZARD CREEK
POTHOOK
MCCORMACK HOME R
COFFELT
06 RANCH
MEISNER
BARBWIRE
UNALLOTTED
W-1
0
0
0
0
0
I
4
3
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
07
2
0
0
0
2
15
1s
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
12
03
02
03
01
04
07
04
03
07
14
05
06
19
0
07
1.2
32
il?,
0.7
2.3
12
2.6
1.4
1.2
02
14
20
27
6
13
2
10
21
14
1.3
2.1
2.6
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
08
08
1.6
1.1
02
1
1.4
1
06
31
13
1 7
3.1
0 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
3
3
5
6
6
0
3
2
0
0
2
11
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
”
0
0
0
0
”
0
0
0
0
0
ii
0
0
ii
0
8
8
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:
:
:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
5
13
ii
8
5
10
:.5
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
3
5
7
1
i
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
10
9
16
t
ii
ii
5
:
3i
ii
i
ii
loo0
0
25
ii
0
0
0
0
;
2
0
0
4
i
0
0
0
:
0
0
0
zl
0
0
0
:
i
:
0
0”
ii
0
0
7
0
0
07
20
02
0
0
03
0.7
06
1.4
06
2
09
2.2
08
:
0
55
sad
hm1
rdn
24
18
20
8
7
10
3
15
4
12
0
22
11
1
i.5
6
17
t
15
5
45
:
2
3
4
0
2
0
0
i
0
3
0
:
18
19
3
19
74
5
2
13
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
:*
0
75
0
0
0
350
0
0
UXI
150
100
250
ml
300
602
0
250
loo
150
0
200
500
1SO
0
0
1000
300
250
:
t
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
0
0
0
t
ii
0
0
ii
0
:
0
7
0
0
:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ii
0
0
lhoo
0
0
0
0
0
:
0
3
0
ii
0
0
0
ii
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
i
0
t!l
0
0
0
2
1000
Fo
400
low
0
0
0
0
0
f%
160
0
0
150
loo
200
250
700
600
iii
!I80
0
0
1000
1000
200
some
loo
1775
42w
1250
2G-i
400
500
1700
1400
0
3(x)
400
7s4l
120
700
0
6511
”
Chain
JUdpw
Control
COW
lhouund
ddlua
/,
0
1 0
0
” II
I 0
0
t 0
I 0
0
I 0
.%I ,I
(1
,I
11 0
18 0
1” 0
24 0
74 0
:I!, 0
3” 0
0
70 0
‘3 0
3 7
70
13 0
64 0
11 0
3 I>
4 ‘I
70.0
I!> 0
76 0
e.8
:i
iii
12.0
44.0
30
0
7 0
30
'a 0
1 3
54
0
0
70 0
35
!I 0
20 0
70.0
661
134.0
49 0
loI.
71 0
38.0
4h 0
0
0 7
iii
kw.0
i?ki
14.0
177.0
5701)
"I 0
'13 0
m1)
41.0
3" 0
109 0
101 .o
1 0
39 0
7” 0
II0
90
68.0
0
‘,(I 0
0
IJ Improve (II category allotmenls
25