NOTICE OF PROPOSED DECISION
LIVESTOCK GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL FOR THE DICKS CREEK
ALLOTMENT (#01306)
INTRODUCTION
The Dicks Creek Allotment is located approximately 15 miles north of Lakeview, Oregon (see EA, Map
1). There are approximately 3 acres of private land and 366 acres of BLM-administered land within the
allotment (see EA, Map 2) in two pastures. The existing grazing permit, #3600119, expired January of
2014. The permittee submitted a permit renewal application to the BLM for consideration prior to
expiration. The BLM is required to respond to the permittee’s permit renewal application and consider
whether or not to reissue or modify the livestock grazing permit in accordance with 43 CFR Part 4130.
An environmental assessment was prepared to analyze the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects associated with permit renewal.
PROPOSED DECISION
Permit Renewal
Based upon the analysis contained in the EA, it is my proposed decision to issue an 8-year term grazing
permit (through 2022). This permit authorizes livestock grazing use in the allotment as described in
Alternative 5 in the EA. Table 1 shows the kind of livestock, permit dates, and forage allocation which
will be authorized under this permit renewal.
Table 1.
LIVESTOCK
GRAZING PERIOD
Kind
Begin Date
End Date
Cattle
5/1
5/31
Active Use
(AUMs)
55*
Suspended Use (AUMs)
0
* Approximately half (28) of the 55 AUMs will be used on an annual basis because only half of the allotment will be used each year. Cattle
numbers and/or length of time in each pasture may be adjusted as described under the Grazing Management Flexibility under section A(1) of the
EA.
It is also my proposed decision to implement a Rest Rotation Grazing System, as described in Alternative
5 of the EA (see Table 2), during the month of May. During year one, the Lower Pasture will be grazed
and the Upper Pasture will be rested. During year two, the Upper Pasture will be grazed and the Lower
Pasture will be rested. Each pasture will receive rest every other year.
Table 2. Rest Rotation Grazing System
Year
Lower Pasture
Upper Pasture
One
Two
Graze
Rest
Rest
Graze
Trailing Use
Trailing use will be authorized through the allotment, outside the permit dates, to move cattle to and
from private property. Cattle will be actively moved through the allotment and not left to drift.
Monitoring
Monitoring will continue, as specified in the Lakeview Resource Management Plan (BLM 2003b, pages
1
53-55). In summary, trend monitoring studies may include nested frequency and 180° step-toe and photo
station and observed apparent trend methodologies may be used to measure cover, species composition,
and frequency. Utilization studies will be conducted using the key forage plant method. Target utilization
levels for key forage plant species are shown in Table 3. Monitoring methodology will follow the latest
protocol(s), such as Technical Reference 1734-3 and 1734-4 (BLM 1996a, 1996b.
Table 3. Key Species and Target Utilization Levels
Pasture
Upper
Acres
Key Species
Thurbers needlegrass/bluebunch wheatgrass
Lower
Riparian Vegetation
Utilization Target
50%
50%
During each allotment visit, monitoring for weed establishment will occur, as well as observations of
overall rangeland condition. Adjustments to timing of grazing and pasture use sequence to
ensure/promote achievement of rangeland health standards, and to meet other resource objectives, may
be implemented based on this annual data.
Other Terms and Conditions
Stipulations, as required by state or federal policy, will be included in the permit. Typical items include;
payment of fees, submission of actual use reports, administrative access across private land, compliance
with Standards and Guidelines, and maintenance of range improvements.
Range Improvements and Treatments
A cooperative agreement between the permittee and BLM will be completed to address each partner's
responsibilities for labor, construction, maintenance, and/or supplies of the new range improvement
prior to construction.
Reservoir Construction
It is my decision to authorize construction of a small (less than half an acre) reservoir in an existing
drainage on the south side of County Road 2-12, in the Upper Pasture (see EA, Map 2). This reservoir will
be used to collect runoff water, and create an additional livestock water source for the Upper Pasture.
Project Maintenance
It is my decision to authorize maintenance on existing and new projects in the allotment when needed.
Reservoir maintenance could include cleaning (within the original area of disturbance) of the reservoir to
ensure continued water storage function. Spring and pipeline maintenance could include cleaning, repair,
or replacing spring box, fixing and/or replacing fittings, or repairing broken, damaged, or leaking sections
of pipe, etc. Fence maintenance could include replacing wire, fence posts, gates, braces, etc.
Fuel Load Reduction
It is my decision to implement fuel load reduction treatments that reduce the density of invasive Western
juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) and small diameter (9-inch dbh and below) ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) trees within the allotment. Densely stocked ponderosa pine trees will be thinned.
Treatments will consist of cutting followed by hand piling or machine piling, and single tree or pile
burning, or cutting and leaving. Machine piles will be approximately 8 to 12 feet by 16 to 22 feet in
size and will be created using grapple equipment during dry or frozen conditions.
2
Hand piles will be located at least 25 feet from Dicks Creek and 15 feet from trees found in the
valley bottom. Any hand piles located in the valley bottom will be burned when soils are frozen. All
tree cutting along Dicks Creek will be accomplished manually using chainsaws and should, as much
as practicable, fell trees into the stream and be left intact to provide aquatic structure and bank
stabilization.
Hand piles will be 3 to 5 feet by 3 to 5 feet in size. Hand piling will occur in areas that are sensitive
and/or inaccessible to equipment due to slope or terrain. Piles will be burned when soils are
saturated or frozen and there is no potential for the fire to spread. Burning will occur within 2 years
of piling. Cut and leave treatments will occur in areas where juniper density is low and the cut trees
will not pose an increased risk of fire danger. Burned areas will be seeded when necessary (see
discussion on seeding below).
Conifers with old-growth characteristics or obvious wildlife occupation (cavities or nests) will be
marked on the ground and retained for plant community diversity and wildlife habitat needs. Such
trees will be protected during prescribed fire operations by placing piles far enough away to avoid
damage.
Weed and Invasive Species Treatments
The BLM will continue to use manual, mechanical, prescribed fire, biological control, and herbicide
methods to control weeds, as part of an integrated vegetation management plan. In addition to continuing
to use four herbicides that are currently available for use (2,4-D, Dicamba, Glyphosate, Picloram) and
biological control agent Phrydiuchus tau (Mediterranean sage weevil, it is my decision to use additional
herbicides to treat both weeds and invasive species.
In particular, this decision approves the use of Imazapic to treat winter annual grasses in the allotment.
Imazapic was one of the additional herbicides analyzed in the Vegetation Treatment Using Herbicides on
BLM Lands in Oregon FEIS. Imazapic will be applied at the typical rate of 0.0313 pounds of Acid
Equivalent per acre. Herbicide will be applied using ground-based methods such as backpack sprayers,
ATV, UTV, or truck-mounted sprayers in accordance with the Record of Decision for Vegetation
Treatment Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon.
A vegetation buffer around riparian areas will be used to prevent runoff into Dicks Creek (see SOPs in
Record of Decision for the BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon (Page
36)). Herbicide-free buffer zones will be applied to herbicides not labeled for aquatic use based on risk
assessment guidance, with minimum widths from water of 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for handspraying applications.
Seeding
Treated areas will be seeded if necessary after burning or a second application of herbicide has been
applied. Seeding will likely occur in the fall/winter season using a 4-wheeler and/or hand seeder. The
seed mix will include species that provide competition against annual grasses and other undesirable
species; the seed mix will include a combination of native (may include, but is not limited to: bottlebrush
squirreltail, Sandberg’s bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Idaho fescue) and introduced grasses
(crested wheatgrass) and forbs. Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) may be used in the seed mix
because it is drought tolerant, competitive with invasive species, has a long seed viability period, and
aggressive germination characteristics. Seeded area(s) will be rested from livestock grazing for a
minimum of two growing seasons after seeding. An ID team will determine if treatment/seeding areas
3
have been successful and when grazing may resume, in accordance with the Lakeview RMP/ROD (page
81).
Project Design Features for Proposed Range Improvements and Treatments
• The entire allotment has been surveyed for cultural resources and no National Register quality sites
were found; therefore, there will be no impacts on cultural resources.
• Botanical surveys were conducted on the allotment in 2013. No special status plant species were found.
• The risk of new noxious weed introduction will be minimized by ensuring all equipment (including
all machinery, 4-wheelers, and pickup trucks) is cleaned prior to entry to the sites, minimizing
disturbance activities, and completing follow-up monitoring for five years, to ensure no new noxious
weed establishment. Should new noxious weed sites be found, appropriate control treatments will be
performed in conformance with the Lakeview Resource Area Integrated Weed Management Program
(BLM 2004a) or with the strategy outlined in this EA.
• Ensure mountain mahogany stands and conifer stands continue to function as big game hiding and
thermal cover following treatments. Thermal cover to be retained will be identified during project
layout for all prescribed fire and mechanical treatment projects.
• Visual Quality:
Insure the timeframe from the initial cutting treatments to burning applications are as short as
possible (1-2 years).
Create treatment unit boundary that appear as natural as possible by rounding corners, curving or
undulating edges, as well as feathering edge densities instead of creating square/angular shapes with
hard boundary lines.
Retain some standing trees, particularly in large groups or islands to break up open spaces.
• Burning will follow the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan in order to protect air quality and
reduce health and visibility impacts on designated areas.
• As soon as practicable after completion of all project activity within a specific area, routes damaged by
vehicles will be maintained or repaired to the condition they were in prior to treatment; all road repair
work will occur within the existing road surface.
RATIONALE/AUTHORITY
Decision Factors
The following decision factors represent criteria used to choose the alternative or combination of
alternatives that best met the purpose and need for the proposal:
a) How well does the decision conform to laws, regulations, and policies related to grazing use
and protecting other resource values?
b) How well does the decision conform to the resource management plan?
c) How well does the decision promote maintenance of rangeland health standards?
4
d) How well does the proposal conform to the existing integrated weed management plan
(BLM 2004) and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatment Using Herbicides on BLM
Lands in Oregon (BLM 2010b)?
e) How well does the proposal conform to the Fremont-Winema National Forest and Lakeview
District BLM 2013 Fire Management Plan?
These decision factors are addressed in detail in the following section.
Conformance with Grazing Management Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Grazing permits are subject to issuance or renewal in accordance with the provisions of the Taylor
Grazing Act (1934), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), Public Rangelands Improvement
Act (1978), and applicable grazing regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 4100
(2005).
The primary authority for this decision is contained in the BLM grazing regulations, which outline in
pertinent parts: 43 CFR 4110.1 Mandatory qualifications, 4110.2-1 Base Property, 4110.2-2 Specifying
permitted use, 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases, 4130.3(1) through 4130.3(2) Mandatory and Other terms
and conditions, 4160.1 Proposed Decisions, and 4180.2 Standards and guidelines for grazing
administration.
Grazing permittees who wish to graze livestock on public land must have a grazing permit or lease issued
to them under the grazing regulations (43 CFR 4130.1(a)). Grazing permits or leases shall be issued to
qualified applicants on public lands under the administration of the BLM that are designated as available
for livestock grazing through land use plans (43 CFR 4130.2(a)). The Lakeview Resource Management
Plan/Record of Decision has designated this allotment as available for livestock grazing (BLM 2003b, as
maintained). In addition, grazing permits need to be issued with appropriate terms and conditions
designed to “achieve management and resource condition objectives for the public lands… and to ensure
conformance with part 4180”… (43 CFR Part 4130.3).
The permit applicant, #3600119, controls the base property associated with the grazing preference on the
allotment and has been determined to be a qualified applicant. Grazing permits shall be issued for a term
of ten years unless the base property lease is less than 10 years, in which case the permit shall coincide
with the term of the base property lease (43 CFR 4130.2(d)(3)). The base property lease expires in 2022,
so the term grazing permit shall be for 8 years.
A performance review of the permittees past use was completed and BLM found the permittee’s record to
be substantially in compliance, pursuant to 43 CFR 4110.1(b). This conclusion was based on: grazing
utilization at acceptable levels except two years, the majority of bills were paid on time, the majority of
actual use information was turned in and within authorized AUM’s, authorized use was within permitted
dates, permit terms and conditions were adhered to, base property requirements were met, and there has
been no trespass or unauthorized use within the last ten years.
Conformance with National Environmental Policy Act
Prior to issuing this proposed decision, an ID Team prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. The EA analyzed the impacts of five alternatives including: (1) no action (continued grazing
under the current permit terms and conditions), (2) renewing the permit with a 2-year rest rotation system
and implementing several projects, (3) renewing the permit with a 3-year rest rotation system and
implementing several projects, (4) no grazing (not renewing the permit) and no treatments, and (5)
5
renewing the permit with reduced AUMs and a standard rest rotation system and implementing several
projects (see Chapters 2 and 3 of the EA).
The results of the Rangeland Health Assessments (RHA), completed in 2002 and updated in 2013, were
considered during this analysis. As noted in the FONSI, none of the alternatives considered, including
my proposed decision (Alternative 5), will have any significant effects on the human environment.
Potentially interested public, agencies, tribes, and the permittee were provided a 30-day review period on
the EA and FONSI. The BLM received no comments during that time.
Conformance with Federal Land Policy and Management Act/Land Use Plan
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that all management decisions be
consistent with the approved land use plan (43 CFR 1610.5-3). The Lakeview Resource Management
Plan/Record of Decision, (RMP/ROD) (BLM 2003b, as maintained) is the governing land use plan for the
area and contains the following goals and management direction:
Livestock Grazing Management Goal - provide for a sustainable level of livestock grazing
consistent with other resource objectives and public land-use allocations (page 52, as maintained).
Management Direction
The current licensed grazing levels (Appendix E1) will be maintained until analysis or evaluation
of monitoring data or rangeland health assessments identify a need for adjustments to meet
objectives. Applicable activity plans (including existing allotment management plans, agreements,
decisions and/or terms and conditions of grazing use authorizations) will be developed, revised
where necessary, and implemented to ensure that resource objectives are met. The full permitted
use level for each allotment has been and continues to be analyzed through individual allotment
assessments, such as rangeland health and livestock grazing management guidelines…. (pages 5253, as maintained).
Rangeland improvement projects will be implemented to meet resource objectives… (page 53, as
maintained).
Plan Conformance
The Dicks Creek Allotment is currently open or allotted to grazing use. Livestock are allocated 55
animal unit months (AUMs) of forage (Table 5, page 49, as maintained; Appendix E1, page A129, as maintained; Map G-3). Renewing the grazing permit and constructing the new waterhole
would conform with this management goal and direction.
Plant Communities – Shrub Steppe Management Goal 1– restore, protect, and enhance the
diversity and distribution of desirable vegetation communities, including perennial native and
desirable introduced plant species. Provide for their continued existence and normal function in
nutrient, water, and energy cycles (page 28, as maintained).
Management Direction
Upland native shrub steppe communities will be managed to attain a trend toward the desired
range of conditions based on management objectives and site potential (page 28, as maintained).
6
Prescribed and wildland fire use will be implemented to rehabilitate plant communities that do not
meet desired conditions due to dominance by annual, weedy, or woody species… (page 29, as
maintained).
Seedings will be implemented with appropriate mixes of adapted native and nonnative perennial
and annual plant species; although native species will be preferred for seedings. Species mixes
will be determined on a site-specific basis dependent upon the probability of successful
establishment and risks associated with seeding failure (page 29, as maintained).
Plant Communities – Shrub Steppe Management Goal 2– protect healthy functioning
ecosystems consisting of native plant communities. Restore degraded high-potential landscapes
and decadent shrublands
Management Direction
High priority will be given to restoration of degraded landscapes and decadent shrublands
through projects such as prescribed burns, seeding of desirable native and nonnative species, …
(page 29, as maintained).
Plant Communities – Forest and Woodlands Management Goal 2– restore productivity and
biodiversity in western juniper woodlands and quaking aspen groves.
Management Direction
When evaluating areas for western juniper treatment…, priority areas will be those areas where
western juniper is most adversely affecting other resources. These include quaking aspen groves,
riparian areas, greater sage-grouse leks and primary habitat, deer winter range, bighorn sheep
range, and younger, invasive western juniper in old-growth western juniper sites… Western
juniper areas will be considered a high priority for treatment where canopy cover is under 15
percent (areas that still have a grass and brush understory)…. Combinations of one or more
treatment methods (mechanical, chemical, biological, or prescribed fire) could be made in a
treatment area. Mechanical treatments will be preferred when trying to preserve the shrub
component important to wildlife (pages 33-34, as maintained).
Noxious Weeds and Competing Undesirable Vegetation Management Goal – control the
introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds and competing undesirable plant species, and
reduce the extent and density of established populations to acceptable levels (page 37, as
maintained).
Management Direction
Weeds will be controlled in an integrated weed management program that includes prevention
education and cultural, physical, biological, and chemical treatments… Mechanical and manual
control methods and burning treatments will (be used to) physically remove noxious weeds and
unwanted vegetation; biological controls will introduce and cultivate agents such as insects and
pathogens that naturally limit the spread of noxious weeds; and chemical treatments using
approved herbicides will be applied where mechanical and/or biological controls are not feasible
(page 37, as maintained).
7
Selection of the appropriate control method will be based on such factors as the growth
characteristics of the target species, size of the infestation, location of the infestation, accessibility
of equipment, potential impacts to non-target species, use of the area by people, effectiveness of
the treatment on target species, and cost… these methods may be used individually or in
combination and may be utilized over several years… for a period of 10 or more years (page 37,
as maintained).
Plan Conformance
Conducting fuel reduction/vegetation treatments and weed/invasive species treatments conforms
with the Plant Communities and Noxious Weed/Undesirable Vegetation management goals and
direction above.
Operation and Maintenance Activities
Management Direction
Maintenance of existing and newly constructed facilities or projects will occur over time… Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, routine maintenance of existing…water control
structures…, reservoirs, wells, pipelines, waterholes, fences, cattle guards, seedings, … and other
similar facilities/projects (page 100, as maintained).
Plan Conformance
Conducting routine maintenance of existing and new range improvement projects conforms with
this management direction.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Specific Management Direction
Livestock distribution/management - Improve livestock management and distribution through
improved management practices, installation of livestock management facilities (such as fences
and water sources), and/or other actions as opportunities arise (page A-129, as maintained).
Improve/maintain range condition - Use management practices and/or better animal
distribution; develop range improvements when appropriate: adjust permitted use as needed (page
A-129, as maintained).
Plan Conformance
Renewing the permit and implementing a rest rotation grazing system and constructing one
additional water development conforms with the allotment specific management direction above.
Conformance with Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines (43 CFR 4180)
A Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) was conducted in 2002 for the Dicks Creek Allotment, and was
updated in 2013. The 2013 update found that the Dicks Creek Allotment met standards 2, 4 and 5.
Standards 1 and 3 were not met due to the following factors: lack of periodic rest from livestock grazing,
invasive weeds and juniper/pine expansion (BLM 2003c, 2013e; EA page 51). My proposed decision
addresses the need to provide periodic rest from grazing and will result in meeting or making substantial
progress towards meeting standards 1 and 3 over the 8-year life of the grazing permit.
8
Conformance with the ODFW Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon
(ODFW 2005) and Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (IM 2012-043)
Since the allotment does not contain sage-grouse habitat, neither of these policies are applicable to this
decision.
Conformance with Decision Record for the Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program, EA#OR-0102004-03 (BLM 2004), Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands
in Oregon (BLM 2010), and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on
Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (BLM 2007)
The 2004 Decision Record tiered to the noxious weed management direction contained in the Lakeview
RMP/ROD, but provided more specific details on the locations of known noxious weed sites in the
Lakeview Resource Area and how periodic treatments would be conducted on these sites, as well as new
sites discovered during future inventory. The treatment methods adopted by this plan included cultural,
mechanical, biological, and chemical (BLM 2004).
In 2007 and 2010 a number of standard operating procedures and additional mitigation measures were
adopted nationally and within the state of Oregon for use when applying specific herbicides (BLM 2007;
2010).
The use of an integrated weed/invasive species approach, which includes the use of 4 existing herbicides
and 1 new herbicide, for treating weeds/invasive species within the 4 allotments conforms with the
management direction contained within all 3 of these programmatic plans.
Rationale
Generally, implementation of Alternatives 1-3, and 5 would conform with all applicable laws, regulations,
and land use plan direction. However, Alternative 5 was selected over Alternatives 1-4 because this
alternative best meets the purpose and need.
Alternative 1 (No Action) was considered within the EA analysis primarily to comply with requirements
of NEPA and provide a baseline for comparison of environmental effects. Alternative 1 would meet
some of the desired ecological conditions and management goals for the allotment, but would not
completely address the purpose and need for action. Alternative 1 would also not allow for the control of
noxious weeds and other invasive species using more effective chemical agents, which would assist in
meeting desired ecological conditions over the long-term.
Alternative 4 (No Grazing) was considered within the EA analysis to provide a full range of alternatives
and comply with grazing management permit renewal guidance. However, implementation of Alternative
4 would only be appropriate if an analysis or evaluation of monitoring data or rangeland health
assessment identified a need for complete removal of grazing to meet other management objectives. In
this instance, complete removal of grazing or closing the allotment to grazing use for an 8-year period
would likely result in making substantial progress in meeting rangeland health standards 1 and 3, but it
would not address all of the rangeland health issues present on the allotment (invasive juniper and
noxious weeds), nor would it be consistent with other management goals and direction contained in the
land use plan.
9
RIGHT OF PROTEST AND/OR APPEAL
Any applicant, permittee, lessee or other affected interest may protest this proposed decision under
Section 43 CFR 4160.1 and 4160.2, either in person or by writing to me at the following address:
Bureau of Land Management
Lakeview District Office
1301 South G Street
Lakeview, OR 97630
within 15 days after receipt of the decision. A written protest that is electronically transmitted (e.g.,
email, facsimile, or social media) will not be accepted. A written protest must be on paper. The protest
should clearly and concisely state the reason(s) as to why the proposed decision is in error. Any protest
received will be carefully considered and then a final decision will be issued. In the absence of a protest,
the proposed decision will become my final decision without further notice.
Any applicant, permittee, lessee, or other person whose interest is adversely affected by the final grazing
decision may appeal the decision to an administrative law judge in accordance with 43 CFR 4.470 and 43
CFR 4160.3 and 4160.4. The appeal must be in writing and filed in my office, at the address above,
within 30 days following receipt of the final decision, or within 30 days after the date the proposed
decision becomes final. A notice of appeal that is electronically transmitted (e.g., email, facsimile, or
social media) will not be accepted. A notice of appeal must be on paper.
The appellant must serve a copy of the appeal, by certified mail, to the:
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of the Interior
805 SW Broadway, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
The appellant must also serve a copy of the appeal on any person named in the decision or listed in the
“copies sent to” section at the end of this decision.
The appeal must state the reasons, clearly and concisely, why you believe the final decision is in error,
and comply with all other provisions of 43 CFR 4.470.
An appellant may also petition for a stay of the final decision by filing a petition for stay together with the
appeal in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR 4.471. Should you wish to file a petition for a stay,
you must file it within the appeal period. In accordance with 43 CFR 4.471, a petition for a stay must
show sufficient justification based on the following standards:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied.
The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits.
The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.
Whether or not the public interest favors granting the stay.
You bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that the decision is in error and that a stay should be
granted.
The petition for stay must be filed in my office, at the address above, and be served in accordance with
the requirements of 43 CFR 4.473. A petition for stay that is electronically transmitted (e.g., email,
10
r--"-~---
facsimile, or social media) will not be accepted. A petition for stay must be on paper.
Any person named in the decision that receives a copy of a petition for stay and/or an appeal should refer
to 43 CFR 4.472(b) for tbe procedures to follow should you wish to respond.
If you should have any questions regarding this decision, please contact me at 541-947-2177.
JUL 10 2014
Theresa Romasko, Acting Field Manager
Lakeview Resource Area
Date
Copies sent to:
Lytle A Simms
27423 Highway 395
Lakeview, OR 97340
Peter Lacy
Oregon Natural Desert Association
917 SW Oak Street, Suite 408
Portland, OR 97205
Paul Ruprecht
Western Watersheds Project
126 NE Alberta Street, Suite 208
Portland, OR 97219
11
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DICKS CREEK ALLOTMENT GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL
DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2013-0045-EA
The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Resource Area (BLM), has analyzed several alternative
proposals related to renewing term grazing permit #3600119 for the Dicks Creek Allotments for a 9-year
period. The allotment is located approximately 15 miles north of Lakeview, Oregon.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that analyzed the potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts of five alternatives. The alternatives included No Action (continue
current grazing); two-year rest rotation grazing system coupled with new range improvements; three-year
rest rotation with new range improvements, no grazing, and a standard rest rotation with new range
improvements (Chapter 2, pages 13-16 of EA).
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations state that the significance of impacts must be
determined in terms of both context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). The context of the proposed action
is the Dicks Creek Allotment. For this reason, the analysis of impacts in the EA is focused appropriately
at this scale. The CEQ regulations also include the following ten considerations for evaluating the
intensity of impacts:
1)
Would any of the alternatives have significant beneficial or adverse impacts (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)?
( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: Based on the analysis contained in the EA, none of the alternatives would have either significant
beneficial or adverse impacts on the human environment. There are no prime or unique farmlands, forest or
woodland habitat, wild horse management areas, wild and scenic rivers, significant caves, designated wilderness
areas, wilderness study areas, other areas with wilderness characteristics, special status plants, threatened or
endangered plants and animals, hazardous waste sites, ACEC/RNAs, or low income or minority populations located
in the project area. No measureable impacts would occur to climate, air quality, floodplains, hydrology, land status,
or mineral and energy resources (Table 3.1, page 18 of EA).
The potential impacts to existing soils, biological soil crusts, air quality, water quality, fisheries habitat, riparian
vegetation, special status aquatic species, upland vegetation, noxious weeds, fire/fuels management, wildlife, special
status wildlife species, livestock grazing management, native American traditional practices, cultural resources,
recreation, visual resources, and social and economic values anticipated by the various alternatives have been
analyzed in detail within Chapter 3 of the EA and found not to be significant (pages 17-63).
2)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on public health and safety (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(2)? ( ) Yes (X ) No
Rationale: None of the alternatives analyzed in detail in the EA would have significant impacts on public health or
safety because the project area is not located near any populated rural or urban area. For this reason, there would
also be no impacts to low income or minority populations. Further, there are no known hazardous waste sites in the
project area. There are no surface drinking water sources located in the project area. There would be no
measureable impacts to air quality within and surrounding the project area (pages 17-19). Impacts to water quality
associated with the one perennial stream located in the area are described as minor (pages 24-28).
3)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on unique geographic characteristics
(cultural or historic resources, park lands, prime and unique farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, designated
wilderness or wilderness study areas, or ecologically critical areas (ACECs, RNAs, significant caves)) (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(3)? ( ) Yes (X ) No
Rationale: There are no park lands, prime or unique farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, significant caves, designated
wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, ACEC/RNAs, or lands with wilderness character located in the project
area (Table 3.1, page 18). Potential impacts to riparian vegetation along Dicks Creek have been analyzed in Chapter
3 of the EA and found not to be significant (pages 24-28).
4)
Would any of the alternatives have highly controversial effects (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise planning, analyzing impacts, and implementing range management
actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the EA. The potential impacts of these range
management actions on soils, biological soil crusts, special status aquatic species, water quality, riparian vegetation,
upland vegetation, fire/fuels management, noxious weeds, wildlife, special status wildlife species, livestock grazing
management, native American traditional practices, cultural resources, recreation, visual resources, and social and
economic values can be reasonably predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. The EA
analyzed these impacts (Chapter 3, pages 17-63). The nature of these impacts is not highly controversial, nor is
there substantial dispute within the scientific community regarding the nature of these effects.
The BLM is not aware of any potential highly controversial effects, as defined under 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4). The
public, other agencies, and tribes were given an opportunity to review and comment on the analysis of effects. No
comments were received during the 30-day review period.
5)
Would any of the alternatives have highly uncertain effects or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(5)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise planning, analyzing impacts, and implementing range management
actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the EA. The potential impacts of these range
management actions on soils, biological soil crusts, special status aquatic species, water quality, riparian vegetation,
upland vegetation, fire/fuels management, noxious weeds, wildlife, special status wildlife species, livestock grazing
management, native American traditional practices, cultural resources, recreation, visual resources, and social and
economic values can be reasonably predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. The EA
analyzed these impacts (Chapter 3, pages 17-63). The nature of these impacts is not highly uncertain, nor does it
involve unique or unknown risks.
6)
Would any of the alternatives establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(6)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: The BLM has extensive expertise planning, analyzing impacts, and implementing range management
actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the EA. None of the alternative actions represents a
new, precedent-setting range management technique or would establish a precedent for future similar actions with
potentially significant effects.
7)
Are any of the alternatives related to other actions with potentially significant cumulative impacts (40 CFR
1508.27(b)(7)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: Based on the analysis contained within the Cumulative Effects section of Chapter 3 of the EA, none of
the alternatives would have significant cumulative effects within the project area, even when added to the effects of
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (pages 61-63).
8)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on scientific, cultural, or historic resources,
including those listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)?
( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: The allotment is located within a broad area which was used historically by native Americans.
However, there are no known native American religious or sacred sites, designated Traditional Cultural Properties,
or important plant collecting sites known within the allotment. Potential impacts to cultural resources have been
analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA and found not to be significant (pages 53-55).
9)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species or their
(X) No
critical habitat (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(9)? ()Yes
Rationale: There are no threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat within the project area
(Table 3.1, page 18).
10)
Would any of the alternatives have effects that threaten to violate Federal, State, or local law or
(X) No
requirements imposed for the protection of the enviromnent (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(IO)? ()Yes
Rationale: All of the alternatives analyzed in the EA comply with all Federal, State, and local enviromnentallaws
or other enviromnental requirements, including the requirements of the National Enviromnental Policy Act, Clean
Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that any action,that BLM implements must also conform
with the current land use plan and other applicable plans and policies. The purpose and need for the proposed action
conforms with the management direction contained in the Lakevi«W Resource Management Plan/Record ofDecision
(BLM 2003b). The alternatives analyzed in the EA conform to the management direction requirements of this plan
and the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands
Administered by the Bureau ofLand Management in the States of Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997), and the
grazing regulations (43 CFR Part 4100) in varying degrees (EA Chapter I, pages 6-9). Conformance with this
direction is addressed in more detail within the proposed decision as it represents important decision factors that I
considered in making my fmal decision.
Finding
On the basis of the analysis contained in the attached EA, the consideration of intensity factors described above, and
all other available information, my determination is that none of the alternatives analyzed would constitute a major
federal action which would have significant adverse or beneficial impacts on the quality of the human enviromnent.
Therefore, an Enviromnental Impact Statement (EIS) is mmecessary and will not be prepared.
JUL 10 2014
Theresa Romasko, Acting Field Manager
Lakeview Resource Area
Date