NOTICE OF PROPOSED DECISION GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL FOR THE
EGLI RIM (00420), OATMAN FLAT (00705), TUFF BUTTE (00707), AND
MURDOCK (00710) ALLOTMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed an environmental assessment (EA# DOI-BLML050-2014-0013-EA) analyzing the potential effects of renewing term grazing Permit #3601483 for a tenyear time period on the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments. The renewal of a
grazing permit is a Federal action authorizing livestock grazing on public land for a specified period of
time, and under a set of specified terms and conditions.
These allotments are located in the Silver Lake area between 2 and 10 miles north and south of the town
of Silver Lake, Oregon (see EA, Map 1). The grazing permit for these allotments expired in 2014, prior
to which the permittee submitted a permit renewal application to the BLM for consideration. 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.
PROPOSED DECISION
Permit Renewal
Based on the analysis contained in the EA, it is my proposed decision to renew the term grazing permit
#3601483 to authorize livestock grazing use in the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock
Allotments as described in Alternative 2 of the EA. Table 1 shows the type of livestock, permit dates, and
forage allocation which would be authorized under this permit renewal. A spring/summer rest-rotation
system in all allotments would continue to be used.
Table 1. Livestock Use Authorized under the Permit Renewal
Allotment
Egli Rim (00420)
Oatman Flat (00705)
Tuff Butte (00707)
Murdock (00710)
Livestock
Grazing Period
Number
Kind
234
617
216
179
CATTLE
CATTLE
CATTLE
CATTLE
Begin
Date
04/1
04/15
4/01
4/16
End
Date
8/15
7/31
7/15
6/30
Percent
Public Land
AUMs
100
95
71
90
1056
2082
536
403
Terms and Conditions
The permit will be issued with standard terms and conditions. This includes requirements such as: timely
payment of fees, submission of actual use reports, providing administrative access across private lands,
continued compliance with Rangeland Health Standards, and maintenance of range improvements.
Monitoring
Monitoring would continue, generally as specified in the Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b, pages 5355, as maintained). In summary, trend monitoring studies would be conducted and typically include
photo station, observed apparent trend, and some frequency and/or cover methodologies. These are used
to measure cover, species composition, and frequency. Utilization studies would be conducted using the
key forage plant method. Utilization is a measure of the amount of the currents year’s forage consumed
by livestock. Monitoring methodology would follow the latest protocol, such as Technical Reference
1734-3 and 1734-4 (BLM 1996a, 1996b) incorporated herein by reference. Table 2 describes the key
species and utilization targets identified for each allotment.
Table 2.2. Key Species and Target Utilization Levels by Allotment and Pasture
Allotment
No.
00420
Pasture
West Seeding/ Collins
Wee
Pettus
East Native
West Native (Bench)
00705
West Native (Lake)
Middle Native (Sheep
dip)
East Ceres Flat
(Hockeman)
Oatman East (Coyote
Butte)
West Ceres Flat
Connely Hills
(Horning Gap)
Oatman West
Black Hills
00707
Hayes Butte
West
00710
Powerline
East
West
East
Bunchgrass Butte
South
BLM
Acres
3260
1448
2077
3684
2501
Key Species
Utilization
Target (%)
50
50
50
50
50
6466
Crested wheatgrass
Crested wheatgrass
Crested wheatgrass
Idaho Fescue/ Blue bunch wheatgrass
Thurbers Needlegrass/Bluebunch
wheatgrass/ Sandberg bluegrass
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirrel tail
Idaho Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass/
Sandberg bluegrass
Idaho Fescue/ Squirrel tail/ Thurbers
Needlegrass
Crested wheatgrass/ Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Idaho Fescue/ Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail
2493
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail
50
4515
2077
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Squirreltail/ Idaho
Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass/ Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Crested Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass/ Squirrel tail
50
50
Crested Wheatgrass
Crested Wheatgrass / Thurbers Needlegrass/
Squirreltail
Idaho Fescue/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass/
Crested wheatgrass
Thurbers Needlegrass/ Idaho Fescue
50
50
1481
7027
3669
8471
2658
3160
3064
618
1531
1370
666
604
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
New Range Improvement Projects
It is my proposed decision to construct new range improvements including a well, approximately ½ mile
of underground pipeline, a water storage tank, and three associated water troughs in the Egli Rim
Allotment as described in Alternative 2 of the EA (see EA, Map 2). The storage tank and troughs will be
painted to blend into the surrounding background in accordance with the BLM’s Standard Environmental
Color Chart (CC001) to mitigate potential visual effects. The Outdoor Recreation Planner will assist in
the selection of paint color and hue. The troughs will be fitted with escape ramps to prevent wildlife
mortality. The well will provide additional water sources to three pastures of the Egli Rim Allotment:
West Seeding (Collins), Middle Native (Sheep Dip), and Wee to improve livestock distribution within the
pastures.
Two short additional fences, totaling approximately ¾ of a mile, will be constructed in the Tuff Butte
Allotment (see EA, Map 2) to improve livestock distribution. These fences will be constructed to
standard wildlife passage design specifications to mitigate potential impacts to big game movement.
Maintenance of Existing Range Improvement Projects
Maintenance of existing water troughs, wells, pipelines, waterholes, and fences will be conducted by the
permittee when needed. Maintenance may not be needed on all existing developments; however, it would
likely be needed on some developments over the 10-year life of the permit. Waterhole maintenance could
include cleaning (within the original area of disturbance) to ensure continued function. Trough
maintenance could include fixing and/or replacing leaking troughs, or fixing and/or broken, damaged, or
leaking sections of pipe, and replacing fittings, etc. Fence maintenance could include replacing wire,
fence posts, gates, braces, etc.
Weed and Invasive Species Treatments
It is my proposed decision to treat weeds and invasive species throughout the four allotments using an
integrated approach that includes manual, mechanical, prescribed fire, biological control, and herbicide
methods, as described in Alternative 2 of the EA.
In addition to the four existing herbicide active ingredients currently available for use by the BLM (2,4-D,
dicamba, glyphosate, and picloram), 1 new herbicide would be authorized for treating weeds and invasive
species: imazapic. Imazapic will be applied at the typical rate of 0.0313 pounds of Acid Equivalent per
acre. Herbicide uses and applications would be constrained by the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
and other mitigation measures adopted in the ROD for the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on
BLM Lands in 17 Western States PEIS and ROD for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM
Lands in Oregon (BLM 2007, Appendix B; BLM 2010b, pages 12-15 and Appendix A). All herbicides
will be applied using ground or aerial-based methods such as wicks and wipers, backpack sprayers, ATV,
UTV, truck-mounted, helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft sprayers, as described in the Vegetation
Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon FEIS (BLM 2010a, pages 68-73). Some
chemical formulations are not labeled for aquatic use and therefore, application will be restricted near
water. The minimum distances from water will vary by application method as follows: 100 feet for aerial,
25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray applications.
Weed treatments that involve methods causing ground disturbance will be surveyed for cultural resources
before treatments are implemented. Any National Register quality sites located during such surveys will
be avoided or other nonground-disturbing treatment methods will be substituted to eliminate potential
impacts to cultural resources.
Other Vegetation Treatments
With cultural and botanical surveys not completed on proposed juniper treatments areas a decision will be
deferred on juniper treatments within the Oatman Flat and Tuff Butte Allotments at this time (see EA,
Map 3).
RATIONAL/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 and allotment management
plans?
c) How well does the decision promote maintenance of rangeland health standards?
d) How well does the decision conform with ODFW 2005 sage-grouse guidelines?
e) How well does the decision conform with IM 2012-043 regarding interim sage-grouse
management?
f) How well does the proposal conform to the existing integrated weed management plan (BLM
2004b) and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatment Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in
Oregon (BLM 2010b)?
These decision factors are addressed in detail in the following section.
Conformance with Grazing Laws and Regulations
Grazing permits are issued or renewed in accordance with the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act
(1934), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 1976), Public Rangelands Improvement Act
(1978), and applicable grazing regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 4100.
In order for an applicant to lawfully graze livestock on public land, the party must obtain a valid grazing
permit or lease. The grazing regulations, 43 CFR 4130.2(a), state “grazing permits or leases shall be
issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands under the administration
of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated as available for livestock grazing through land use
plans.” The Lakeview RMP/ROD has designated these allotments as available for livestock grazing use
(BLM 2003b, as maintained). The permit applicant controls the base property associated with the grazing
preference on the allotments and has been determined to be a qualified applicant.
A performance review of the permittee’s past use has been completed and BLM found the permittee to
have a satisfactory record of performance pursuant to 43 CFR 4110.1(b). This conclusion was based on:
grazing utilization at acceptable levels; bills paid on time; actual use turned in annually; permit terms and
conditions were adhered to, base property requirements met, and no history of livestock trespass or
unauthorized use.
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 three alternatives including: (1) no action (continued grazing
under the current permit terms and conditions), (2) renewing the permit and conducting range
improvements and vegetation treatments, (3) no grazing (not renewing the permit) and no vegetation
treatments (see Chapter 2 of the EA).
The results of the Rangeland Health Assessments (RHA) and subsequent updates, were considered during
this analysis. As noted in the FONSI, none of the alternatives considered will have any significant effects
on the human environment. While my proposed decision (modified Alternative 2) defers making a
decision regarding juniper treatments, the potential environmental effects of not treating juniper would be
similar to those addressed in the EA under both Alternatives 1 and 3. For this reason, I find that the EA
adequately addressed the potential effects of the proposed decision.
Potentially interested public, agencies, tribes, and the permittee were provided a 30-day review period on
the EA and FONSI. Two comment letters were received during the review period. None of the
comments contained therein led to a need to revise the analysis contained in the EA at this point in time.
However, both parties received individual responses to their comments.
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 related to livestock grazing and
vegetation management:
Livestock Grazing Management Goal - provide for a sustainable level of livestock grazing consistent
with other resource objectives and public land-use allocations (page 52).
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 guidelines… (pages 52-53, as maintained).
Rangeland improvement projects will be implemented to meet resource objectives… (page 53, as
maintained).
Plan Conformance
The Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte, and Murdock Allotments are currently open or available
for grazing use and are allocated livestock forage as listed in Table 5 (pages 46-49, as
maintained; Appendix E1, as maintained; Map G-3). Renewing the grazing permit and
constructing the new range improvements 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).
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).
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 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 for Egli Rim Allotment (page A-48, as
maintained)
Range/Livestock 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.
Improve/Maintain Range Condition- Use management practices and/ or better animal distribution;
develop range improvements when appropriate; adjust permitted use as needed.
Maintain/Improve Forage Production- Continue to manage for forage production in seeded areas
through season of use adjustments, possible vegetation treatments, fencing, water developments,
and/or other actions.
Plant Communities/Vegetation– Implement the current Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan.
Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat- Monitor utilization of browse in winter range areas. Avoid livestock
utilization levels that reduce the long-term viability of browse plants.
Special Status Animal Species- Follow the greater sage-grouse Livestock Grazing Guidelines (pages
75-76; ODFW 2005), where appropriate.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Specific Management Direction for Oatman Allotment (page A-95, as
maintained)
Range/Livestock 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.
Improve/Maintain Range Condition- Use management practices and/or better animal distribution;
develop range improvements when appropriate; adjust permitted use as needed.
Maintain/Improve Forage Production- Continue to manage for forage production in seeded areas
through season of use adjustments, possible vegetation treatments, fencing, water developments,
and/or other actions.
Plant Communities/Vegetation– Restore productivity and biodiversity in quaking aspen stands.
Manage areas where juniper encroachment or increased density is threatening other resource
values. Maintain old growth characteristics in historic juniper sites not prone to frequent fire.
Maintain quaking aspen to maintain age class diversity and allow for species reestablishment.
Noxious Weeds Encroachment- Implement the current Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan.
Mule Deer Winter Range- Monitor utilization of browse in winter range areas. Avoid livestock
utilization levels that reduce the long-term viability of browse plants. Monitor populations to ensure
that sufficient forage and habitat are available.
Elk Habitat- Monitor populations to ensure that sufficient forage and habitat are available.
Connley Hills ACEC/RNA- Adjust grazing management, including levels and areas of authorized
use, season of use, or grazing system, if needed to protect relevant and important values.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Specific Management Direction for Tuff Butte Allotment (page A-97, as
maintained)
Range/Livestock 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.
Improve/ Maintains range condition- Use management practices and/ or better animal distribution;
develop range improvements when appropriate; adjust permitted use as needed.
Maintain/Improve Forage Production- Continue to manage for forage production in seeded areas
through season of use adjustments, possible vegetation treatments, fencing, water developments,
and/or other actions.
Consider making an adjustment to season of use, in combination with a grazing system, that may
benefit other resources values.
Plant Communities/Vegetation– Restore productivity and biodiversity in quaking aspen stands.
Manage areas where juniper encroachment or increased density is threatening other resource
values. Maintain old growth characteristics in historic juniper sites not prone to frequent fire.
Maintain quaking aspen to maintain age class diversity and allow for species reestablishment.
Noxious Weeds Encroachment- Implement the current Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan.
Mule Deer Winter Range- Monitor utilization of browse in winter range areas. Avoid livestock
utilization levels that reduce the long-term viability of browse plants
Elk Habitat- Monitor populations to ensure that sufficient forage and habitat are available.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Specific Management Direction for Murdock Allotment (page A-100, as
maintained)
Range/Livestock 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.
Improve/ Maintains range condition- Use management practices and/ or better animal distribution;
develop range improvements when appropriate; adjust permitted use as needed.
Plant Communities/Vegetation– Restore productivity and biodiversity in quaking aspen stands.
Manage areas where juniper encroachment or increased density is threatening other resource
values. Maintain old growth characteristics in historic juniper sites not prone to frequent fire.
Maintain quaking aspen to maintain age class diversity and allow for species reestablishment.
Noxious Weeds Encroachment- Implement the current Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan.
Mule Deer Winter Range- Monitor utilization of browse in winter range areas. Avoid livestock
utilization levels that reduce the long-term viability of browse plants.
Elk Habitat- Monitor populations to ensure that sufficient forage and habitat are available.
Special Status Animal Species- Follow the greater sage-grouse Livestock Grazing Guidelines
(pages 75-76; ODFW 2005), where appropriate.
Conformance with the Allotment-Specific Management Direction in Appendix E1
Renewing the grazing permit and implementing several new range improvement projects is
consistent with the livestock distribution and management direction described in Appendix E1 for
the respective allotments.
Implementing the weed and invasive species treatments is consistent with the weed management
direction in Appendix E1 for each allotment.
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management for Public Lands
Administered by the BLM in the States of Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997a) Rangeland health assessments were conducted in 2004 for the Egli Rim, Oatman Flat, Tuff Butte,
and Murdock Allotments, and were updated in 2014 (BLM 2004b-c, 2014a-d). All rangeland health
standards were met for all allotments.
Decision Record for the Integrated Noxious Weed Control Program, EA#OR-010-2004-03 (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 these 3 programmatic plans.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2005) Much of the management direction from this strategy was found to be in conformance with the
Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b) and was formally adopted through plan maintenance to the
extent possible. The ODFW strategy states “Where livestock grazing management results in a level
of forage use that is consistent with RMP, Allotment Management Plans (AMP), Terms and
Conditions of Grazing Permits or Leases, other allotment specific direction, and regulations, no
changes to use or management are required if habitat quality meets Rangeland Health Standards and
Guidelines” (page 75). As noted above, all four allotments continue to meet all applicable
standards for rangeland health, and therefore, conform with this strategy.
Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011) This document represents the current BLM Washington Office interim policy for sage-grouse habitat
management until such time as plan amendments can be completed throughout the range of the
species that address a comprehensive conservation strategy. This policy focuses on minimizing
effects of actions within “Preliminary Priority Habitat” (PPH). Only the Egli Rim Allotment
contains PPH.
Permit Renewal
Plan and authorize livestock grazing and associated range improvement projects on BLM lands in
a way that maintains and/or improves Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat. Analyze through a
reasonable range of alternatives any direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of grazing on Sagegrouse and its habitats through the NEPA process:
•
Incorporate available site information collected using the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment
Framework (Stiver et al. 2010) when evaluating existing resource condition and developing resource
solutions,
•
Incorporate management practices that will provide for adequate residual plant cover (e.g., residual
grass height) and diversity in the understories of sagebrush plant communities as part of viable alternatives.
When addressing residual cover and species diversity, refer to the ESD (ecological site data) and “State and
Transition Model,” where they are available, to guide the analysis.
•
Evaluate and implement grazing practices that promote the growth and persistence of native shrubs,
grasses, and forbs. Grazing practices include kind and numbers of livestock, distribution, seasons of use,
and livestock management practices needed to meet both livestock management and Greater Sage-Grouse
habitat objectives.
•
Evaluate the potential risk to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats from existing structural range
improvements. Address those structural range improvements identified as posing a risk during the renewal
process.
•
Balance grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats to promote the production and
availability of beneficial forbs to Greater Sage-Grouse in meadows, mesic habitats, and riparian pastures
for Greater Sage-Grouse use during nesting and brood-rearing while maintaining upland conditions and
functions. Consider changes to season-of-use in riparian/wetland areas before or after the summer growing
season.
To ensure that the NEPA analysis for permit/lease renewal has a range of reasonable alternatives:
•
Include at least one alternative that would implement a deferred or rest-rotation grazing system, if one
is not already in place and the size of the allotment warrants it.
•
Include a reasonable range of alternatives (e.g., no grazing or a significantly reduced grazing
alternative, current grazing alternative, increased grazing alternative, etc.) to compare the impacts of
livestock grazing on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and land health from the proposed action.
•
If land treatments and/or range improvements are the primary action for achieving land health
standards for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat maintenance or enhancement, clearly display the effects of such
actions in the alternatives analyzed.
Water Developments
•
•
•
NEPA analysis for all new water developments must assess impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and its
habitat.
Install escape ramps and a mechanism such as a float or shut-off valve to control the flow of water in
tanks and troughs.
Design structures in a manner that minimizes potential for production of mosquitoes which may carry
West Nile virus.
The other 3 allotments contain varying levels of “Preliminary General Habitat” (PGH). The interim
policy recommends the following for activities within PGH:
1) When approving uses and authorizations, consider and analyze management measures that would reduce
direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse effects on Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. For example, consider
alternatives that would increase buffer distances around active leks and timing restrictions within existing
LUPs as needed to further reduce adverse effects on Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.
2) Consider deferring authorizations in PGH where appropriate, depending on local characteristics, new science
and/or data (e.g., migratory corridors or habitat between PPH), and relative habitat importance if
authorizations could result in Greater Sage-Grouse population loss in PPH.
3) Consider offsite mitigation measures in collaboration with state wildlife agencies and project proponents
when authorizing activities.
4) Evaluate and address anticipated fence collision risks within 1.25 miles of leks and other seasonal habitats.
Where NEPA analysis suggests that a deviation from this distance is warranted, modifications of this distance
are acceptable.
Conformance with Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures
The EA analyzed a reasonable range of grazing management alternatives and addressed the potential
impacts of permit renewal, weed/invasive species treatments, and new fences and water developments
on sage-grouse. The EA included an analysis of appropriate sage-grouse habitat data (pages 42-50).
Impacts to vegetation were adequately described and relied upon available ESI data (EA, pages 19-23).
Existing and proposed troughs include wildlife escape ramps. Existing and proposed new water
developments pose little to no risk of West Nile Virus transmission (EA, pages 42 and 48).
Deferring action on the permit renewal is not appropriate as the existing permit has expired and an
application is before the BLM for consideration at this time. Even if permit renewal was deferred,
livestock grazing could continue on the allotments under the Appropriation Act “rider”.
None of the alternative analyzed had negative impacts on sage-grouse or their habitat (either in PPH or
PGH) that rose to the level requiring mitigation (EA, pages 42-50). Further, the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife does not consider typical ranching management activities to be “development
actions” that cause impacts requiring mitigation under their habitat mitigation policy (ODFW 2011,
page 79). None of the existing or proposed new fences fall within 1.25 miles of a lek, pose a substantial
collision risk to sage-grouse, or require the use of anti-strike markers (EA, pages 42 and 49).
Rationale for the Proposed Decision:
Generally, implementation of Alternatives 1-3 conform with most applicable laws, regulations, land use
plan direction, allotment management plan direction, and applicable sage-grouse guidance.
Alternative 1 (No Action) was considered within the EA analysis to provide a baseline for comparison of
environmental effects, in accordance with the requirements of NEPA. Alternative 1 would meet some of
the desired ecological conditions and management goals and objectives for the 4 allotments, but would
not improve the permittee’s livestock operation or completely address the purpose and need for action.
Alternative 1 would 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 longterm.
Alternative 2 was selected as my proposed decision because it best meets the purpose and need, as
outlined in the EA (see EA, page 2). The changes in grazing management proposed in this alternative
would meet the desired ecological conditions and management goals for all 4 allotments. The invasive
species treatments described in Alternative 2 will assist in controlling the proliferation of noxious weeds
and undesirable plant species and help meet the other RMP vegetation management goals. My proposed
decision defers making a decision regarding juniper treatments at this time because cultural and botanical
surveys have not yet been completed within the proposed treatment areas.
Alternative 3 was considered within the EA analysis to provide a broader range of alternatives and
comply with current grazing permit renewal guidance. However, implementation of Alternative 3 would
only be appropriate if an analysis or evaluation of monitoring data or a rangeland health assessment
identified a need for livestock management adjustments (e.g. reduction or removal) to meet other
management objectives. In this instance, complete removal of grazing or closing the allotments to grazing
use for a ten-year period would not be consistent with the management goals and direction contained in
the RMP, as current livestock grazing is conforming with the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43
CFR Part 4180). Neither the rangeland health assessments nor other monitoring data have indicated a
resource conflict or problem on the allotments that would justify complete removal of livestock.
Therefore, BLM has no rational basis for adopting this alternative as the proposed decision.
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 CPR 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 CPR 4.471. Should you wish to file a petition for a stay,
you must file within the appeal period. In accordance with 43 CPR 4.471, a petition for a stay must show
sufficient justification based on the following standards:
I.
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 inunediate 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 CPR 4.473. A petition for stay that is electronically transmitted (e.g., email,
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 CPR 4.472(b) for the procedures to follow should you wish to respond.
If you should have any questions regarding this decision, please contact me at 541-947-2177.
Date
JI£:Forbes
Lakeview Resource Area, Field Manager
Copies sent to:
Bell A Land and Cattle Company
c/o Theresa Cliff
P.O. Box97
La Pine, Oregon 97739
Paul Ruprecht
Western Watershed Project
126 NE Alberta St., Suite 208
Portland, OR 97219
Mary Jo Hedrick
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 69
Summer Lake, OR 97640
Doug Heiken
Oregon Wild
P.O. Box 11648
Eugene, OR 97440
Peter Lacy · ·
Oregon Narurai Desert Association
917 SW Oak Street, Suite 419
Portland, OR 97205
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL FOR EGLI RIM, OATMAN FLAT,
TUFF BUTTE, MURDOCK ALLOTMENTS
DOI-BLM-OR-L050-2013-0013-EA
The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Resource Area (BLM), has analyzed several alternative
proposals related to renewing term grazing permit number 3601441 for a ten-year period. This permit
addresses livestock grazing management for the Egli Rim (00420), Oatman Flat (00705), Tuff Butte
(00707), and Murdock (00710) Allotments.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that analyzed the potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts of three alternatives. The alternatives included: No Action (continue
current grazing management), Range Improvement and Vegetation Treatment, and No Grazing or
Vegetation Treatment (see Chapter 2 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 total area contained within the five allotments. For this reason, the analysis of impacts in the
attached Environmental Assessment (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 aquatic habitat, special
status aquatic species, prime or unique farmlands, threatened or endangered species, special status plants,
wild horse management areas, significant caves, designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, wild
and scenic rivers, lands with wilderness characteristics, hazardous waste sites, or low income or minority
populations located in the allotments. No measureable impacts would occur to climate, floodplains,
hydrology, water quality, land status, recreation, visual resources, or mineral and energy resources (Table
3.1, Chapter 3).
The potential impacts to existing soils, biological soil crusts, upland vegetation, wetlands, noxious weeds,
fuels, air quality, wildlife, special status wildlife species, livestock grazing management, native American
traditional practices, cultural resources, ACEC/RNAs, 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.
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 allotments are not located near any populated 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. Potential impacts to air quality would be mitigated by following an approved smoke
management plan (Table 3.1 and Fire/Fuels Management section).
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, significant caves, riparian areas, wild and
scenic rivers, designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or lands with wilderness characteristics
located in the area (Table 3.1). Potential impacts to ACEC/RNAs have been analyzed in Chapter 3 of the
EA and found not to be significant.
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 and
vegetation management actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the EA. The
potential impacts of these actions on soils, biological soil crusts, wetlands, upland vegetation, noxious
weeds, wildlife, special status wildlife species, livestock grazing management, native American
traditional practices, cultural resources, ACEC/RNAs, and social and economic values can be reasonably
predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. The EA analyzed these impacts (see
Chapter 3) and found them not to be significant. The nature of these impacts is not highly controversial,
nor is there substantial dispute within the scientific community regarding the nature of these effects.
Potentially interested public, agencies, tribes, and the permittee were provided notice of a 30-day review
period on the EA. Two comment letters were received during the review period. None of the comments
contained therein indicated that there was a high degree of controversy related to the type or level of
potential impacts expected from any of the alternatives.
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 and
vegetation management actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the EA. The
potential impacts of these actions on soils, biological soil crusts, wetlands, upland vegetation, noxious
weeds, wildlife, special status wildlife species, livestock grazing management, native American
traditional practices, cultural resources, ACEC/RNAs, and social and economic values can be reasonably
predicted based on existing science and professional expertise. The EA analyzed these impacts (see
Chapter 3). The nature of these impacts is not highly uncertain, nor does it involve unique or unknown
risks to the environment.
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 and
vegetation management actions such as those proposed by the alternatives addressed in the EA. None of
the alternative actions represents a new, precedent-setting 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, even when added to the effects of
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
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 allotments are located within a broad area which was used historically by native
American people. However, there are no known or designated Traditional Cultural Properties or
important plant collecting sites within the allotments. Potential impacts to cultural resources, including
two known sites of religious importance, have been analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA and found not to be
significant.
9)
Would any of the alternatives have significant adverse impacts on threatened or endangered
species or their critical habitat (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(9)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: No threatened or endangered plant or animal species or their habitats are present in the
allotments (Table 3.1).
Rationale:
10)
Would any of the alternatives have effects that threaten to violate Federal, State, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(10)? ( ) Yes (X) No
Rationale: All of the alternatives analyzed in the EA comply with all Federal, State, and local
environmental laws or other environmental requirements, including the National Environmental Policy
Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that any action 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 Lakeview Resource
Management Plan/Record of Decision (BLM 2003b). The decision must also demonstrate conformance
with the management direction contained in this plan, the Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land
Management in the States of Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997), and the grazing regulations (43 CFR
Part 4100). Conformance with this direction is also addressed in more detail within the proposed
decision.
Finding
On the basis of the analysis contained in the EA, the consideration of intensity factors described above,
and all other available information, my determination is that none grazing or vegetation management
activities contained in the alternatives analyzed would constitute a major federal action which would have
significant adverse or beneficial impacts on the quality of the human environment.
In addition, the potential impacts associated with the use of herbicides to treat noxious weeds and other
invasive species was previously evaluated in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Land
in Oregon Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; BLM 2010a). That analysis has been
summarized in the EA and was incorporated by reference in its entirety into the environmental analysis.
The impacts of the weed/invasive species treatment alternatives fall within the range of those previously
analyzed in this Final EIS.
For these reasons, an EIS is unnecessary and will not be prepared.
J. odd Forbes, Acting Field Manager
akeview Resource Area