Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence
Environmental Assessment (EA)
#DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2013-02-EA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LAKEVIEW DISTRICT - Klamath Falls Resource Area
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Klamath Falls Resource Area, BLM
2795 Anderson Avenue, Bldg. 25
Klamath Falls, OR 97603
541-883-6916
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND RESPONDENT’S PERSONAL PRIVACY INTERESTS:
The Bureau of Land Management is soliciting comments on this Environmental Assessment. Comments,
including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the above
address during regular business hours. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, please be aware that your entire comment –
including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you
can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and
from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will
be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Need for Action
The BLM’s Horsefly Allotment is managed for livestock grazing using a multiple pasture rotation system.
There are two livestock operations that utilize this allotment. Due to livestock disease issues during
2002, the two operations’ livestock were kept separated in different pastures while on the allotment.
This system has been continued to keep the herds separated. The Norcross pasture, the largest pasture
in the allotment, is used by both operations as the last pasture in the yearly rotation schedule.
Previously, geographic features were fairly effective at keeping the herds separated in distinct areas of
the pasture. In recent years, the herds have been mixing as the livestock wander in search of forage and
water. There is a continued need to keep the herds separate to avoid disease transmission.
Management Direction and Conformance with Existing Plans
This Environmental Assessment is tiered to the Final - Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, September 1994 (KFRA RMP/EIS). This project
has been designed to comply with the land use allocations, management direction, and objectives of the
1995 Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource Management Plan (1995 KFRA RMP). The project design and
recommendations for implementation are contained in the ROD/RMP and a number of other supporting
documents including the following:
• Range Reform FEIS (August 1995).
• Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western
States (1991).
• 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 (1997)
• Standards for Land Health for Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States
of Oregon and Washington (1998)
• Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended in 1977 and 1987)
Location
East of Bonanza, Oregon – T39S, R14E, Section 3 (see Figure 1).
SCOPING
Scoping was conducted with the Horsefly Allotment permittees by phone and during field meetings in
June 2011 and July 2013. Internal scoping with the KFRA interdisciplinary team began in January 2012
and included field visits in Spring of 2012.
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Action
The proposed project would consist of constructing approximately 0.8 mile of 4-strand wire fence (see
Figure 2). The fence design is described below under the section titled “Project Design Features.” This
fence would provide a physical barrier to keep the livestock herds in distinct areas of the Norcross
pasture. The use period for the Norcross pasture would continue to be from mid-June until the end of
June (2-3 weeks).
No Action Alternative - This alternative would consist of continuation of the current situation.
Other Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Analysis
There are no other viable alternatives that would meet the purpose and need for this project.
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 1 of 11
Figure 1
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 2 of 11
Figure 2
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 3 of 11
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The following discussions of effects of the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action assume the
combined relevant effects of all past actions. It is not necessary to individually identify or catalog these
past actions as the description of the affected environment incorporates all those actions. For the
cumulative effects analysis the description of resulting impacts is the cumulative effect of all past,
present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are assumed the
same for the No Action as well as the Proposed Action.
Vegetation – Affected Environment
The Horsefly Allotment vegetation was evaluated through a Rangelands Health Standards Assessment
(RHSA) in 1999. This information was then summarized in the Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed Analysis,
July 2003 (GWVA). Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) information was used during the RHSA to determine
vegetation conditions and these findings were summarized in the GWVA. In the Norcross pasture,
21.8% was classified as Potential Natural Community, 45.3% as Late Seral, and 32.9% as Mid Seral
condition class. All of the Mid Seral areas were in the Pine-Sedge-Fescue ecological site. Forage
utilization monitoring in the allotment has consistently shown slight to light use levels. Vegetation trend
studies within the Norcross pasture have shown static to upward trends.
Vegetation – Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
Construction of 0.8 miles of wire fence would cause crushing and displacement of vegetation in the
immediate path of the fence. These effects are expected to be very temporary in nature. A longer term
impact to vegetation could result from livestock trailing along the new fence and creating a well-worn
path. Vegetation away from the immediate location of the fence would not be impacted. The
combination of a short season of use, good to excellent ecological conditions, and abundant forage
would allow adequate dispersal of livestock to avoid overutilization. Ongoing monitoring of forage
utilization and long term trend of vegetation conditions will be used to determine if changes in livestock
management are needed to maintain or improve the vegetation conditions.
Fence construction activities, including travel to and from the work site, increase the potential for
spread or introduction of noxious weeds. This potential can be minimized through mitigations such as
avoidance of known sites and washing of vehicles prior to entering the work site. Known noxious weed
sites will be treated with herbicide, mowed, or flagged for avoidance prior to construction activities.
Because there are no known special status plants in this area, there would be no effects on sensitive
plant species.
No Action
Continuation of the current situation (without fence construction) would have no effect on ecological
condition or trend of upland vegetation in any of the allotments. There would be no increase in the
potential for spread or introduction of noxious weeds.
Special Status Plant Species
Proposed Action & No Action
There are no known populations of special status plant species in the project area, so no negative
environmental impacts would be expected to occur.
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 4 of 11
Noxious Weeds
Proposed Action
There may be vehicle transport of fence materials off-road to the project site. There would be a
possibility of transporting weed propagules on the vehicles throughout the pastures. Project design
features (see page 10) would limit this possibility, and if followed, little or no increase in noxious weed
populations would occur from the vehicle use.
No Action
Under the no action alternative, no impacts to the amount of noxious weeds are expected.
Soils - Affected Environment
The Gerber Ecological Site Inventory identified three soil map units in the immediate vicinity of and
directly affected by the fence construction project. The predominant soil map units are 540C and 550C.
Unit 360B is also present in the fence line corridor, but of very minor extent. Soils in 550C include the
Schnipps-Mound complex on 2 to 30 percent slopes. Menbo very stony loams comprise map unit 540C.
These soil types are located on 15 to 40 percent slopes.
Soil depths vary from moderately deep to deep. Typically, the Schnipps-Mound soil profiles are
composed of a cobbly to very stony loam surface over a very cobbly clay loam to clay subsoil. Soils of the
Menbo series contain a surface layer of very stony loam overlying very cobbly clay subsurface horizons.
The high volume of surface coarse fragments renders all soil types slightly or moderately susceptible to
compaction when wet. Dependent on soil ground cover density and distribution, the erosion hazard
remains moderate. All soil types are poorly suited for fencing, specifically the ease of excavating and
setting posts in the shallow and/or stony areas.
Soils - Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
The proposed action of building the fence would have minor impacts to the soil resources. The
construction activities of building the new fence would result in minor compaction and displacement
along the fence line due to human and vehicle traffic. The area immediately adjacent to the new fence
could have some compaction due to the trailing of cattle along the fence line. The rest of the allotment
area would continue to have minor levels of soil compaction and displacement from livestock grazing
activities during the scheduled use period.
No Action
Under the No Action alternative, impacts to the soils resources from livestock grazing would not change.
There would also be no impacts from fence building activities.
Hydrology - Affected Environment
Hydrologic impacts are dependent on vegetative and soil conditions. As stated in the Vegetation and
Soils – Environmental Consequences sections, the pasture is in good to excellent ecological condition
and minor impacts to soil resources would result from the proposed fence. There are a sufficient
number of water sources on both sides of the proposed fence including both intermittent and perennial.
Hydrology – Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
The proposed action of constructing a division fence would not have any impacts to hydrologic
resources.
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 5 of 11
No Action
Under the No Action alternative, impacts to the water and riparian resources from livestock grazing
would not change.
Aquatic Species and Habitat – Affected Environment
The proposed fence installation project footprint contains no perennial or intermittent water, therefore
no aquatic species or habitat is present.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Gerber Reservoir is part of Designated Critical Habitat Unit #2 for Shortnose Sucker (SNS) (Chasmistes
brevirostris) and the SNS utilizes the reservoir as adult and juvenile rearing habitat. The SNS was listed as
endangered in 1988 under the Endangered Species Act (USDI FWS, 1988). The Norcross Pasture is
adjacent to 2.9 miles (at full pool) of the shoreline of Gerber Reservoir, contains 4.1 total miles of Long
Branch Creek, and 2.2 total miles of Casebeer Creek. Cows have direct access to the entire shoreline of
Gerber Reservoir within the pasture and the edge of the reservoir acts as essentially the pasture
boundary, although there are many additional water sources away from reservoir edge. The reservoir
water surface elevation prior to irrigation release is extremely variable between years. During the
irrigation season as the reservoir water surface elevation decreases, the reservoir varial zone width
increases. This zone can be characterized as a rocky mud flat, with little if any vegetation.
This 4.1 mile section of Long Branch Creek is a 4th order interrupted perennial tributary of Barnes Valley
Creek. Starting from the edge of the Barnes Valley Riparian Pasture and moving upstream, the first 1.0
mile section of Long Branch Creek is on BLM land and within an exclosure. The next 0.2 miles up to the
bridge is private land and also within an exclosure. The next 2.9 miles is within the pasture but all on
private land. This section is generally associated with low to moderate gradients, low to moderate
summer base flows, low sinuosity, and high peak flows during snowmelt and rain on snow events.
Approximately 2.4 miles of Long Branch Creek within the pasture is currently considered to be occupied
by SNS on a year round basis and up to bankfull, and is part of the 2012 Designated Critical Habitat Unit
#2 for SNS. There is a total of 2.8 miles occupied/designated, but 0.4 miles is outside the pasture on
USFS land. Of the 2.4 miles within the pasture, 1.4 is on private land, of which 0.2 miles are within an
exclosure. There is an additional 1.9 miles of Long Branch Creek upstream of the occupied reach, which
completely on private land. Long Branch Creek is a main SNS spawning tributary for adfluvial fish from
Gerber Reservoir and Barnes Valley Creek. It is used by all life stages of suckers including oversummering in perennial pools (BLM, monitoring data).
The upper approximately 1.2 miles of Casebeer Creek, a 4th order perennial tributary of the Barnes
Valley Creek arm of Gerber Reservoir, flows through fenced, private land, which is excluded from
livestock authorized to use the Norcross Pasture. Casebeer Creek is not considered occupied by SNS,
nor is it part of Designated Critical Habitat Unit #2 for SNS.
Aquatic Species and Habitat – Environmental Consequences
Threatened and Endangered Species
Proposed Action
The grazing activities potentially causing effects to SNS and/or SNS Critical Habitat could include:
grazing on stream/reservoir edge/upland vegetation, bedding in riparian/reservoir edge/uplands,
creating trails along stream/reservoir edge/in uplands, creating trails to stream/reservoir,
urinating/defecating in stream/reservoir/uplands, walking on stream bank/reservoir edge,
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 6 of 11
walking/loafing in stream/reservoir. All of these potential effects are covered in detail in the 2014
Klamath Falls Resource Area Grazing Consultation Biological Assessment.
The proposed 2014 herd of 600 AUMs would have historically congregated in sensitive areas within the
pasture and contributed toward some or all of the aforementioned grazing activities. The proposed
fence installation project will split the herd into a maximum of 225 cow/calf pairs on the west side and a
maximum of 500 cow/calf pairs on the east side for the season-of-use of 19 days (June 11 to June 30).
This will likely decrease the local congregating effects mentioned and will result in a beneficial effect to
the pasture. The effects of grazing on Long Branch Creek on private land, and the edge of Gerber
Reservoir, would be especially reduced. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the
Shortnose Sucker and associated Designated Critical Habitat is currently in process and will be
completed prior to project Decision.
No Action
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no fence installation. There would be no impacts to
aquatic species and aquatic species habitat from the proposed fence installation. The beneficial effect of
the proposed fence installation would not occur.
Other Aquatic Species
Proposed Action and No Action
Since no aquatic species or habitat is present in the project area, neither alternative would have an
impact on aquatic species or aquatic species habitat.
Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Affected Environment
This section focuses on the wildlife species that are considered special status species and would
potentially be affected by management activities. Included are those species listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA - listed, proposed and candidate species), those listed under the BLM
special status species policy and considered to be Bureau Sensitive and land birds listed on the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife’s “Birds of Conservation Concern 2008.” All of these species will be considered in this EA
process. A complete list of BLM Special Status Species that occur on the Lakeview District, Klamath Falls
Resource Area may be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy. The complete list
of Birds of Conservation Concern considered is located at
http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf
Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no Federally Proposed, Listed or Candidate (under the Endangered Species, act as
amended 1973) terrestrial wildlife species or Designated Critical Habitat for terrestrial species that
occur along the proposed fence line area or that would be affected by the project. This would be a
“no effect” action for all ESA listed, proposed, and candidate terrestrial wildlife. Therefore, no
consultation with the USFWS on terrestrial species is necessary.
Special Status Species
There are no special status species (BLM Sensitive or Birds of Conservation Concern) that would be
affected by the proposed fence construction or cattle guards installation.
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 7 of 11
Other Wildlife Species (Mule Deer - Odocoileus hemionus)
The area is classified as mule deer winter range (USDI BLM 1995) and therefore is important for mule
deer especially in the winter months. The area also serves as a migratory corridor for the Interstate
deer herd. Mule deer move through the area to their summer and wintering grounds with some year
round residents.
Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Environmental Consequences
Threatened and Endangered Species
Proposed Action and No Action
There are no Federally Proposed, Listed or Candidate (under the Endangered Species, act as amended
1973) terrestrial wildlife species or Designated Critical Habitat for terrestrial species that occur along the
proposed fence line area or that would be affected by the project. Therefore, there would be no effect
to listed species from implementation of either the Proposed Action or the No Action alternative.
Special Status Species
Proposed action and No Action
There are no special status species (BLM Sensitive or Birds of Conservation Concern) that would be
negatively or positively affected by the proposed fence construction. Therefore, there would be no
effect to special status species from implementation of either the Proposed Action or the No Action
alternative.
Other Terrestrial Wildlife Species
Proposed Action
The proposed fence would not impede mule deer movement. The proposed fence height of no more
than 40 inches allows for movement of deer by allowing the adults to cross over the fence line.The
smooth bottom wire and 16 inch height of the bottom wire allows fawns to move under the fence.
This is consistent with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommendations for fence building
within mule deer habitat (personal communication, ODFW 2010). Therefore, the Proposed Action
would meet the objectives within the KFRA RMP to maintain or improve deer winter range habitat
(USDI BLM 1995).
No Action
The No Action alternative would have no effect on mule deer.
Cultural Resources – Affected Environment
Native American use of the area spans many millennia. The region was most likely used by the Modoc
and/or Klamath peoples. On a map showing the Modoc territory, Ray (1963) shows the Modoc
encompassing the project area. Ray (1963) notes that the Modoc territory was divided into three
geographic areas that were named after those who lived in those areas. Of these three areas, the
Kokiwas’ (people of the far out country) lived within the project area.
Historic contact between the Native American tribes and Euro-Americans began around the 1820s and
culminated with the Klamath Lake Treaty of 1864 in which the lands around the project area were
ceded to the United States by the Klamath Tribes (Minor et al. 1979). The Klamath Tribes consists of the
closely related Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin peoples.
Euro-American exploration within the analysis area began in 1843 when a band of “free trappers,” led
by Old Bill Williams, explored the Lost River region. Euro-American settlement did not occur until
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 8 of 11
1875. Homesteaders pursued sheep and cattle ranching (Beckham 2000). The Civilian Conservation
Corp (CCC) improved the landscape within the analysis area for grazing in the 1930s. The CCC built
roads, spring developments, stock ponds, corrals and even a telephone line.
Cultural Resources – Environmental Consequences
Under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives, impacts to cultural resources from a fence would
not change, as there are no sites in the immediate area and the fencing location has been surveyed.
There would also be no impacts from fence building activities.
Recreation/Visual Resources - Affected Environment
Recreation Resources
The analysis area provides opportunities for dispersed recreation such as hunting, off-highway vehicle
driving, sightseeing, and horseback riding. The Gerber Recreation Area is located approximately 5 miles
west of the analysis area. The analysis area currently receives light dispersed recreation use during most
times of the year due to its close proximity to Bly and Gerber Recreation Area. No new recreation
facilities are proposed within the analysis area.
Visual Resources
The analysis area contains lands that are managed under the BLM Visual Resources Management (VRM)
Class II guidelines. VRM Class II management objectives are for low levels of change to the characteristic
landscape. Management activities may be seen but would not attract attention.
Recreation/Visual Resources - Environmental Consequences
Recreation Resources - Proposed Action
Implementation of the Proposed Action would primarily impact cross country travel by non-motorized
recreationists, including hiking, hunting, and horseback riding. While hikers would be able to cross over
the fence, horseback riders would need to travel to a gate to traverse the fence.
Recreation Resources - No Action
Under the No Action alternative, no impacts to recreation resources would be expected.
Visual Resources - Proposed Action
The proposed fence is to be located in forested areas where trees will serve to quickly screen these
facilities from the casual visitor. The rock cribs and other fence components are very typical of the types
of range improvements found in the local area and would attract little attention from the casual
observer. The Proposed Action is expected to meet VRM class II guidelines.
Visual Resources - No Action
Under the No Action alternative, no impacts to visual resources would be expected, except for the
continuation of early season grazing where it is not desirable.
Grazing Management - Affected Environment
The Norcross pasture of the Horsefly Allotment is the last pasture used in a rest rotation grazing system.
During one of three years of the rotation, the season-of-use is June 11 to June 30 with a maximum of
600 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock use. During the other two of three years, the season-ofuse is June 21 to June 30 with a maximum of 400 AUMs of livestock use. The pasture covers
approximately 6,600 acres.
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 9 of 11
Grazing Management - Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
With the proposed fence there would be approximately 2,000 acres of BLM-administered lands to the
west of the fence and approximately 4,600 acres to the east of the fence. One of the livestock herds has
a maximum level of 225 cow/calf pairs and would utilize the pasture area that is west of the proposed
fence. The other livestock herd has a maximum level of 500 cow/calf pairs and would utilize the pasture
area to the east of the proposed fence.
Implementation of the Proposed Action would create the need for annual inspection and periodic
maintenance of the fence. These activities would be the responsibility of the grazing lessee. The
proposed boundary fence would facilitate the proper control of livestock and eliminate the need for
repeated herding and use supervision. Continued monitoring of forage utilization and long term trend of
vegetation conditions by BLM personnel would be used to determine if changes in livestock
management are needed to maintain or improve the vegetation conditions.
No Action
Without construction of the fence, livestock use would continue as in the past resulting in the continued
need for use supervision and herding. The possibility of disease transmission between livestock herds
would continue to be a factor.
OTHER RESOURCES
Resource values that are either not present in the project area, or would not be affected by any of the
proposed alternatives are: floodplains, wilderness study areas (WSAs), areas of critical environmental
concern (ACECs), research natural areas (RNAs), paleontological resources, prime or unique farmlands,
wild and scenic rivers, lands, air quality, and minerals. For potential beneficial effects to ESA listed fish
and critical habitat, see Aquatic Species and Habitat section. There are no known hazardous waste sites
in the analysis area. For either alternative, no direct or indirect disproportionately high or adverse
human health or environmental effects to minority or low income populations are expected to result
from implementation of the proposed action or the alternatives.
Project Design Features
Noxious Weeds
In order to prevent the potential spread of noxious weeds into the Klamath Falls Resource Area,
Lakeview District BLM, the operator will be required to clean all construction equipment and vehicles
prior to entry on BLM lands. “Cleaning” is defined as removal of all dirt, grease, plant parts, and material
that may carry noxious weed seeds into BLM lands. Cleaning prior to entry onto BLM lands may be
accomplished by using a pressure hose. Construction equipment will be visually inspected by a qualified
BLM specialist, to verify that the equipment has been reasonably cleaned. The proposed fence-line will
be flagged prior to construction. At that time, noxious weed populations that are encountered will also
be identified and either treated with herbicide, mowed, or flagged for avoidance. Vehicle routes for the
project will also be inspected and flagged for noxious weed avoidance. Treating known noxious weed
populations with herbicides or mowing to prevent seed heads prior to fence work would reduce the
spread of plants. Alternatively, any flagged populations of noxious weeds will be avoided by vehicles and
fence builders.
Fence Design
The fence will be built to BLM specifications that allow for wildlife passage. This design uses smooth
(non- barbed) wire for the bottom strand at a height of 16 inches to allow for wildlife passage under the
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 10 of 11
fence. The top three wires are barbed with the top wire being at a height of 40 inches to allow for deer
and elk crossing. The spacing between the top two wires will also be 12 inches to allow for easier
crossing. Gates will be built along the fence at points where it crosses roads and trails and at locations
that allow for the ingress and egress of livestock and horses.
PERSONS/AGENCIES CONSULTED
Livestock Allotment Permittees
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
LIST OF PREPARERS
Dana Eckard
Andy Hamilton
Chelsea Aquino
Cindy Foster
Grant Weidenbach
Brooke Brown
Matt Broyles
Johanna Blanchard
Rob Roninger
Terry Austin
Author/Rangeland Management Specialist
Hydrologist
Hydrologist
Soil Scientist
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Archeologist
Wildlife Biologist
Botanist
Fisheries Biologist
Planner
REFERENCES
Beckham, Stephen Dow, 2000. The Gerber Block: Historical Developments on the Public Rangelands
in Klamath County, Oregon. M/S on file at Klamath Falls Resource Area Office, Bureau of Land
Management.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 1994. FINAL Klamath Falls Resource Area
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I-III. (September 1994). Klamath Falls, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 1995. Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource
Management Plan and Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary (June 1995). Klamath Falls,
OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 2003. Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed
Analysis. (July 2003). Klamath Falls, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior . Bureau Manual 9015 – Integrated Weed
Management.
Minor, Rick, Stephen Dow Beckham and Kathryn Anne Toepel, 1979. Cultural Resource Overview of the
BLM Lakeview District, South-Central Oregon: Archaeology, Ethnography, History. University of Oregon
Anthropological Papers No. 16., reprint by Coyote Press.
Ray, Vern F. 1963. Primitive Pragmatists: The Modoc Indians of Northern California.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
DOI-BLM–OR-L040-2013-02-EA Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
Page 11 of 11
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Klamath Falls Resource Area
Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence Environmental Assessment
#DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2013-02-EA
Introduction
The Klamath Falls Resource Area (KFRA) of the Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
conducted an environmental analysis to evaluate the impacts of constructing approximately 0.8 mile of
fence to keep the livestock herds in distinct areas of the Norcross pasture. The EA analyzes two
alternatives, the Proposed Action, and the No Action alternative.
Plan Conformance and Consistency
This proposed action is subject to the following land use plan(s): Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource
Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement, approved in September 1994. The
proposed action has been determined to be in conformance with this RMP as required by regulation (43
CFR 1610.5-3(a)).
Context
The Proposed Action would implement construction of approximately 0.8 mile of fence within the
Norcross pasture on BLM lands, adjacent to private lands. The project area is within the Klamath Falls
Resource Area (KFRA), and does not include any wilderness or lands with other special designations.
Intensity
I have considered the potential intensity/severity of the impacts anticipated from constructing the
Norcross pasture fence relative to each of the ten areas suggested for consideration by the CEQ:
1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse.
The construction of the proposed fenceline would be beneficial to most resources, as outlined in
the EA. I have determined that none of the direct, indirect or cumulative impacts associated
with the Proposed Action are significant, individually or combined.
2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.
The Proposed Action is located within a rural setting. The KFRA interdisciplinary team of resource
specialists reviewed the effects of the proposed fence construction. Based on their findings, I
have determined that this project would not affect public health or safety.
3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources,
park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
The project area does not contain park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or
ecologically critical areas. Cultural resource surveys were conducted and no sites were found in
the project area.
1
4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be
controversial.
Scoping was conducted with the Horsefly Allotment permittees and consultation is ongoing with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I have determined that the effects described in the EA are not
highly controversial, and would be beneficial.
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve
unique or unknown risks.
Fence construction projects are common actions authorized by the BLM, and similar actions
have been implemented in similar areas. The analysis provided in the attached EA does not
indicate that this action would involve any unique or unknown risks.
6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects
or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.
The Proposed Action would not establish a precedent for future actions on KFRA-managed
lands. This analysis would be used for the construction of Norcross pasture fence described in
the EA.
7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant impacts.
The Proposed Action was considered by the interdisciplinary team within the context of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Significant cumulative effects are not
anticipated.
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or
objects listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP or may cause loss or destruction of significant
scientific, cultural, or historical resources.
The Proposed Action does not have adverse effects on any cultural sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or sites known to be eligible.
9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its
habitat that has been determined to be critical under the ESA of 1973.
The proposed fence installation will have a beneficial effect on the ESA-listed endangered
Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and associated Designated Critical Habitat
adjacent to the Norcross Pasture. There are no aquatic or terrestrial threatened or
endangered listed, proposed, candidate species or designated critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act (as amended USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 1973) that occur
within the project area, or that would be adversely affected from project activities.
2
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the environment.
The project does not violate any known Federal, State, local or tribal law or requirement
imposed for the protection of the environment. In addition, the project is consistent with
applicable land management plans, policies, and programs.
DRAFT Finding of No Significant Impact Determination
I have reviewed the Norcross Pasture Boundary Fence EA (DOI-BLM-OR-L040-2013-02-EA), dated April
2014. On the basis of the information contained in the EA, it is my determination that: (1)
implementation of the Proposed Action will not have significant environmental impacts beyond those
already addressed in the KFRA RMP; (2) the Proposed Action is in conformance with the RMP; and (3)
the Proposed Action does not constitute a major Federal action having a significant effect on the
human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement or a supplement to the existing
RMP and Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary and will not be prepared.
This finding is based on my consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) criteria for
significance (40 CFR 1508.27), both with regard to the context and to the intensity of the impacts
described in the EA or as articulated in the letters of comment.
__________________________________________
Donald J. Holmstrom
Field Manager, Klamath Falls Resource Area
___________________
Date
3