NOTICE OF PROPOSED DECISION FOR
BROWN GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL FOR WARD LAKE ALLOTMENT (00704)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed an environmental assessment (EA# DOI-BLMOR-L050-2014-0029-EA) documenting the potential effects of renewing term grazing Permit #3601216
for a ten-year period. This permit governs livestock grazing management on the Ward Lake (00704)
Allotment. The renewal or initial issuance of a term grazing permit is a Federal action to authorize
livestock grazing on public land for a specified period of time, and under a set of specified terms and
conditions.
The Ward Lake Allotment is located approximately 3 miles northwest of Silver Lake, Oregon, and
contains about 13,105 acres of public land and 3,143 acres of private land. The current grazing permit
authorizes the Brown Ranch to graze 150 AUMs in the Ward Lake Allotment from 05/1 to 07/30.
PROPOSED DECISION
Permit Renewal
It is my proposed decision to issue a 10-year grazing permit to Lance and Carrie Brown (#3601216) to
authorize livestock grazing use in the Ward Lake (00704) Allotment, as described in Alternative 2 in the
EA. Table 1 shows the type of livestock, permit dates, and active preference which will be authorized
under this permit renewal. The current rest rotation grazing systems will continue to be implemented in
the allotment. This permit would add the Stratton FFR Pasture and 19 associated AUMs to the grazing
schedule. The 19 AUMs will be moved from the terms and conditions section of the permit to the grazing
schedule.
Table 1. Livestock Use to be Authorized under the Permit Authorization # 3601216
Livestock
Grazing Period
Type of
Use
% Public
Land
AUMs
Allotment
Number
Kind
Begin
Date
End Date
Ward Lake (00704)
50
CATTLE
5/1
7/30
Active
100
150
Stratton FFR Pasture
75
CATTLE
7/1
8/24
Active
14
19
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 will continue, generally as specified in the Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b, pages 53-55,
as maintained) as time and budgets allow. In summary, trend monitoring studies will 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 will be
conducted using the Key Species Method. Utilization is a measure of the amount of the current year’s
forage consumed by livestock. Monitoring methodology will follow the latest protocol, such as Technical
Reference 1734-3 and 1734-4 (BLM 1996a, 1996b) (see also pages 5-6 of the EA).
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.
RATIONALE AND AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSED DECISION
Decision Factors
The following decision factors were used to select 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?
These decision factors are addressed in detail in the following section.
Generally, implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 will conform with all applicable laws, regulations, land
use plan direction, allotment management plan direction, and applicable sage-grouse management
guidance. Alternative 1 (No Action) provided a baseline for comparison of environmental effects in
conformance with NEPA. While Alternative 1 will meet the desired ecological conditions and
management goals and objectives for the allotment, but does not account for the livestock use on the 40
acres of public land in the Stratton FFR Pasture. For this reason, I added the 19 AUMs in the Stratton
FFR Pasture to the grazing schedule for the Brown Ranch permit (as described for Alternative 2).
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 reductions 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 this land use plan, as current
livestock grazing is conforming with the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR Part 4180).
Neither the rangeland health assessment, assessment update, nor other monitoring data have indicated a
resource conflict or problem on the allotment that would justify a reduction or complete removal of
livestock. Therefore, BLM has no rational basis for adopting this alternative as the proposed decision.
Conformance with Laws and Regulations
This EA has been prepared in conformance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 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.” As noted above, the Lakeview RMP/ROD has designated these allotments as available for
livestock grazing (BLM 2003b). The permit renewal applicant (current permittee) controls the base
property associated with the grazing preference on the allotment and has been determined to be a
qualified applicant.
A performance review of the permittee’s past use has been completed. 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. The record of performance review is hereby incorporated by reference.
Conformance with Land Use Plan
Approved management actions or project decisions must conform to the appropriate land use plan. The
Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision (BLM 2003b, as maintained) is the governing
land use plan for the area and provides the following goals and management direction related to livestock
grazing use:
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 guideline, allotment evaluations, allotment
management plans, watershed analyses, and biological opinions. It is through these assessments that
any changes in forage allocation will be made, where needed, on an allotment specific basis (Page 52).
Plan Conformance:
The Ward Lake (00704) Allotment is currently open or allotted to grazing use and is currently
allocated 397 AUMs of livestock forage. Adding 19 AAUMs to the Brown permit is consistent with
this management direction and will increase total AUMs in the Ward Lake Allotment (00704) to 416
AUMs. (There are also 101 AUMs of suspended nonuse in the Ward Lake Allotment, but these AUMs
fall under another grazing permit and are addressed in a separate decision). There are also 337 AUMs
of wildlife forage allocated on the allotment (00704) (Page 46, Table 5, as maintained, Appendix E1,
as maintained; Map G-3).
Operation and Maintenance Actions
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, … and other similar
facilities/projects (Page 100, as maintained).
Plan Conformance:
Conducting range improvement maintenance activities on an as-needed basis would conform with this
management direction.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Management Summaries –Ward Lake Allotment (Page A-94, as
maintained)
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.
Improve/maintain range condition - Use management practices and/or better animal
distribution; develop range improvements when appropriate: adjust permitted use as needed.
Carrying Capacity/forage allocation - Consider the authorization of 101 AUMs of temporary
non-renewable use. Based on monitoring results, consider permanently reinstating up to 101 AUMs
of suspended nonuse to active preference.
Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat - Avoid livestock utilization levels (in deer winter range areas) that
reduce the long-term viability of browse plants.
Plan Conformance:
Since the rangeland health assessment and recent update found current management in this allotment
met all applicable standards (see Table 15; BLM 2004c, 2014a), no additional livestock management
facilities/range improvements or other livestock management adjustments were recommended for
consideration during the development of alternatives. (BLM also considered reinstating 101 AUMs of
suspended nonuse to active preference as part of Alternative 2, but this is addressed in a separate
grazing decision).
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
My decision must also take into account the following 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; 43 CFR Part
4180)
An ID team completed a Rangeland Health Assessment for the allotment in conformance with the
requirements of 43 CFR 4180 and determined it was meeting all applicable standards. The BLM
completed a review and update of this Rangeland Health Assessment in 2014 and found that all applicable
rangeland health standards were still being met (BLM 2004c, 2014a; see also Table 15 in EA). Further,
the analysis contained in the EA found that the allotment will continue to meet all applicable standards if
the grazing permit is reissued.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2005) and
Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011c)
There was no Greater sage-grouse habitat identified in the Ward Lake Allotment. Therefore, the
management direction contained in these two documents does not apply to the proposed decision.
RIGHT OF PROTEST 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 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 innnediate 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,
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 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.
/Z-11-1~
~odd Forbes
Date
akevtew Resource Area, Fteld Manager
Copies sent to:
Matjorie Iverson
Iverson Management Limited Partnership
P.O. Box97
Silver Lake, OR 97638
Peter Lacy
Oregon Natural Desert Association ,
917 SW Oak Street, Suite 408
Portland, OR 97205
Mr. Paul Ruprecht
Western Watersheds Project
126 Northeast Alberta Street, Suite 208
Portland, OR 97219
Ms. Pam Hardy
Oregon Wild
16 NW Kansas Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
NOTICE OF PROPOSED DECISION FOR
IVERSON RANCH GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL FOR WARD LAKE (00704)
AND SQUAW BUTTE (00915) ALLOTMENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed an environmental assessment (EA# DOI-BLMOR-L050-2014-0029-EA) documenting the potential effects of renewing term grazing permit #3601444
for a ten-year period. This permit governs livestock grazing management on the Ward Lake (00704) and
Squaw Butte (00915) Allotments. The renewal or initial issuance of a term grazing permit is a Federal
action to authorize livestock grazing on public land for a specified period of time and under a set of
specified terms and conditions.
The Ward Lake Allotment is located approximately 3 miles northwest of Silver Lake, Oregon, and
contains about 13,105 acres of public land and 3,143 acres of private land. The Squaw Butte Allotment is
located about 16 miles north of Christmas Valley, Oregon, and contains about 8,154 acres public land and
395 acres of private land.
The current grazing permit authorizes Permit Authorization #3601444 the use of 247 AUMs of forage in
the Ward Lake Allotment and 1,000 AUMs of forage in the Squaw Butte Allotment. The authorized
grazing season in the Ward Lake Allotment has been from 4/28-5/31 and in the Squaw Butte Allotment
from 5/1-10/15.
PROPOSED DECISION
Permit Renewal
It is my proposed decision to issue a 10-year grazing permit to the Iverson Management Limited
Partnership (#3601444) to authorize livestock grazing use in the Ward Lake (00704) and Squaw Butte
(00915) Allotments, as described in Alternative 1 in the EA. Table 1 shows the type of livestock, permit
dates, and active preference which will be authorized for each allotment under this permit renewal. The
current rest rotation grazing systems will continue to be implemented in both allotments.
Table 1. Livestock Use to be Authorized under the Permit Authorization # 3601444
Livestock
Allotment
Ward Lake (00704)
Squaw Butte (00915)
Grazing Period
Type of
Use
% Public
Land
AUMs
Number
Kind
Begin
Date
End Date
221
CATTLE
4/28
5/31
Active
100
247
181
CATTLE
5/1
10/15*
Active
100
1,000
*Grazing use after 8/30 can be authorized on a temporary basis based on management direction in the Squaw Butte Allotment Management Plan.
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 will continue, generally as specified in the Lakeview RMP/ROD (BLM 2003b, pages 53-55,
as maintained) as time and budgets allow. In summary, trend monitoring studies will 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 will be
conducted using the Key Species Method. Utilization is a measure of the amount of the current year’s
forage consumed by livestock. Monitoring methodology will follow the latest protocol, such as Technical
Reference 1734-3 and 1734-4 (BLM 1996a, 1996b) (see also pages 5-6 of the EA).
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 will
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.
RATIONALE AND AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSED DECISION
Decision Factors
The following decision factors were used to select 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?
These decision factors are addressed in detail in the following section.
Implementation of Alternative 1would conform with all applicable laws, regulations, land use plan
direction, allotment management plan direction, and applicable sage-grouse management guidance.
Alternative 1 (No Action) provides a baseline for comparison of environmental effects in conformance
with NEPA. The analysis within the EA determined that this alternative would meet the desired
ecological conditions and management goals and objectives for the two allotments.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would conform with most applicable laws, regulations, land use plan
direction, allotment management plan direction, and applicable sage-grouse management guidance.
Alternative 2 would restore 101 suspended AUMs to the Iverson permit (Ward Lake Allotment).
However, the analysis within the EA determined the increased grazing would result in utilization levels
beyond the upper limit of 50% and would increase the area of heavy disturbance around waterholes. This
increased disturbance would negatively impact ecological processes and would likely result in a
downward trend in ecological condition over time.
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 reductions 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 this land use plan, 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 a reduction or complete removal of livestock. Therefore,
BLM has no rational basis for adopting this alternative as the proposed decision.
Conformance with Laws and Regulations
This EA has been prepared in conformance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 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.” As noted above, the Lakeview RMP/ROD has designated these allotments as available for
livestock grazing (BLM 2003b). The permit renewal applicant (current permittee) controls the base
property associated with the grazing preference on the allotments and has been determined to be qualified
applicant.
A performance review of each permittees’ past use has been completed. 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. The record of performance review is hereby incorporated by reference.
Conformance with Land Use Plan
Approved management actions or project decisions must conform to the appropriate land use plan. The
Lakeview Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision (BLM 2003b, as maintained) is the governing
land use plan for the area and provides the following goals and management direction related to livestock
grazing use and vegetation treatments:
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, allotment evaluations, allotment
management plans, watershed analyses, and biological opinions. It is through these assessments that
any changes in forage allocation will be made, where needed, on an allotment specific basis (Page
52).
Plan Conformance:
The Ward Lake (00704) and the Squaw Butte (00915) Allotments are currently open or allotted to
grazing use and are currently allocated 397 and 1,000 AUMs of livestock forage, respectively. There
are 101 AUMs of suspended nonuse in the Ward Lake Allotment. There are 337 AUMs of wildlife
forage allocated on the Ward Lake Allotment (00704) and 605 AUMs of wildlife forage on the Squaw
Butte Allotment (00915) (Page 46, Table 5, as maintained, Appendix E1, as maintained; Map G-3).
Operation and Maintenance Actions
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, … and other similar
facilities/projects (Page 100, as maintained).
Plan Conformance:
Conducting range improvement maintenance activities on an as-needed basis would conform with this
management direction.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Management Summaries –Ward Lake Allotment (Page A-94, as
maintained)
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.
Improve/maintain range condition - Use management practices and/or better animal
distribution; develop range improvements when appropriate: adjust permitted use as needed.
Carrying Capacity/forage allocation - Consider the authorization of 101 AUMs of temporary
non-renewable use. Based on monitoring results, consider permanently reinstating up to 101
AUMs of suspended nonuse to active preference.
Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat - Avoid livestock utilization levels (in deer winter range areas) that
reduce the long-term viability of browse plants.
Plan Conformance:
Since the rangeland health assessment and recent update found current management met all applicable
standards (see Table 15; BLM 2004c, 2014a) in this allotment, no additional livestock management
facilities/range improvements were recommended for consideration during the development of
alternatives. BLM considered the reinstating 101 AUMs of suspended nonuse to active preference as
part of Alternative 2 within the EA. However, the analysis determined that the allotment could not
support this increase in grazing over the long-term and, therefore, my proposed decision does not
include this management action.
Appendix E1 – Allotment Management Summaries Squaw Butte Allotment (page A-119, as
maintained)
Management Direction:
Range/livestock management – Continue livestock management practices under the 1984
allotment management plan. Revise as needed.
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.
Improve/maintain range condition - Use management practices and/or better animal
distribution; develop range improvements when appropriate: adjust permitted use as needed.
Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat - Avoid livestock utilization levels (in deer winter range areas) that
reduce the long-term viability of browse plants. Follow the greater sage-grouse Livestock
Grazing guidelines (pages 75-76 of ODFW 2005), where appropriate.
Special Management Areas- Manage Squaw Butte WSA to protect values under the current
WSA management policy.
Plan Conformance:
Since the rangeland health assessment and recent update found current management met all applicable
standards (see Table 16; BLM 2007c, 2014b) in this allotment, no additional livestock management
facilities/range improvements were recommended for consideration during the development of
alternatives. My proposed decision also conforms with current WSA management policy (see pages
51-52 of EA).
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
The final decision must also take into account the following 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; 43 CFR Part
4180)
An ID team completed Rangeland Health Assessments for the two allotments in conformance with the
requirements of 43 CFR 4180 and determined the allotments were meeting all applicable standards. The
BLM completed a review and update of those Rangeland Health Assessments in 2014 and found that all
applicable rangeland health standards were still being met (BLM 2004c, 2007c, 2014a, 2014b; see also
Tables 15-16 in EA).
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2005)
A substantial portion of the ODFW (2005) strategy was adopted by the Lakeview RMP/ROD through plan
maintenance. In particular, states “where livestock grazing management results in a level of forage use
(use level) that is consistent with Resource Management Plans, Allotment Management Plans, 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 Standard and Guidelines”
(Page 75). The plan also provides guidelines on how to construct or maintain range improvement projects
to minimize impacts to sage-grouse habitat (Page 76).
Based on the analysis of potential impacts to upland plant communities, wildlife habitat, and rangeland
conditions contained in Chapter 3 of the revised EA, the grazing management prescribed in my proposed
decision is expected to continue to meet rangeland health standards 3 and 5 into the foreseeable future
(see Chapter 3 of EA). For this reason, implementing my proposed decision also conforms with ODFW
(2005) livestock management guidelines.
Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (BLM 2011c)
This 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. Management activities must be evaluated based on whether they
fall within preliminary priority habitat (PGH) or preliminary general habitat (PGH). There is no sagegrouse ODFW core habitat or PPH occurring in either allotment, therefore, none of the PPH interim
management direction applies. The Squaw Butte Allotment contains ODFW low density habitat or PGH.
For this reason, my proposed decision addresses management activities within PGH.
Management Direction for Activities in PGH:
4) 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.
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:
My proposed decision conforms to this interim management direction because:
The EA analyzed a reasonable range of grazing management alternatives and addressed the potential
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of permit renewal on sage-grouse and its habitat. Impacts to
vegetation were adequately described and relied upon available ESI data (see Chapters 2 and 3 of
EA). The EA included an analysis of appropriate sage-grouse habitat data (see Chapter 3 of EA and
Maps 8 and 15). The EA also addressed the potential impacts of “high-risk” fences, as well as the
potential risk of water developments in promoting spread of West Nile virus. Existing water
developments pose little to no risk of West Nile virus transmission as the virus has not been detected
in Lake County and all existing troughs have been designed with shut-off values to minimize the
potential to create mosquito habitat. 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
(see pages 41-43 of EA).
Off-site mitigation was not deemed necessary for several reasons. First, my proposed decision will
not have negative impacts on sage-grouse or their habitat that warrants mitigation (either on-site or
off-site) (see pages 41-43 of EA). As stated earlier, my proposed decision conforms with ODFW
(2005) livestock grazing management guidelines. Finally, the ODFW’s current sage-grouse plan
(2011, page 79) “recognizes that livestock ranching operations which manage for ecologically
sustainable native rangelands are compatible with sage-grouse conservation, and necessary
management activities to maintain a sustainable ranching operation are not considered “development
actions” under the application of the Mitigation Policy to sage-grouse habitat.” As a policy matter,
ODFW does not consider issuing a grazing permit or associated range improvement maintenance to
be actions that require mitigation.
Deferring action on the permit renewal is not appropriate as the existing permits are up for renewal
and applications are before the BLM for consideration at this time. Even if permit renewal was
deferred, livestock grazing could continue on the allotments under the Appropriations Act “rider”.
RIGHT OF PROTEST 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 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 innnediate 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,
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 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.
J.T~
'
Lakeview Resource Area, Field Manager
lz.. ·-11-/i/
Date
Copies sent to:
Carrie and Lance Brown
P.O. Box 100
Silver Lake, OR 97638
Peter Lacy
Oregon Natural Desert Association
917 SW Oak Street, Suite 408
Portland, OR 97205
Mr. Paul Ruprecht
Western Watersheds Project
126 Northeast Alberta Street, Suite 208
Portland, OR 97219
Ms. Pam Hardy
Oregon Wild
16 NW Kansas Avenue
Bend, OR 97701