![](media/image1.png){width="1.0in"
height="1.0in"}![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.0in"
height="1.0125984251968505in"}

**FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)**

**For**

**Environmental Assessment No. OR-030-006-007**

**North Fork Malheur GMA**

The types of impacts to the human environment expected from the
implementation of Preferred Alternative II of EA No. OR-030-06-007 (EA)
were anticipated and declared within the analysis of the Southeast
Oregon Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
(SEORMP/EIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD) of September 2002. The
site specific impacts described in the EA are no greater than those
anticipated in the EIS. The EA specifically tiers to, and incorporates
by reference, the analysis in the SEORMP/EIS, in accordance with CEQ
regulations Sec. 1502.20 and 1502.21. To the extent there are impacts
beyond those described in the SEORMP/EIS, they are not significant. The
EA also incorporates the Summaries and Determinations (Appendix C in the
EA) that were completed in 2003 and 2004 for the North Fork Malheur
Geographic Management Area, which provide the foundation (existing
environment) for management alternatives analyzed.

The preferred alternative allows BLM to strike a balance between natural
values and commodity uses in a manner consistent with the principles of
"multiple use" and applicable law. Specific resource objectives are
identified in the SEORMP ROD (2002). Where appropriate, these ROD
objectives are repeated through the impact analysis section of the EA
along with indications of how these objectives will be met. For the
Preferred Alternative (Alternative II), these ROD objectives, as well as
more specific objectives identified in the EA, will be achieved through
a variety of livestock management actions, mitigation measures,
projects, and land treatments without creating any significant impacts.

The EA thoroughly analyzes the impacts of a range of alternatives
developed through scoping and it clearly indicates that the preferred
alternative, with specific mitigation measures identified, will not
significantly affect the human environment. Specific mitigation
measures, described in Section 7 of the EA, will ensure that resource
values are protected through avoidance, by reducing impact to a level
that is not significant, by rectifying disturbance through
rehabilitation actions, or by compensating for the impact by
replacement. Mitigation is applied to proposed actions to minimize or
avoid impacts, even though the action(s), without mitigation, may not
rise to the level of "significant," as defined in 40 CFR 1508.

To make this finding of no significant impact (FONSI), BLM is required
to consider the "context" (or scope), as well as the "intensity" of
impacts. The "context" of the analysis is stepped down from the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) Science Findings
(broad scale, regional analysis covering eastern Oregon, southern Idaho,
northern Nevada, northern Utah, and western Montana), through the
SEORMP/EIS (mid scale analysis addressing land use, covering the whole
of Malheur County and a portion of Harney County) and ending with the
NFMGMA Summaries and Determinations and Plan/EA (fine scale, local level
planning with analysis at the activity and project level). The preferred
alternative, as described, will have little if any effect on the human
environment at the national level or beyond. The physical effects of
projects will be minuscule and largely unnoticeable even at the local
level. None of the actions contemplated are irreversible and the only
irretrievable commitments are in the funding and associated materials
necessary to put projects in place. The short-term benefits of the new
grazing systems will be immediately noticeable to only those with a
trained eye and knowledge of the capability and potential of these
ecological systems. The long-term effect of the preferred alternative
should be a steady, measurable improvement of local ecological systems
that will be noticed by most observers familiar with lands in the
NFMGMA.

The "intensity" of impacts, beneficial and adverse, is thoroughly
described in the Environmental Impacts section of the EA. Intensity is a
component of "significance" and is determined by applying ten criteria
(see CEQ regulations Sec. 1508.27). In review of these criteria,
relative to the preferred alternative II, I have found:

*Beneficial and adverse effects.* Though on balance the cumulative
effects are positive, there will be no significant effects (positive or
negative) relative to the CEQ definition. Rangeland and watershed
health, ecological functions, productivity, upland wildlife habitat, and
riparian habitat will be protected and improved by the combined benefits
of the proposed actions. Cultural resources and special status species
will be protected. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Wild and Scenic
Rivers (WSRs), will be protected and enhanced. Outstanding opportunities
for primitive and unconfined recreation will remain, and naturalness
will be enhanced. Impacts to the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs) will not affect the relevant and important values. Grazing
operations will be more costly to operate, but will remain sustainable.

*Public health or safety.* There will be no significant effects on
public health or safety. The non-structural projects, such as juniper,
aspen, mountain mahogany and sagebrush treatments will impact a major
part of the NFMGMA (65% of the total land area), and will improve
ecological function and productivity. Any effects associated with these
treatments through burning or mechanical means, by way of emissions of
smoke or dust, will be short lived and within the parameters of natural
occurrences. The area is very remote, and so the chances of affecting
members of the general public in any measurable way will also be remote.
Herbicide use is not an option for these mechanical treatments at this
time, and will require additional site specific NEPA analysis, as
pointed out in the EA. Since it is not a viable option, it is not
considered further. The structural projects involved and execution of
the new grazing systems will not significantly affect public health and
safety. Any threats will be localized, limited to those involved with
construction and maintenance activities, and within accepted norms for
such work.

*Unique areas.* There are some unique, specially managed areas within
the NFMGMA including WSAs, WSR, and ACECs; however, they will not be
significantly affected. Any negative impacts in WSAs, from the project
work proposed, are offset by the cumulative benefits to ecosystem health
and function which will contribute directly to enhanced naturalness.
Opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude will not be
diminished. Implementation of the preferred alternative with the
mitigation described in Section 7 of the EA, including careful selection
of construction materials and vegetation treatment methods, and
judicious placement to maximize vegetative and topographic screening,
will adequately protect and enhance both WSA and WSR values. Fences can
be removed and the physical impacts associated will be temporary in
nature. Grazing systems with the supporting spring redevelopment
projects and fences will allow for improved health of riparian systems
and maintain health and function of uplands. The relevant and important
values of the ACECs will not be affected by the proposed actions and are
adequately protected by restrictions to development and use put in place
under the SEORMP ROD.

[]{.mark}

*Highly Controversial Effects.* The new grazing systems will place new
burdens on the affected ranchers, as livestock will be moved more often.
The cost of project construction will be partially borne by the
permittees and the maintenance responsibility will be totally borne by
them. These new costs will be added to the operational costs they
already bear and will certainly have negative impacts on their profits.
Nevertheless, the grazing operations will remain sustainable, and
rangeland health and productivity will be protected and enhanced.
Similar measures have been successfully initiated by voluntary agreement
with permittees here (as under the interim grazing measures initiated in
accordance with 43 CFR 4180 in the spring of 2003) and elsewhere on the
Vale District. Therefore, they should not be considered overly
controversial. Any effects on the human environment which are related to
"land use" allocation issues were addressed and decided in the
SEORMP/EIS and the subsequent ROD, and are outside the scope of this EA.

*Unique or unknown risks.* There are no unique or unknown risks
associated with the implementation of the preferred alternative. The
SEORMP/EIS and this EA cover the anticipated impacts thoroughly. They
rely on applicable scientific findings, monitoring, rangeland health
assessments, published studies, professional contacts, and stated
mitigation measures to address and/or preclude impacts.

*Precedent for future actions.* There are no precedents, relative to
future actions with significant effects, which will be established. The
specific actions involved in the preferred alternative have all been
done before, separately and collectively, in the course of management of
public lands over the past 50 years. There are no irreversible
commitments of resources involved with the preferred alternative. The
structural projects involved could be eliminated and the physical
disturbance rehabilitated. The non-structural projects (i.e. aspen,
mountain mahogany, sagebrush and juniper treatments) will naturally
change over time as aspen, mountain mahogany, sagebrush and junipers
seed back into the treated areas, as in the past. The aspen, mountain
mahogany, sagebrush and juniper treatment processes will emulate natural
vegetation removal through wildfire.

*Cumulative Effects.* The impacts of proposed actions have been analyzed
and considered, separately and cumulatively, at multiple scales of
analysis by considering ICBEMP science findings, SEORMP/EIS, and this
EA. Impacts are either not significant, are mitigated below
significance, or were declared and addressed in the SEORMP/EIS. The
cumulative effect of implementation of the preferred alternative is also
not significant and is within the scope of the cumulative effects
analysis disclosed in the SEORMP/EIS, which this EA specifically
incorporates by reference.

*Impacts to significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.*
Cultural resources (historic and prehistoric) are protected by
mitigation measures that require avoidance based on surveys completed
prior to any surface disturbance. Fencing of riparian areas and
exclusion of grazing from these areas will protect cultural material
where present. General grazing impacts on uplands are dispersed and do
not pose a significant risk to cultural sites. Materials on the surface
may be spatially rearranged, by various forces (natural and introduced),
but the diagnostic value of subsurface materials is not significantly
affected by dispersed grazing impacts.

[]{.mark}

*Federally listed endangered or threatened species.* Federally listed
species in NFMGMA include the northern bald eagle and bull trout. The
northern bald eagle is winter resident only and will not be affected by
the proposed actions. Bull trout are listed as a Threatened species and
occur in the NFMGMA. The proposed livestock management, which implements
a timing and duration of livestock use that is appropriate for riparian
areas, is in compliance with the Terms and Conditions set forth by USFWS
in their 2000 Biological Opinion governing grazing actions in NFMGMA.
For special status species, additional mitigation measures, such as
inventory and avoidance of special status plants and surveys prior to
land treatment in potential pygmy rabbit habitat, provide an extra
measure of protection and conformance with Oregon/Washington special
status species policy. Greater sage-grouse habitats will be
substantially protected as a result of livestock utilization limits,
limited project development, specific mitigation measures associated
with projects, and improvement and maintenance of riparian and upland
systems through vegetation treatments.

*Compliance with Federal, State, or local law.* The preferred
alternative is in compliance with federal, state, and local law and
requirements relative to environmental protection. Further, it is in
conformance with the SEORMP/EIS and ROD.

Therefore, based upon my review and for the foregoing reasons, no
Environmental Impact Statement is required.

Authorized Officer Date