United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT	Carson City Field Office	5665 Morgan Mill Road	Carson City, NV 89701	http://www.nv.blm.gov/carson

In Reply Refer To:

(NV-032)

4130/4160

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION

INTRODUCTION

The Pinenut Allotment consists of approximately 19,379 acres of public land under the jurisdiction of the Carson City Field Office (CCFO). Current active preference for the Allotment is 1150 animal unit months with the authorized period of use as 06/01 to 08/31 and 11/01 to 11/30. The permittee runs a commercial sheep operation.

The Record of Decision for the Major Land Use Decision Summary and Environmental Impact Statement, Reno Planning Area was issued in 1982. These documents established the multiple use goals and objectives which guide management of the public lands contained in the Pinenut Allotment. The Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) for the Reno Planning Area was issued in 1984, which further identified the allotment specific objectives for the Pinenut Allotment.

The CCFO established the 2001 Consolidated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) which incorporates decisions from eight major field office planning documents and five amendments to these plans.

As identified in the Rangeland Program Summary, monitoring was established on the Allotment to determine if existing multiple uses were consistent with attainment of the objectives established by the Resource Management Plans. Monitoring data has been collected and this data has been analyzed, through a standards and guidelines assessment to determine progress in meeting multiple use objectives and determine if changes in existing management are required in order to meet specific objectives for the Allotment.

BACKGROUND

A Standards and Guidelines Assessment was conducted on the Allotment in order to document current conditions and determine if the Allotment is currently achieving applicable Rangeland Health Standards and conforming to the applicable Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

As a result of this determination, it was found that for the Pinenut Allotment, Standard 1 (Soils) was not being met and livestock grazing practices were a significant factor; Standard 2 (Riparian/Wetlands) was not meeting the standard and livestock grazing practices were a significant factor; Standard 3 (Water Quality) was being met and there were no visual signs indicating that water quality may be impaired; Standard 4 (Plant and Animal Habitat) was not being met but the cause was still being determined; and (Special Species Habitat) was not being met and livestock grazing practices were a significant factor.

PROTEST

A Notice of Proposed Decision was issued on July 18, 2006. A protest was received from Western Watersheds Project (WWP). Many of the protest points were addressed in the allotment evaluation and subsequent Environmental Assessment. Other protest points were outside the scope of this analysis and subsequent decision. Further information concerning pertinent protest points follows.

Protest Point – We protest BLM’s failure to maintain the same period and level of grazing within the allotment, despite the fact that Standard 1 (soils) and 2 (riparian/wetland) were not being met, and that livestock grazing practices were considered to be a significant factor. Livestock grazing was also a significant factor in reducing the quality of special status species habitat. When these important standards are not being met, it is essential that BLM address the root of the problem. In this case, BLM has failed to do so.

If the BLM were to have maintained the same periods of use it would have resulted in the continuation of the impacts to the soil and riparian/wetlands. The change in the amount of time allowed under schedule 3 during the summer use period is now in balance with that of schedule 2. Rather than allowing three months of authorized grazing under schedule 3, only a month and one half is allowed for both schedules 2 and 3. By making this adjustment, progress should be made towards lowering the overall levels of use. By reducing use levels, the health of the vegetation, impacts to the soils, and impacts to the riparian/wetland areas should be lessened. This adjustment should lessen the effect of hoof action on the soils. Less compaction should occur. As shown in the mitigating measures of the environmental assessment, the meadow complex located in the Winters mine Pasture will be monitored closely, maintaining a light level of use. At the key area, utilization of key species has been set at a maximum of 45%

Protest Point – We protest BLM’s failure to acquire adequate ESA consultation with the USFWS over livestock grazing on these allotment and in these watersheds. The EA fails to take an integrated, watershed-level approach to ESA species habitat.

There are no listed species, only Nevada BLM Sensitive Species, present in the Allotment. For this reason, it was not necessary to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Protest Point – We protest BLM’s failure to establish a schedule that clearly defines rest and rotation over a series of years. This is necessary for orderly management of public lands.

On page 3 of the Environmental Assessment (EA-NV-030-06-024), the three pasture rest-rotation system is outlined for the Pinenut Allotment. It displays the time of year that each pasture will be utilized over one cycle (six year period).

Protest Point – We protest BLM’s failure to provide livestock grazing carrying capacity, suitability and/or production analysis across the allotments.

The livestock grazing carrying capacity is identified as 1150 AUM’s. This is based upon information that was gathered during the adjudication period for all allotments under the jurisdiction of the Carson City Field Office, and has been confirmed by periodic monitoring on the allotment.

Protest Point – We protest BLM/s assertion that historical sites will not be damaged because sheep grazing “generally” occurs away from these sources. BLM must specify how it is so certain that these historic sites are out of harms way. What methods does BLM employ to accurately track and monitor the location of sheep while they are grazing this allotment?

Points of cultural interest were visited by a BLM archaeologist, and a review of the reports on areas previously inventoried on other land in or near the allotment has shown that livestock grazing was not a significant impact to historic properties. Therefore, relative to cultural resources, there exists no need to alter the proposed action in order to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

Protest Point – We protest BLM’s failure to adequately assess the impact of livestock on the wild horse population in the area. Fences built up to support livestock activity fragment horse habitat and restrict their freedom of movement, while the horses themselves are disturbed moving through their environment, sheep dogs, and any human presence. Any competition for forage between horses and livestock can be especially critical in times of extreme drought.

As noted in the Environmental Assessment, the Land Use Plan identified this area as Horse Free.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI):

Based on the analysis of Environmental Assessment (EA) NV-030-06-024, dated June 2006, I have determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be prepared. I have determined that the proposed action is in conformance with the approved land use plan.

FINAL DECISION

After careful consideration of the statement of reason included in the protest, information received through consultation, communication and coordination with interested publics, and other information pertinent to the matters addressed in this decision, it is my Final Decision to implement the Proposed Action as described in Environmental Assessment (EA) NV-030-06-024 for authorization of livestock grazing use on the Pinenut Allotment. Implementation of the Proposed Action will authorize (1) A new term grazing permit for grazing use on the Allotment, and: (2) Modify the existing operation.

From:

Pasture	Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

Mt. Como 06/01 -07/15 06/01 -07/15	REST REST	06/01 - 08/31 06/01 - 08/31

11/01 - 11/30 11/01 - 11/30

Slaters 06/01 - 08/31 06/01 - 08/31 06/01 - 07/15 06/01 to 07/15 REST	REST

11/01- 11/30 11/01 - 11/30

Winters REST	REST 06/01 - 08/31 06/01 to 08/31 06/01 - 07/15 06/01 - 07/15

11/01- 11/30 11/01- 11/30

After one cycle, the operation repeats itself. Sheep grazing occurs from 06/01 to 08/31 and 11/01 to 11/30. A total of 1150 AUMs are available.

To:

Pasture	Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

Mt. Como 06/01 -07/15 06/01 -07/15	REST REST	07/16 - 08/31 07/16 - 08/31

11/01 - 11/30 11/01 - 11/30

Slaters 07/16 - 08/31 07/16 - 08/31 06/01 - 07/15 06/01 to 07/15 REST	REST

11/01- 11/30 11/01 - 11/30

Winters REST	REST 07/16 - 08/31 07/16 to 08/31 06/01 - 07/15 06/01 - 07/15

11/01- 11/30 11/01- 11/30

After one cycle, the operation repeats itself. Sheep grazing occurs from 06/01 to 08/31 and 11/01 to 11/30. A total of 1150 AUMs are available

RATIONALE

The Proposed Action for the Allotment should meet or make significant progress towards meeting resource objectives. The change in the amount of time allowed under schedule 3 during the summer use period is now in balance with that of schedule 2. Rather than allowing three months of authorized grazing under schedule 3, only a month and one half is allowed for both schedules 2 and 3. By making this adjustment, progress should be made towards lowering overall levels of use. Additionally, setting the allowable use level for key species at the key area at 45% will also make progress towards meeting Standards. By evening out use levels, the health of the vegetation, impacts to the soil and impacts to the riparian/wetland areas should be lessened. These actions will also make progress towards meeting Special Status Species Habitat. The exclosure would be put into the schedule for maintenance. The population of wild horses would be monitored closely. As the population expands outside of the Pinenut Herd Management Area, removals should be forthcoming.

AUTHORITY

The following citations are taken from 43 CFR, Subpart 4100:

{§4100.0-8} states that “The authorized officer shall manage livestock grazing on public lands under the principle of multiple use and sustained yield, and in accordance with applicable land use plans. Lands use plans shall establish allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination), related levels of production or use to be maintained, areas of use, and resource condition goals and objectives to be obtained. The plans also set forth program constraints and general management practices needed to achieve management objectives. Livestock grazing activities and management actions approved by the authorized officer shall be in conformance with the land use plan as defined at 43 CFR §1601.0-5(b).”

{§4110.3} states that “The authorized officer shall periodically review the permitted use specified in a grazing permit or lease and shall make changes in the permitted use as needed to manage, maintain or improve rangeland productivity, to assist in restoring ecosystems to properly functioning condition, to conform with land use plans or activity plans, or to comply with the provisions of subpart §4180 or this part. These changes must be supported by monitoring, field observations, ecological site inventory or other data acceptable to the authorized officer.”

{§4130.3} states that “Livestock grazing permits and leases shall contain terms and conditions determined by the authorized officer to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives for the public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and to ensure conformance with the provisions of subpart §4180 of this part.”

{§4130.3-1(a) states that “The authorized officer shall specify the kind and number of livestock, the period(s) of use, the allotment(s) to be used, and the amount of use, in animal unit months, for every grazing permit or lease. The authorized livestock grazing use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the allotment.”

{§4130.3-1(b) states that “All permits or leases shall be made subject to cancellation, suspension, or modification for any violation of these regulations or of any term or condition of the permit or lease.”

{§4130.3-1(c) states that “Permits and leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that ensure conformance with subpart §4180 of this part.”

RIGHT OF APPEAL

In accordance with 43 CFR §§4.470, 4260.3(c), and 4160.4, any person whose interest is adversely affected by a final decision of the authorized officer may appeal the decision for the purpose of a hearing before an administrative law judge. The appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date the proposed decision becomes final or 30 days after receipt of the final decision. In accordance with 43 CFR §4.470, the appeal shall state clearly and concisely the reason(s) why the appellant thinks the final decision of the authorized officer is wrong.

Pursuant to 43 CFR §§4.471 and 4160.3(c), an appellant also may petition for a stay of the final decision pending appeal by filing a petition for stay along with the appeal within 30 days after receipt of the final decision.

The appeal and any petition for stay must be filed at the office of the authorized officer, Assistant Manager, Renewable Resources, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Carson City Field Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, Nevada 89701. Within 15 days of filing the appeal and any petition for stay, the appellant also must serve a copy of the appeal and any petition for stay on any person named in the decision and listed at the end of the decision, and on the Office of the Solicitor, Regional Solicitor, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712, Sacramento, California 95825-1890.

Pursuant to 43 CFR §4.471(c), a petition for stay, if filed, must show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied.

The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits.

The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and,

Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

43 CFR §4.471(d) provides that the appellant requesting a stay bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.

Any person named in the decision from which an appeal is taken (other than the appellant) who wished to file a response to the petition for a stay may file with the Hearings Division in Salt Lake City, Utah, a motion to intervene in the appeal, together with the response, within 10 days after receiving the petition. Within 15 days after filing the motion to intervene and response, the person must serve copies on the appellant, the Office of the Solicitor and any other person named in the decision (43 CFR §4.472(b)).

At the conclusion of any document that a party must serve, the party or it’s representative must sign a written statement certifying that service has been or will be made in accordance with the applicable rules and specifying the date and manner of such service (43 CFR §4.422(c)(2)).

____________________________________________	__________________

Elayn Briggs	Date

Assistant Manager, Renewable Resources

Carson City Field Office

Cc (by certified mail):

Western Watersheds Project	7003 0500 0000 3565 6020

P.O. Box 2863

Boise, Idaho 83701

Borda Land and Sheep	7003 0500 0000 3565 6037

1432 Ezell Street

Gardnerville, Nevada 89410

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California	7003 0500 0000 3565 6044

A Brian Wallace, Chair

919 U.S. Highway 395 South

Gardnerville, Nevada 89410

Bently Family Limited Partnership	7003 0500 0000 3565 6051

ATTN: Matt McKinney

P.O. Box 127

Minden, Nevada 89423

Nevada State Clearinghouse	Electronically Delivered

209 East Musser Street, Room 200

Carson City, Nevada 89701

Yerington Paiute Tribe	7003 0500 0000 3565 6068

Wayne Garcia, Chair

171 Campbell Lane

Yerington, Nevada 89447