T16S R18E S8 Resolution NEPA register number DOI‐BLM‐ORWA‐P000‐2017‐0046‐EA U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District 3050 NE Third Street, Prineville OR 97754 https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl‐front‐office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do May 2018 The BLM is requesting written comments on this environmental assessment (EA), due in writing at the Prineville District office by June 25, 2018. Address your letter to Jeff Kitchens, with T16S R18E S8 Resolution on the envelope or in the subject line, and send or deliver to the street address above, email [email protected] or FAX 541‐416‐6798. Please make your comments as specific as possible: Identify a different way to meet the purpose of the project. Provide new information about the alternatives or the analysis. Point out a specific flaw in the analysis. Suggest alternate methodologies and the reason(s) why they should be used. Make factual corrections. Identify a different source of credible research, which, if used in the analysis, could result in different effects. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should 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. If you have questions, contact the Prineville District Office at the above email address or phone 541‐416‐6700. Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4 Location and background ................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose and need ............................................................................................................................ 4 Decision to be made ........................................................................................................................ 5 Scoping and issues ........................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 9 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 9 Alternatives considered in detail ...................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 2 – Disposal of one acre of public land ............................................................................................ 10 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action, Disposal of 17 acres of public land ................................................................ 12 Alternative 4 – Retain public land in public ownership and issue a non‐renewable non‐transferrable 30‐year occupancy lease ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Alternative 5 – Retain public land in public ownership and require removal of structures and some underground improvements .............................................................................................................................. 14 Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail ......................................................................... 15 Other ongoing and future actions .................................................................................................. 15 Conformance of alternatives with policy ........................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ............................................... 21 Issue: How would the access road, house, and other structures affect visual resources? ................ 21 Affected environment ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Assumptions and methodology ......................................................................................................................... 21 Effects................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Issue: What effect would the alternatives have on mule deer and elk? .......................................... 25 Affected environment ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Assumptions and methodology ......................................................................................................................... 26 Effects................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Issue: What effect would this project have on nesting Golden Eagles? ........................................... 32 Affected environment ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Assumptions and methodology ......................................................................................................................... 32 Effects................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 4 Public and other involvement ............................................................................. 37 Page 2 of 50 Tribes, agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted ............................................................. 37 List of preparers ............................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix A – Wildlife in the project area ............................................................................... 39 Appendix B – Design features ................................................................................................ 42 Appendix C – References cited in EA or used in analysis ......................................................... 44 Appendix D – Timeline ........................................................................................................... 46 Page 3 of 50 Chapter 1 Introduction Location and background In 2008, a private citizen contacted the Prineville District BLM regarding a house and associated structures that appeared to be inadvertently located on public land next to private land he and another individual were purchasing about 20 miles southeast of Prineville within the southeast ¼ of the northwest ¼ of Section 8, Township 16 South, Range 18 East (SW¼ NW¼ sec. 8, T. 16 S., R. 18 E.). The private citizen (hereafter called Landowner A) said his purchase of the private land included the referenced house and associated structures as part of the sale. In July 2008 the BLM completed a cadastral survey of the property and verified the house was indeed on public land. The BLM began working to resolve the trespass and complete several administrative processes later that year. Appendix D summarizes the history of the case, including all relevant and key facts from 1988 to today. In addition to the house, the BLM discovered that associated unauthorized structures on public land also included an irrigated lawn, graveled parking, septic tank and drain field, windmill, solar panels, barn and corrals, fencing, several small sheds/greenhouses, dryland pasture, buried utility lines (telephone, power, water), and a 500‐foot long motor‐vehicle route between the house and a route to the north. The trespass also included use of an existing BLM route for access from the highway to the house, of which about one mile crosses public land. Details on the extent of each unauthorized structure, and the use of the existing access route, are provided in the Alternatives section of this EA (Chapter 2). Purpose and need The project is needed to resolve the non‐willful trespass and minimize impacts to public resources. The purpose comes from the 1989 Brothers La Pine Resource Management Plan (RMP) which states one of the purposes of the Prineville District’s Lands Program is trespass abatement (RMP page 29). The Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR § 2808.10 provide, “(a) Trespass is using, occupying, or developing the public lands or their resources without a required authorization or in a way that is beyond the