Cabezon Creek WSA, NM
Range Recreation Sage Grouse Strutting, Wyoming Energy Vegetation
BLM>Div. of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA>NEPA>NEPA Web Guide>Examples of DNA-Level Decisions
Print Page

Examples of DNA-Level Decisions

Last Page Update: July 29, 2010
Example 1
ARRA Culvert Replacement Project
I have reviewed this Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy DOI-BLM-OR-E050-2010-0002-DNA and have determined that the proposed action is in conformance with the approved land use plan and that no further environmental analysis is required.
The proposed action has been reviewed by Resource Area Staff and appropriate project Design Features as specified in the Upper Siuslaw Late Successional Reserve restoration plan 267 EIS and the Upper Siuslaw Landscape Plan EA which analyzed these actions will be incorporated into the proposal. Based on the Documentation of NEPA Adequacy, I have determined that the proposed action involves no significant impact to the human environment and no further analysis is required.
The Proposed Action is in conformance with the 1995 Eugene District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan.
Survey and Manage
The ARRA culvert replacement project is consistent with court orders relating to the Survey and Manage mitigation measure of the Northwest Forest Plan, as incorporated into the Eugene District Resource Management Plan.
On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Rey, et al., No. 08-1067 (W.D. Wash.) ( Coughenour, J.), granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding a variety of NEPA violations in the BLM and USFS 2007 Record of Decision eliminating the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) had invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation had entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage standard (hereinafter “Pechman exemptions”).
Judge Pechman's Order from October 11, 2006 directs: "Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will not apply to:
A. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old (emphasis added):
B. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned;
C. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and
where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and
D. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.”
Following the Court’s December 17, 2009 ruling, the Pechman exemptions are still in place. Judge Coughenour deferred issuing a remedy in his December 17, 2009 order until further proceedings, and did not enjoin the BLM from proceeding with projects. Nevertheless, I have reviewed the Project in consideration of both the December 17, 2009 and October 11, 2006 order. Because the ARRA culvert replacement project entails replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, I have made the determination that this project meets Exemption B of the Pechman Exemptions (October 11, 2006 Order), and therefore may be awarded for replacement by contract even if the District Court sets aside or otherwise enjoins use of the 2007 Survey and Manage Record of Decision since the Pechman exemptions would remain valid in such case. The first solicitation for bid will occur in May 2010.
It is my decision to implement the project, as described, with the mitigation measures identified in the DNA Worksheet.
Administrative Remedies
Any person adversely affected by this decision may appeal it to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4.
Authorized Official: /s/ ________________________
Field Manager, Siuslaw Resource Area
Date: ________



Example 2 (includes new FONSI)

Bryson Wash Fire Emergency Stabilization Treatment
FONSI: Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts contained in the attached Determination of NEPA Adequacy and as analyzed in the environmental assessment (EA-UT-060-2005-043) for the 2005 Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP), I have determined that the action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. An environmental impact statement is therefore not required.
DECISION: It is my decision to authorize the Bryson Wash Fire Emergency Stabilization Treatment as described in theDetermination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) UT-060-2006-146.
SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT: The Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab Fire District, would conduct stabilization activities on approximately 424 acres of public land in the Harley Dome area, approximately two miles north of the I-70 corridor and three miles west of the Utah/Colorado border in Grand County, Utah. The stabilization would consist of mechanical drill seeding, and would occur in the fall of 2006. Treatment would be followed by monitoring and potential re-seeding of some areas.
This decision is contingent on meeting all stipulations and monitoring requirements listed below:
1. The terms and conditions identified in the Biological Opinion for the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels apply to this treatment project.
2. The BLM will adhere to applicable Resource Protection Measures identified in the LUP Amendment throughout implementation of this project.
3. Grazing of seeded areas will be restricted for at least twelve months following seeding. Grazing will be allowed when monitoring results reflect an improved condition class and when it has been determined by resource staff that the treatment area can sustain grazing without compromising the effectiveness of treatment or contributing to invasive species spread.
RATIONALE: The decision to authorize this treatment has been made in consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The action is in conformance with the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (September, 2005), as well as the NFRP for the Moab Fire District, which authorizes Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation activities in the Moab Field Office (December, 2005). The treatment project is also consistent with the Grand County Master Plan, which encourages the restoration of damaged areas of public land (General Plan Update, page 50) as well as the revegetation of native plant communities and control of noxious weeds (page 56).
The seeding treatment is expected to stabilize soils, manage the spread of invasive species, and move the area toward Condition Class I (CC1), where fire regimes are within the natural/historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. In subsequent years, as a result of this stabilization treatment, damaged soils will be stabilized during high wind events, and will support the vegetative composition, structure, and patterns representative of a functional grassland ecosystem.
This project is not unique or unusual, and the Moab Field Office has implemented similar actions in the past. The environmental effects to the human environment were analyzed in both the NFRP and the FMP, and there are no predicted effects on the human environment that are considered to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The historic and cultural resources of the area have been inventoried and potential impacts mitigated in the design of the project. No threatened or endangered plants or animals or critical habitat are known to occur in the area.
There were no substantive public comments received during the public comment period for the NFRP. The DNA notice was posted on the BLM website on July 10, 2006.
__________________________                                                        ________________
Authorized Officer (Signature)                                                          Date of Signature
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: This wildfire management decision is issued under 43 CFR 4190.1 and is effective immediately. The BLM has made the determination that vegetation, soil, or other resources on the public lands are at substantial risk of wildfire due to drought, fuels buildup, or other reasons, or at immediate risk of erosion or other damage due to wildfire. Thus, notwithstanding the provisions of 43 CFR 4.21(a)(1), filing a notice of appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 does not automatically suspend the effect of the decision . Appeal of this decision may be made to the Interior Board of Land Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR 4.410. The Interior Board of Land Appeals must decide an appeal of this decision within 60 days after all pleadings have been filed, and within 180 days after the appeal was filed as contained in 43 CFR 4.416.