Hammond Ranches Inc. (HRI) filed a partial protest to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Jan. 30 Proposed Decision and accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Bridge Creek Area Allotment Management Plan near Steens Mountain in southeastern Oregon.
The Feb. 20 protest, filed by HRI legal counsel W. Alan Schroeder and provided to WLJ, makes clear that HRI does not oppose the agency’s selection of Alternative 2, but objects to specific boundary adjustments and range improvement provisions.
Boundary adjustments
A primary focus of HRI’s protest involves allotment and pasture boundary corrections across the Hammond FFR, Hammond, Mud Creek and Hardie Summer allotments. The ranch argues that while the Proposed Decision acknowledges some mapping inaccuracies, it fails to fully correct long-standing discrepancies between maps and on-the-ground fence and pasture locations.
For example, HRI supports BLM’s proposal to move certain pastures—such as Knox Pond, Baca Lake and Kern Reservoir—from the Hammond Allotment into the Hammond FFR Allotment, and to remove Dust Bowl #1 from any BLM allotment due to minimal federal acreage. However, it contends additional adjustments are necessary, including the incorporation of the Olson Acquisition Pasture into what it proposes could be a reconfigured “Hammond-Hardie FFR Allotment.”
The protest also challenges how the Mud Creek Allotment boundary is depicted in Map B of the Proposed Decision, arguing the northwestern boundary of the Lower Field Pasture is inaccurately shown south of Bridge Creek when the actual boundary lies on the north side of the canyon rim. HRI further notes that nearly all of the Mud Creek Allotment lies within the Bridge Creek Wilderness Study Area, contending that previous agency descriptions understated that extent.
The protest states BLM should give full consideration to the significant private land, water rights and related infrastructure within the Bridge Creek Area that are owned or controlled by HRI. While the agency acknowledges the presence of private land, HRI argues the FEIS fails to recognize that much of the private property, associated water rights and certain public land range improvements are owned, controlled or assigned to HRI—an omission the ranch contends materially limits the range of reasonable grazing alternatives and undermines the decision-making process.
HRI also urges BLM to more thoroughly consider a proposed land exchange involving private lands in the Hardie Summer Allotment and the Mud Creek Pasture of the Hammond FFR Allotment in exchange for certain BLM-administered lands in other pastures. HRI urges BLM to “clean up these problems now” in the final decision, asserting that boundary ambiguities have persisted for nearly 12 years and materially affect grazing administration.
Range improvements and maintenance
In addition to boundary issues, HRI protests provisions in the Proposed Decision regarding fence construction, relocation and maintenance responsibilities. The decision requires permittees to maintain developments unless documented as a BLM responsibility and to sign an Assignment of Range Improvements form prior to permit issuance.
HRI argues it already holds assignment rights to many public land range improvements and that the 2014 permit denial did not extinguish those interests. The ranch maintains it should only be responsible for improvements it was previously assigned and contends BLM should bear responsibility for reconstruction where infrastructure has deteriorated during the 12-year period of largely ungrazed conditions.
Specifically, HRI said that BLM’s delay in renewing the grazing permit since 2014 has allowed pipelines, troughs and other developments to fall into disrepair, shifting maintenance needs into reconstruction. It argues that such deterioration should not be attributed to the ranch.
Despite its objections, HRI reiterates that it supports selection and implementation of Alternative 2, which BLM determined best meets the purpose and need of the project. However, the ranch maintains that final boundary corrections, allocation of forage consistent with its 2020 application, and clarification of range improvement responsibilities must be resolved before issuance of a final Record of Decision. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
