Environmental Assessment
for the
Release of Elk into the Jarbidge Mountains
Elko County, Nevada
November 1989
Responsible Agencies: USDA, Forest Service Humboldt National Forest 976 Mountain City Highway Elko, Nevada 89801
USDI, Bureau of Land Management Elko District Office P.O. Box 831 Elko, Nevada 89801
Responsible Officials: John Inman. Forest Supervisor Humboldt National Fo~est
Rodney Harris Elko District Manager Bureau of Land Management
For Further Information Contact: Roderick Howard Jarbidge District Ranger Humboldt National Forest 1008 Burley Ave. Buhl ID 83316 (208) 543-4129
Abstract
This Environmental Assessment describes and evaluates alternatives regarding the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) proposal to release elk into the Jarbidge Mountains. The assessment considers the suitability of the release in relation to existing laws, regulations, and land and resource management plans. The issues. concerns, and opportunities developed through the public scoping process are addressed as they relate to the proposed reestablishment of elk in the Jarbidge Mountains. This document includes assessment of mitigation of impacts that may result from a reestablished elk population.
1 I. INTRODUCTION
A. Present Situation, Purpose, and Need for Action:
The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has submitted to the Humboldt National Forest and the Elko District of the Bureau of Land Management a proposal to reestablish. elk (Cervus elaphus) into the Jarbidge Mountains of northeastern Nevada for the purpose of establishing a resident elk herd therein. The Nevada Department of Wildlife proposes to release 30-50 elk in the East Fork of the Jarbidge River drainage and 30-50 elk in the O'Neil Basin with the intent of establishing an initial population of 250-300 elk in an identified management area of approximately 250,000 acres (see map). All of this management area is historic elk habitat. The initial release date would be during the winter of 1989-1990. Elk reestablishment would provide both consumptive and non-consumptive use to sportsmen and recreationists in Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have approved land and resource management plans which allow for the reintroduction of elk into habitats suitable and capable of supporting them, with the proviso that conflicts with other resources be resolved and/or appropriate evaluation and analysis be conducted. These documents are the Jarbidge Resource Management Plan, p. II-58, Record of D~cision dated March 23, 1987; the Wells' Resource
Management Plan, pp. 10,19 h 20, Record of Decision dated July 16, 1985; the Elko Resource Management Plan, pp. 3,30, Decision Summary dated March 11, 1987; and the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, pp. IV-5 and IV-73, as approved August 19, 1986. This proposed elk transplant is consistent with direction in these plans.
One of the issues raised during scoping was the question if elk are native to the Jarbidge Mountains. This question has significance because ,of the proximity of the Jarbi'dge Wilderness and Forest Service policy not to introduce new species into wilderness areas. Wildlife species that were indigenous to wilderness areas can be reintroduced. Elk are prehistoric. historic, and present inhabitants of the 'Jarbidge Mountains, see "maps on pages 22-24. Archaeological records document that elk occurred in northeastern Nevada in:
1. The Ruby Mountains (Tuohy, Donald R.. "Report to the Forest Supervisor's Office, USDA and to the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution on Archaeologic Research on Public Lands in Wells Ranger District of the Humboldt NAtional Forest. 1972. Nevada State Museum, Carson City, Nevada. 182+ pp.).
2. The Independence Mountains near Carlin at the James Creek Shelter (Robert Elston. Intermountain Research. 1984. "Proposed Data Recovery Activities at the James Creek Shelter «26EU843), Eureka County, Nevada, A Mitigation Proposal Submitted to Carlin Gold Mining Company". Intermountain Research, Drawer A, Silver City, Nevada 89432).
4. Elko at the South Fork Shelter. (Heizer, R.F., M.A. Baumhoff, & C.W. Clewlow Jr. 1968. Archaeology of the South Fork Shelter (NV-EL-ll) Elko County, Nevada. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, Mo. 71:1-58.)
5. The Cassia Mountains 40 miles east of the Jarbidge Mountains. Pictographs there clearly portray elk.
2
------6. The Deer Creek Cave on the northern Jarbidge Mountain foothills where a fragment of antler belonging to either deer or: elk dating to 3000 BPD was found. (Shutler, R. and M.E. Shutler. 1963. Deer Creek Cave. Elko County. Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers. No. 11. Carson City,
Historical records indicate that elk have occured in and around the Jarbidge Mountains.
1. The Elko Shoshoni word for elk is, "padahuya". Had there been no elk in their homeland. they would not likely have had such a word. (Rufus Wood Leigh. Nevada Place Names, Their Origin and Significance. 1964. p. 42.)
2. The Gosiute indian phrase for elk is, "parra hi". Had there been no elk in their homeland, which lay east of the Elko Shoshoni, they would not likely have had such a phrase. (Rufus Wood Leigh. Nevada Place Names, Their Origin and Significance. 1964. p. 42.)
3. Trapper Zena Leonard saw, " ...deer, elk, bear, and beaver plenty.", in the Raft River Valley 100 miles east of the Jarbidge Mountains in 1834 (Fletcher. F.N. Early Nevada -- the Period of Exploration 1776-1848. 1980. Univ. of Nevada Press. 195 pp. p. 89).
4. In 1849 Washington Irving wrote, "The country lying to the southwest of the mountains [around the Great Salt Lake] and ranging clear down to California, was as yet unknown... Still, it was said the deer, the elk. and the big horn were to be found there ... " (Washington Irving. Bonneville's Adventures - revised edition. 1849. p. 61.)
5. Capt. J .H. Simpson in 1859 wrote, "An elk. was seen yesterday in Stevenson's Canon. and one to-day in Red Canon... " These sightings were on the northern end of the Snake Range east of Ely 180 miles southeast of the Jarbidge Mountains. (Capt. J .H. Simpson. Report of Explorations Across the Great Basin of the Territory of Utah for a Direct Wagon-Route from Camp Floyd to Genoa, in Carson Valley in 1859". 1983. Univ. of Nevada Press, Reno NV. 518 pp. p. 121.)
6. An early fur trapper saw elk on the plain near Mountain Home, Idaho (Ross 1855. Vol. 11:93-93)
7. The town and county name, "£Iko" is based on there being, "large droves of elk". in the East Humboldt and Ruby Mountains in 1868 when Elko was the end-of-construction station for the Central Pacific Railroad. These elk were hunted to provide meat for the railroad construction crews. (Rufus Wood Leigh. Nevada Place Names, Their Origin and Significance. 1964. pp. 42-43.)
8. Elk were extirpated from the Goose Creek mountains fifty miles east of the Jarbidge Mountains in the 1880's. (Walgamott, C.S.. 1936. Six Decades Back. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. 358 pp. p. 35.)
9. McConnell states, "During the period of first settlement big game was reported to be plentiful in what is now the Cassia Division [50 miles east of the Jarbidge Mountains] elk were present ... " (Burt R. McConnell. "A Productivity Study of Mule Deer on the Cassia Division of the Sawtooth National Forest". 1957. M.S. Thesis University of Idaho. 75 pp., p. 12))
3 10. F.H. Winter wrote that in 1891 near the present town of Jarbidge he and a small group of prospectors, " ...climbed high peaks, hunted, fished the streams; saw bear, cougar, mountain sheep and deer in abundance. There were a lot of elk tracks. It (H. Hickson. "Letters from·- Jarbidge". in- Northeastern Nevada Historical Society Quarterly. Spring, 1978 [78-2]. p.49).
11. "Elk were seldom found on the arid plains but roamed largely in and near the mountain ranges being recorded in and near the Bruneau and Elk I-lountains." (Murie, A. 1951. The Elk of North America. The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, PA. 376 pp. p. 24).
12. Field notes written by A. K. Fisher report seven elk in the Bruneau Mountains near Mountain City in 1898 (Murie. Ibid. p.32)
13. Dr. C. Hart Merriam's field diaries record elk having inhabited, " ...the pine areas of the mountains above Charleston." (Murie, Ibid.)
14. Q. David ffansen, District Ranger on the Jarbidge Ranger District in the 1930's, reported that a prospector named Bill Austin killed an elk prior to the 1930's near Sugar Loaf, east of Jackpot, Nevada.
15. 15-20 elk were seen near Elk Mountain in the late 1930's.(La Dell Handy, personal communication through John Erickson).
16. Jack Wilcox, District Ranger on the Jarbidge Ranger District during the 1950' s found shed elk antlers on Biroth Ridge and elk tracks and droppings near God's Pocket Peak' (personal communication through Mike Wickersham).
17. In the spring of 1959, twenty-two elk were seen' at the head of Canyon Creek by Joe Baranaga (ibid.).
18. In the fall of .1959 State t+apper Harry Elliot saw a bull elk in the head of Caudle Creek.
19. Ex-District Ranger Tom Ramsey reports that seven elk were killed on the Jarbidge Ranger District in the 1970' s (personal communication through Don Oman) .
20. The Jarbidge mountains are shown to be inhabited by elk in a 1978 distribution map. (Wildlife Management Institute. 1978. Big Game of North America. Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg PA17105. 494 pp. p. 13.)
21. The Jarbidge Mountains are mapped as well within the historic range of the Nelson subspecies of elk (E. Raymond Hall. The Mammals of North America. 1981. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY NY. 1181 pp: p. 1085-1087).
22. The Jarbidge Mountains are shown to be inhabited by elk prehistorically and as of 1982 in the authoritative book Elk of North America: Ecology and Management.. (Wildlife Management Institute. 1982. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg PA 17105. pp. 24-25).
4 23. The interdisciplinary team analyzing this proposal asked Dr. Dale Toweil, co-author of Elk of North America: Ecology and Management, whether elk were native to the Jarbidge Mountains. His answer was, ..... an unequivocal 'yes.' Patterns of distribution, archaeological evidence, and pioneer diaries all support the view that the Rock Mount8i.n subsp-ecies. CeMs c"arladensis nelsoni, probably occurred sparingly throughout southern Idaho and northern Nevada, summering on the isolated mountains and using the nearby plains and riparian areas as transitional and winter range."
Elk are current residents of the Jarbidge Mountains. Numerous elk sightings have been made around the Jarbidge Mountains between 1987-1989.
Number Where Who 1. 1987 sightings: 6 Slide Creek Balsi 2 God's Pocket Peak Miller 1 Pole Creek Bob Barton 4 Camp Creek Horace Smith 1 Elk Mountain Joe Williams 1 Wildcat Creek Hawks 6 Mary's River Nevada Div. Forestry 7 N. of 3 Cr. School Idaho hunters 2 Tabor Creek Vern Hawks 3 East Merritt Mtn. Gray n 1 North " n .. Hunters 10 South .. " .. .. Hunters Total: 44
Number Where Who 2. 1988 sightings: 7 "Cougar Point Horace Smith 6 .. .. n Hunters 1 Elk Mountain Hunter 1 Wildhorse Res. Sport~man Total: 15
Number Where Who 3. 1989 sightfngs: 3 Cottonwood Horace Smith 2 Big Island Windous 1 Elk Mountain Hunter 2 Merrit Mtn. Barngrover 5 Mahoganies Sportsman 3 McDonald Gray Total: 16
In September, 1989 a joint Forest Service-NDOW group identified elk droppings at Chalk Basin on Mary's River. In October, 1989 a fresh elk skin was discovered near the Slide Creek trailhead.
There is sufficient forage on federal lands alone for the proposed elk herd target population. The availability of forage was a key item in the analysis of the proposal. Estimated forage supplies for elk are addressed both on a yearly and on a winter range basis.
5 1. Elk forage year-around:
The 250-300 elk target population will consume ,3600 elk months/2880 aum of forage per year. The proposed elk range encompasses approximately twelve townships incorporating. over ·0. one-quarter.--of-- a·. million. acres._ Of ..this, _ thirty-nine thousand acres of potential elk habftat on the Jarbidge Ranger District is not allotted to livestock grazing permittees. Assuming a conservative estimate of 100 pounds of elk forage per acre in this non-permitted 39,000 acre area, 50% utilization to protect vegetation health, and 500 pounds of forage consumed per elk month. 3900 elk months of forage are available on a year-around basis exclusively for elk use on Jarbidge Ranger District National Forest Lands (39.000 acres x 100 Ib./acre x 50% utilization / 500 lb. per elk month = 3900 elk months forage). Additionally, Ranger District estimates indicate some available forage on allotments currently permitted to domestic livestock. Much of this forage occurrs on lands considered suitable for elk use but unsuited for cattle use. Although most 0' Neil Basin elk are expected to winter on the National Forest (see map), the BLM's approved Wells Resource Management Plan allocated 450 elk months/350 aum of forage for 90 wintering elk November 1 to March 31 and 70 elk months/50 aum for 10 summering elk April 1 to October 31 in 0' Neil Basin. The Wells RMP allocated an additional 50 elk months/40 aum for 10 elk November 1 to March 31 that may come to winter in Mary's River. The BLM's Jarbidge Resource Management Plan made no forage oallocatio~ for elk. Its specialists have> howeveor. reviewed the reintroduction proposal including wintering areas in Nevada and assume that sufficient forage will be available to winter the proposed target elk population.' Total agency estimates of minimum year-around forage available for elk on federal lands alone are at least 4420 elk months. This very conservative estimate thus indicates that available forage exceeds the year-around forage needs of the target· elk population by over 22 percent. This is summarized:
Forest Service 3900+ elk months Wells R.A. BLM --( 450 " .. - winter in O'Neil Basin ( 70 " " - summer " " " " " Jarbidge R.A. BLM enough Total 4420+ elk months
2. Forage on winter range:
Assuming a five month (November 1 through March 31) winter period. the 300 elk target population will require 01500 elk months of forage on winter range. Assuming again 500 pounds of forage needed per elk month. a conservative 50 pounds of available elk winter forage per acre, and adding these estimates to the Wells R.A. winter forage allocation, winter forage in excess of 2922 elk months is estimated to be available. This is 195% -of the amount needed. A tabular display of estimated elk winter forage on all ownerships is:
Elk Wintering Area Ownership Acres Winter Forage East Fk. Jarbidge Forest Service 7520 752 ) BLM 10320 enough)--1720+ Private (inside NF) 160 16 ) t. tt (outside NF) 9520 952 )
O'Neil Basin Forest Service 7520 752 )--1202 BLM 2560 450 ) Both All 37600 2922+ elk months 6 ·r
Removing private lands' production, winter elk forage estimated to be in excess of 1954 elk months (130% of forage needed) is available on federal lands. Estimated elk winter range forage on federal lands is displayed:
Elk Wintering Area Ownership Acres Winter Forage East Fk. Jarbidge Forest Service 7520 752 } BLM - Jarbidge RA 10320 enough}--752+
O'Neil Basin Forest Service 7520 752 )---1202 BLM - Wells RA 2560 450 ) Both All 37600 1954+ elk months
Elk may seasonally use suitable habitat in Idaho. Bureau of Land Management and Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game biologists with first-hand experience in the sagebrush desert and canyonlands of southern Idaho. just north of the proposed East Fork wintering area, conclude that forage is available in more than adequate supply for most transitional (spring & fall) and winter requirements of the target elk population.
Introduced elk will probably use many of the same ranges and.forage plants as livestock where their ranges overlap. Livestock reductions and designation of uniquely managed areas on BLM or National Forest lands will not be implemented to protect or enhance key elk habitats unless identified in other land or resource management plans. or unless needed for protection of resource values unrelated to elk.
A Six Party Agreement. (6PA) has been prepared and will be approved by the Nevada Department of Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Elko and· Boise Districts of the Bureau of Land Management, the "71" Livestock Assn., and the Humboldt National Forest prior to elk being released. The 6PA identifies and . defines. responsibilities, time frames for implementing actions , and procedures for. obtaining public, private landowner and various agency coordination. It also contains a signature block for review purposes by the Elko County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife.~.
The decision to be made by the Forest Supervisor of· the Humboldt National Forest and the District Manager of the Elko District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is whether to authorize the release and management of elk in the Jarbidge Mountains consistent with existing land and . resource management plans and the issues, concerns and opportunities developed from public scoping sessions.
B. Consultation with Others regarding Issues, Concerns and Opportunities:
Agency concerns and opportunities were developed by an interdisciplinary team over the 1984-1989 period. Issues were developed through public scoping. Publics specifically notified of this proposal in its initial and evolutionary stages were the County Game ~oards to Manage Wildlife, ranchers with operations in and near the proposed elk management area, sportsmen's clubs, and groups and individuals who expressed an interest in Humboldt National Forest wildlife activities. Additional scoping was conducted through a mailing by the Nevada Department of Wildlife proposal, on September 2, 1987. to those persons, groups, and agencies previously scoped and other interested parties to see if any new issues, concerns or opportunities have developed and need to be addressed. In 1987 the proposed elk reintroduction was addressed at public meetings conducted Qy the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners at Reno, Fallon, and Las Vegas.
7 Nevada. In 1987 the proposal was also provided to each of Nevada's· 17 "County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife" for public review. Additional comments were received at the Humboldt National Forest Supervisors office on August 19. 1987 from a group of livestock· operators/landowners from·· the proposed release area. In September. 1989 a letter was sent by the Humboldt National Forest to all publics which had previously expressed interest in the elk reestablishment and those which were thought to be potentially affected by it. This letter notified recipients that an analysis of the proposal was being finalized and described its possible actions and impacts. Throughout the 1987-1989 period. continuous communication was maintained with involved agencies and interested publics.
In summary of input received, livestock interests have concerns about economic effects of elk on their ranches. Letters from sportsmen's groups and County Game Management Boards to Manage Wildlife show broad support of the proposed elk reintroduction including elimination of elk should they become unmanageable .
In response to this' scoping the Six Party Agreement (6PA) outlines in detail each cooperator's responsibilities in monitoring, mitigation, and management of resources in the area which may be utilized by reestablished elk.
1. Issues identified through the scoping process were:
a. Will reestablished elk bring about reductions in permitted livestock numbers on public lands?
b. How will the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game effectively control elk depredations and/or compensate private landowners for elk damage?
c. How will elk populations affect public recreation, forage resources, and livestock management inside and outside of the proposed elk management area?
d. How will resource users of public lands participate in elk management in the Jarbidge Mountains?
e. Are elk native to the ,Jarbidge Mountains?
2. Agency Concerns are:
a. How do existing laws, regulations, and planning documents relate to the reintroduction proposal?
b. How will the proposed reintroduction and population objectives relate to resource management on the public lands?
c. How will the proposed reintroduction affect working relationships between resource users, agencies, and landowners?
3. Resource management opportunities have been identified as:
a. Increased consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife values on public lands.
8 b. Increased species diversity on public lands.
c. Increased revenue to State and local economies.
d. Utilization of forage currently unavailable to livestock.
e. Enhancing the wilderness experience of visitors to the Jarbidge Mountains.
II. ALTERNATIVES
A. An interdisciplinary team developed alternatives using the criteria:
1. Would the alternative establish an elk population in the Jarbidge Mountains for both consumptive and nonconsuptive uses?
2. Is. the alternative compatible with other resource activities on and adjacent to public lands?
3. Is the alternative consistent with approved land and resource management plans and existing laws and regulations?
B. Alternatives considered but eliminated from analysis were:
1. Intensive management of elk throughout northeastern Nevada with mitigation measures the same as proposed. Population objectives would be significantly higher. Elk would be reestablished over a larger area.
This alternative was eliminated from further study because ·scoping indicated that conflicts and mitigation would be greater than the Nevada Department of Wildlife is willing to accept or implement.
2. Release of elk as proposed with a population objective of 100 animals.
This alternative was eliminated from further study because the low elk population objective would provide such insignificant consumptive and nonconsumptive benefits as to not be a viable project.
c. Alternatives considered were:
1. Alternative A (No Action):
Do not authorize the release of elk on Bureau .of Land Management or U.S..Forest Service administered lands in the Jarbidge Mountains. Elk would only come to inhabit the proposed elk management area from immigration and/or progeny of existing animals.
2. Alternative B:
Release 30-75 elk in the East Fork of the Jarbidge River drainage with the intent of. establishing a population summering in the Jarbidge Mountains and wintering in the East Fork drainage.
All interested parties will be officially notified by the Nevada Department prior to the release.
9 The Nevada Department will have all elk tested and certified disease free prior to release. Testing will conform with the standards of the Nevada and Idaho State Departments of Agriculture.
An initial population objective of 250-300 elk (bulls. cows and calves) is planned. This number will not be exceeded for a period of 10 years. If after 10 years the initial population objectives are achieved. the Nevada Department will meet with the other cooperating parties. and resource user groups to determine the future desired elk population level management objectives. Should conflicts occur that cannot be effectively mitigated prior to the population reaching the initial objective of 250-300 animals. the population will be managed at a level that is mutually agreeable.
Elk distribution and management effort will be directed toward an area (see attached map) that includes all or portions of the following sixteen (16) townships:
North Coordinate East Coordinate 47 57.58.59 46 58.59.60 45 58.59.60 44 57.58.59.60 43 57.58.59. M.D.B. & M.
Elk use resulting from this release would be accommodated outside this area only to the extent that no significant or unresolvable conflicts in the use of the range resource or private lands are encountered.
Sport harvest will be· the ·preferred means· of· population control. However. unless elk population control or reduction are desired objectives. elk harvest programs would normally be intended to support mutually agreed upon populations levels. Harvest may b~ implemented by the Nevada Department prior to reaching the desired initial population objective.
Should elk prove to be totally incompatible with multiple use resource management objectives. a program of elk elimination will be initiated.
3. Alternative C:
Release 50 elk in the Mary's River drainage and 50 in the East Fork of the Jarbidge River (100 total) to establish a population summering in the Jarbidge Mountains and wintering in both the East Fork of the Jarbidge River and the Mary's River drainage. Initial Population Objective would be 500 elk assuming no unresolveable conflicts are identified prior to that point . Management including evaluation periods. mitigation measures. and management strategies would be the same as Alternative B.
4. Alternative D:
A total of up to 100 elk. will be released at one or two sites contingent upon release site accessibility. Not more than 50 would be released at:
a. Slide Creek/East Fork Jarbidge River. The head of Slide Creek will be the preferred location. however. should access to this area be blocked by
10 excessive snow, elk may be released in the East Fork of the Jarbidge area if they can be transported or herded beyond Cougar point .
. b.-· - 0'Neil-B8'-~:dn~-preferably near Cottonwood Creek.
Initial Population Objective would be 250-300 elk with management as proposed in Alternative B. The intent is to manage for elk within the area shown on the attached maps. Elk would be tolerated outside this area as described in Alternative B.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Common to all alternatives, there will be no significant effect on: consumers, civil rights, minority groups and women, prime farm or rangelands. threatened or endangered species. or cuItural resources. Informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Basin Office. Reno, Nevada. resulted in the conclusion that neither the proposed action, or alternatives, will adversely effect Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, a threatened species, or its habitat.
Alternatives B. C. and D will result in elk summering in the Jarbidge Wilderness. Reintroduction of species indigenous to classified areas is consistent with Forest Service policy, direction. and the- Standards and Guidelines for Wilderness Areas identified in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Alternatives B, C, and D will cause forage on rangelands. wetlands. and flood plains to be used by elk.
A. Effects of Alternative A (No Action):
Under this alternative the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service would not authorize the release of elk into the Jarbidge Mountains, as proposed by the Nevada Department of Wildlife.
Elk now present and immigrating to the proposed management area and other parts of the Jarbidge Mountains, could naturally increase or decrease in numbers. No immediate population goals or objectives for pioneering populations of elk would be established. Management of any naturally colonizing population would be the responsibility of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Idaho Commission should wint~ring and/or summering populations establish in Idaho.
Should elk depredation or damage occur, the state agency with wildlife responsibility would respond to depredation complaints as authorized by state law or regulation.
The trend in elk population levels in the Jarbidge Mountains due to colonization is unknown. If the elk population grows, it is posssible to have consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of the elk resource in the future. Whether or not this would occur within a ten year period or longer is unknown. No joint evaluations (USFS/BLM/NDOW) regarding population or habitat are planned under this alternative. However. evaluations prescribed in land and resource management plans or other planning direction could take place at the discretion of the individual agency.
B. Effects of Alternative B (Introduce 30-75 elk into East Fork Jarbidge River with 250-300 target population):
11
;.: - ...... ~ .",. '.':-: .' ...... ".','" - - , , '..;.: ..,..: ,...... •...... :.:.: . All of the opportunities identified will be achieved under this alternative. Population growth will occur. gradually as shown in Graph #1. This will provide the opportunity to evaluate seasonal use patterns and identify potential ·-··------conflicts· -';"'heri---tne ---population is - small and easier to manage. Population objectives of 250-300 elk will be attained in 8-9 years depending upon the calf crop and herd mortality.
A huntable population will probably not be achieved until 6-7 years after release. Limited harvest may be initiated after 3-7 years depending on animals released, recruitment, and herd structure desired. Once the initial population objectives have been achieved economic benefits from elk hunting could exceed $18,000 annually. A reestablished elk population would generate additional nonconsumptive economic benefits to the local and regional economy.
Graph #1: Estimated population Growth Curve Under Alternative B (assumes that mortality will be approximately 15% for bulls and 6% for cows; Teproduction will be approximately 66% for 2 year old and a 50:50 sex ratio)
500
# 400 Evaluation OF Period ELK 300 x x x x 200 x x 100 x x 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
YEARS
Elk released in the East Fork of the Jarbidge River will probably occupy public lands within and adjacent to the Jarbidge Wilderness during the summer with no significant impacts to other resource activities. Elk wintering will probably occur near the release site on public and private rangelands within the Jarbidge drainage. Few conflicts on either private or public lands are expected during the first several years following elk release when the population will be small.
Once a population is established. concentrated elk winter and spring use could occur on public and private lands. especially on ridgelines and where snow restricts distribution. This could cause temporary decline in range condition. Monitoring will be done on public lands in coordination with seasonal use data provided by the NDOW. Habitat condition and trend will be provided to the Nevada Department of Wildlife by land management agencies prior to the setting of seasons and harvests. This will increase workload for agency personnel.
Elk damage to fences should not be significant except in isolated instances where fences not designed for big game passage cross elk travel routes. Maintenance of fences to control livestock will remain the responsibility of the permittees. Elk damage to fences on public and private lands could result in increased maintenance costs to permittees. The NDOW will help repair fences as specified in the 6PA.
12
------'Livestock reductions are not expected to occur due to the management of 250-300 elk within the Jarbidge Mountains. Elk will use available forage largely within the wilderness area with few conflicts to existing levels of livestock. Reductions in livestock numbers on public lands may be required in the future in '._ . ...so[Oe ._.areas ... to ... maintain or improve soil productivity and forage quality and quantity. Where declining range condition is caused by elk. agencies will reduce elk rather than livestock.
Elk distribution and seasonal use patterns cannot be totally predetermined. The Jarbidge drainage should provide good winter elk habitat. Elk may use areas outside the intended wintering and/or management area. This could occur immediately after release or later due to population growth and/or' hunting pressure. Should this occur. elk would be tolerated outside the management area where compatible with existing resource plans. No summering elk herd will be allowed to establish in Idaho from these releases.
The State wildlife agencies t population management may include sport harvest. depredad.on hunts. emergency hunts and agency removal. These may be applied separately or in combination allowing the NDOW to reduce or eliminate elk when incompatible with public and private land resources.
While neither depredation n?r its impacts on private land resources can be totally predicted. the NDOW· is expected to manage overall numbers to avoid conflicts. Should. significant conflicts occur prior to achieving the population objective. the population can be held belOW the 250-300 level and/ or offending animals can be eliminated.
Severe snow conditions may move elk from rangeland onto. private agricultural lands. If this occurs, depredation of stored hay 'is. possible. Wooden panels, wire exclosures. and/or technical assistance by the NDOW will effectively mitigate depredation where ranchers regularly maintain panels. Stored hay could be moved to less' vulnerable locations away from expected elk use. .In some cases. moving stored hay may be infeasible ·or increase costs to the private landowner. NDOW material for panels and wire exclosure could be employed in these cases.
Ranchers are concerned that.wood panels are difficult to use during periods of deep snow. Although panels and· materials for wire exclosures will be provided by the Nevada Department of Wildlife. ranchers will still be required to erect panels or construct exclosures around stored hay. This will result in increased operating costs. In some cases wire exclosures and panels may benefit ranchers by protecting hay from livestock use.
Elk will probably follow the receding spring snow line using forage on public lands. South and west facing slopes will be free of snow and available to elk in the early spring. Spring elk use of hay fields adjacent to wintering areas is possible. If spring depredation occurs, trampling impacts to alfalfa fields could be significant. Grass hay meadows are less susceptible to elk use because fields green-up later in the year and are resistant to trampling.
Spring depredation of hayfields may be difficult to resolve. Hazing has limited success where suitable habitat with cover is adjacent to fields. Private landowner or NDOW removal of depredating elk will resolve most problems. particularly where only a few elk are involved. A landowner must have a State permit to remove elk in either Nevada or Idaho. There may be a lag between conflict identification and resolution. Isolated fields may be used for several days before it is identified and resolved. The 6PA to be approved prior to the release of elk defines coordination for resolving conflicts. 13 Identified mitigation will resolve conflicts. The· NDOW is legally required to compensate private landowners for elk depredation in Nevada. If the management of elk within the Jarbidge Mountains is totally incompatible with multiple use ·--resourceobjectives. the NDOW will eliminate the population.
c. Effects of Alternative C (50 elk to both Mary's River and East Fork Jarbidge River; 500 head target population):
Alternative C is a previous proposal to land management agencies by the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Alternative C will accomplish all of the opportunities identified. Two wintering populations would be established by release of 100 elk (50 in the Mary's River drainage and 50 in the East Fork Jarbidge River). Herd growth should occur as shown on Graph #2. A huntable population should be achieved in 4-6 years. The population objective of 500 elk would be achieved in 8-9 years depending upon the calf crop and herd mortality. Once the initiel population objective has been achieved. benefits in terms of consumptive values to recreationists could exceed $33.000 annually.
Summer distribution within the Jarbidge mountains would be similar to Alternative B. Monitoring of the two wintering populations will be required. The Mary's River drainage is less suitable for wintering elk than either the Jarbidge River drainage or the O'Neil Basin. Elk may come to .winter in other areas. This may increase depredation on private lands in and adjacent to the Mary's River drainage. If this occurs. mitigation would be applied as in Alternative B. Population objectives would then be attempted using· only the Jarbidge wintering herd assuming no conflicts developed. Elk concentrations on winter and spring ranges could result in a temporary decline in range conditions. Monitoring of populations and range conditions will be required in two wintering areas.
Graph #2: Estimated Growth Curve Under Alternative C (assumes the same mortality. reproduction and sex ratios as shown in Alternative B).
500 x x x
# 400 x Evaluation OF x Period ELK 300 x x 200 x x 100 x
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
YEARS
Alternative C involves mOre elk thus larger annual increments. Time available to evaluate seasonal use patterns and identify potential problems would be three years. the same as Alternative B. Due to larger numbers. elk use of haystacks during the winter or hayfields during the spring may be greater should depredation occur.
D. Effects of Alternative D (Proposed 30-50 elk reintroduced to both Slide Creek/East Fk. Jarbidge River and O'Neil Basin; 250-300 population target): 14
-.~ '~', ,'.'~ ~ ~ ':'~".'"".' ...... _-_ _---_ _ _.._--, ..-.. ,- ,., " .., ," ,. ," - -.. :.; -:.: :'"'..,..---...- ,.,."...... -. '.'," ,., , -, .. ..'.:.-, .. ".;. Similar to alternatives B and C, all of the opportunities identified will be accomplished through implementing Alternative D. Benefits in terms of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses should be the same as Alternative B.
A huntable population could be achieved in 6-7 years. The 250-300 initial population objective should be achieved in 8-9 years depending upon the calf crop and herd mortality. A limited harvest could occur in 3-7 years depending on animals released, recruitment, and herd structure desired.
Management expectations, possible impacts, and mitigation to public and private lands within the Jarbidge drainage would be the same as Alternative B.
Wintering populations in both the Jarbidge drainage and O'Neil Basin will have fewer total numbers than would be present on a single wintering area. Elk concentrations on public fuld private rangelands will thereby be reduced. Impacts on private lands will be less and easier to resolve since fewer numbers would be involved. The O'Nei~ Basin wintering are~ is not as extensive as the Jarbidge drainage wintering area. Even so, wind-swept ridgelines and southern aspects provide good available forage during most years. Severe snow conditions may force elk onto adjacent BLM lands and possibly onto private agricultural lands. This would increase the potential for depredation in O'Neil Basin. Mitigation would be that discussed in Alternative B. Severe snow conditions in O'Neil Basin could hamper efforts by Nevada Department of Wildlife and sportsman to remove depredating elk.
There are fewer alfalfa fields within the 0'Neil Basin than in the northern portion of the evaluation area. Possible spring-time conflicts with agricultural lands should· be less. Early spring green-up on 0' Neil Basin's eastern foothills, ridgelines, and south-facing slopes will provide good available forage thus holding elk on federal lands.
E. Cumulative Effects:
No cumulative effects are foreseen.
F. Adverse Environmental Effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented:
1. Introduced elk will eat forage. However.· identified mitigation will minimize elk effects on other uses and activities.
2. Occupied elk habitat will probably be visited by several dozen more hunters each year once elk hunting is permitted. Hunts could occur as early as 3 to 4 years after elk are released, but are more likely around the seventh year. These users will cause increased use of roads and trails.
3. Elk may damage fences and eat private agricultural crops and range forages causing economic loss. Initial conflicts with private lands are expected to be low because elk numbers will be low and not widely dispersed. Over time. there will be a greater potential for herd expansion to other areas. This increases the potential for conflicts with private lands. Mitigation is expected to effectively deal with these conflicts.
G. Relationship between the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity & irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources:
15
...... :..... ~.:"" . No effects of elk reintroduction on long term productivity or irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources are foreseen.
Nevada wildlife depredation legislation passed in 1989 expands NDOW mitigation on Nevada private lands. The 6PA assures that neither reductions in livestock numbers on public lands nor significant economic impacts to private lands will result from this elk reintroduction.
The NDOW is committed to resolving impacts to privat~ landowners through mi tigation. NDOW management of the Schell Creek elk herd is an example of management actions that have been taken to resolve conflicts. Elk numbers there were significantly reduced in the 0"1950' s. More recently the NDOW recommended and received approval by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners for cow tags to limit elk population increases and has provided fencing materials to protect agricultural crops.
The 6PA to be approved prior to elk release specifies close interagency coordination to manage populations and habitats and to ensure mitigation.
IV. Mitigation
Consistent with land and resource management plans and the 6PA, the following mitigation will be applied in Alternatives B, C, and D:
The reintrOduction of elk will not jeopardize existing domestic livestock permits "and licensed animal ,unit months .. Livestock reductions and designation of uniquely managed areas on BLM or National Forest lands will not be implemented to protect or enhance key elk habitats unless identified in other land or resource management plans. Changes in livestock season of use or numbers and designation of uniquely managed areas may still occur within elk ranges based on other land agency planning and programs to resolve livestock conflicts with other activities and to maintain and improve soil productivity and range and habitat conditions.
Range modification projects may be identified and implemented on Forest lands where desireable and compatible with other resources to improve forage quality
and quantity for 0 mule deer, elk and livestock. On lands administered by the Bureaus, range modification projects to improve forage quality and quantity for mule deer, elk and livestock must conform with existing land" use plan decisions.
Where conflicts with other uses cannot be resolved through habitat management actions, land management agencies will work with the Nevada and Idaho Departments to reduce elk numbers to a point that is compatible with good habitat conditions as monitored by range survey.
Mule deer will retain management emphasis and priority over elk in the Jarbidge Mountains, Nevada.
Payments for damage to private property by elk will be in accordance to Nevada Revised Statutes adopted in 1989 and subsequent eminent regulations adopted by the Nevada State Board of Wildlife Commissioners.
Both the Nevada Department and Idaho Department concur that elk from this release will not be allowed to establish a summer population in the State of Idaho.
16 A. Nevada Department of Wildlife will:
1. Obtain certified disease-free elk.
2. Not introduce winter hand fed animals.
3. Visibly mark all elk to be released and several animals will be telemetered.
4. Conduct appropriate surveys to locate telemetered elk and to document elk seasonal range use patterns.
5. Provide maps of seasonal use patterns to the six cooperative parties.
6. Conduct helicopter surveys to determine elk herd composition and population trend. A member of the "71" will be invited to participate in these surveys.
6. Each year following release. complete a job progress report in August that summarizes the results of surveys relating to Jarbidge elk. The six cooperative parties will be provided with all information on seasonal elk distribution and populations status. including any elk ob~ervations made outside of the proposed reintroduction area within the vicinity of the Jarbidge release.
7. Invite the six cooperative parties to meet and review herd distribution. status and trend information annually or more frequently as necessary. The Nevada Department will provide this data to other users upon request.
8. When sport harvest is recommended. will publish a Jarbidge Mountain elk herd status report. The Nevada Department and Idaho Department will meet annually or as necessary to formulate cooperative management strategies. Harvest recommendations and herd status. reports will be provided to the six cooperative parties. Nevada County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife and the Nevada State Board of Wildlife Commissioners.
9. Replace/repair fences on private lands in Nevada that are broken by elk reintroduced in the Jarbidge under authority of this plan. or their issue which maintain some seasonal residence in Nevada after the Department has determined that elk caused the damage.
10. Reserves the option to remove elk or reduce elk numbers in Nevada in areas where fence repair and replacement is excessive.
11. Repair or replace chronically elk damaged rangeland fences in areas of seasonal elk concentration in cooperation with appropriate land management agency.
12. Provide technical assistance and material to'Idaho and Nevada ranchers to protect their stored or growing crops and private lands from Jarbidge elk depredations in a timely manner. The Nevada Department will assume responsibility for this assistance should such actions be necp.ssary to exclude Jarbidge elk that. are using Idaho on a seasonal basis ill ;~r.cordance with Idaho Department policy. If a significant elk depredat i on problem occurs in Idaho that cannot be handled by the actions specified above. the Nevada Department will request that the Idaho Department conduct elk
17 depredation hunt(s} as necessary to help control the depredation problem. If such hunts are not feasible or effective. the Nevada Department will request the Idaho Department to issue kill permits to Idaho Department personnel or to private landowners to remove depredating elk. - If- this -- elk -popul-ation------ poses continuing problems in Nevada which cannot be economically or feasibly controlled. the Nevada Department will. through harvest or other available means. initiate a program to eliminate the elk populations.
13. Reduce elk use as necessary by harvest or other means of removal if range studies conducted by the land management agencies demonstrate sustained damage to soil. watershed or an undesirable response by vegetation caused by el~.
B. Idaho Department of Fish and Game will:
1. In the event that the Nevada Department is unable to satisfactorily reduce crop or property damage by elk on Idaho private lands. coordinate with the Nevada Department. the public. private landowners and land management agencies to apply the input received to manage overall elk numbers through the setting of appropriate harvest (general or controlled hunts) in Idaho should that be necessary- to resolve problems. The Idaho Department will initiate emergency depredation hunts to remove animals causing depredations in areas where regular season harvest strategies identified above cannot be implemented effectively. Trapping and transplant may be used in lieu of hunting as a method to reduce depredation problems on private property. The Nevada Department will accomplish such work at the option of the Idaho Department.
2. Issue kill permits for a specific number of animals to Idaho Department personnel and/or individual landowners who experience problems on private lands. The Idaho Department may also issue kill permi ts authorizing the Nevada Department to kill elk in Idaho whe~e they are causin~ problems. Kill permits will be issued as a last-resort basis after all other efforts to stop depredations have failed.
c. Forest Service will:
1. Either through existing or new studies. define pre-reintroduction soil. watershed. vegetative and fence conditions within the identified elk reintroduction area in order to measure elk impacts.
2. Within four years following the elk reintroduction. expand and intensify soil. watershed ripairian and vegetative inventories in those areas of elk usage identified by the Nevada Department. These stu§ies will be reflned as elk seasonal use patterns-become better established and documented.
3. Meet with the Nevada Department and any other interested cooperators to present and review soil. watershed. vegetative and fence conditions in the identified elk reintroduction area annually or more frequently as necessary. These data will be available in written form for cooperators and other interested parties at the time of such meetings.
4. Cooperate wi th the Nevada Department for the repair and replacement of rangeland fences in areas of chronic damage. The cost for repair in such areas will be born by the Nevada Department.
18
_ ••.••••••••••••••••••••.••••• _ •. ' •••• _ ••• _ _ ••••••••••••••••••••• ". _ •••.• , •••~~••n -.••••••-.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·, • -f·(.. ~ .. ~ •• ,~ •.-~ ••••••::-.,~.~.:"~~:"":"".,•••• -\ •• -, •• : •.••.•.. " •. :-:.' •.' ". '. 5. Should instances occur where elk are responsible for range forage over-utilization but not in conflict with other resource uses, evaluate the potential for developing additional forage through habitat manipulation.
D. Nevada and Idaho Bureaus will:
1. Should elk establish permanent seasonal ranges on BLM administered lands adjacent to the intended elk reintroduction area, and should subsequent elk usage be compatible with land use plan decisions, assume the responsibilities listed for the Forest Service subject to the respective Bureau' s mutual concurrence .
. 2. Insure range modification projects to improve forage quality and quantity for mule deer, elk, and livestock on lands adminis tered by the Bureau' s conform with existing land use plan decisions.
E. n71 n Livestock Association will:
1. Be responsible for assisting the cooperating agencies in providing monitoring information on range and riparian resources, improvement damage (fences, stored. crops etc.) and also popuJ-ation numbers on both private and public land. Will notify the Nevada Department of elk use. of standing or stored agricultural crops within 2 days, or as soon as practically possible.
2. Report elk mortality losses to the Nevada Department in a timely manner.
F. All Cooperators in the 6PA will:
1. Upon attaining the initial population objective, meet to establish desired future elk management goals based on their respective studies completed to that time.
2. Review findings and recommendations compiled by the Nevada Department annually.
3. Review an elk management plan prepared by the Nevada Department upon reaching the initial population goal level.
4.. Amend the Six Party Agreement as necessary to include the provisions of the Jarbidge elk management plan.
G. Elko County Advisory Board To Manage Wildlife will:
1. Review the 6PA and any subsequent amendments.
2. Solicit and evaluate local opinion and advise the Board of Wildlife Commissioners on matters relating to this agreement and management of elk resulting from the Jarbidge release.
3. Review Nevada Department elk season recommendations and prepare and submit Advisory Board elk season recommendations to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners.
4. Atteqd those meetings of the Commission at which seasons and bag limits are set or other regulations and policies are established.
19
------V. CONSULTATION
A. Interdisciplinary Team Members
FOREST SERVICE:
Ben Siminoe Range. Wildlife Staff, S.O. Walter E. Hanks Range, Wildlife Staff. S.O. Rod Howard Jarbidge District Ranger Robert Easton " "" " n tt George Martinez Mountain City District Ranger Marv Turner Santa Rosa District Ranger Norb Smith Forest Engineer. S.O. Ron Grove Forest Planner, S.O. Robert Mason Assistant Planner, S.O. Carl Hruska Wildlife Biologist. S.O. John Erickson ",t "'t It ft, S.O. John Caywood Resource Assistant, Jarbidge Ranger District Jim Percy Range Conservationist. Jarbidge Ranger District tt tt n II tf tt n tt Marianna Breeze " tt " " David Myers " It 1t tt " " Mountain City Ranger District tt tt 1t tt Donna Nyrehn " tt" tt 1t " n If tI tt
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT:
Jim Clark Wildlife Biologist, Jarbidge R.A. tI Roy Price " """ tt Elko District Ray Lister " " tt ". tt tt Wells R.A. Terry Dailey Range Conservationist, Wells R.A. Doug Mary .. " " "tt" " R.A.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE:
Mike Wickersham Wildlife Biologist. Elko Region It 1f 11 It It tI Duane Erickson "" It tt Joe Williams " It .tt " II " tt It .."
B. Agencies Consulted:
u.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Nevada Dept. of Wildlife Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service All 17 of "County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife"
20 C. Organizations Consulted:
"71" Association (ranchers) ElkoCounty- Sportsmen -_ .. _ Jackpot Sportsmen Wells Archery Club Elko Archery Club Nevada Wildlife Federation (northern & southern) Bighorns Unlimited{ Reno & Fallon) White Pine Sportsmen's Club Defenders of Wildlife
D. Persons/Ranches Consulted:
Sam Rudnick Dirk Agee Verland Stowell Edna Bailey Bell Brand Ranches Buck Creek Ranch Maxine Farraday Horace Smith Rancho Grande Duane Ramseyer William Gibbs North Fork Cattle Co. Gus & Marj Vitale Vernon Hawks Wildhorse Ranch & Resort Albert Barinaga Bob Garrett Home Ranch Stanley Ellison Fr-ed Beitia Ellison Ranching Co. Jones Brothers Frank Prunty 101 Ranch Maurice Guerry Heguy Bros. Don Rizzi Bruce Mitchell Kent Howard Elias Goicoechea Bill Tindall Ladell Handy Calvin Jones Harvey Blossom Jose Barinaga Gerald Tews Bill Drown Bill Swan Bert Brackett Noy Brackett George Swan Hollie Patrick Randall Brewer Chet Brackett Kenny Blick Ray Clark Merl Rowe
21 Twin Falls PREH/S TOR/C·' ~BUrley ELK EVIOENCE
Cassia Mountains
@ Pictographs Duck Idaho Cr. Cave Idaho Valley Nevada Nevada Indian Reservation •
Hwy 51
wells~
James Cr,fj Elko Shelter U @ South Fork Shelter Carlin
o 10 LO 30 40 I Itt 1 Scale in Miles
Marshes
22 .. to Twin. Falls /-1/5TOR/C ELK ~ OCCURRENCE Cassia Mountains
Elk Butte~\'-:: '/1 i
~ j 1890's Elk Range (Winter, Merriam,
~= I ~lk Basin ~ Muriel I Sitings through 1960 I X = (elk extirpated by l8~0'~)
IDAHO
NEVADA Jackpot NEVADA
N VJ
10untain
~i ty
to o 10 20 miles Elko to I ! 1 Wells Scale t l :,'J ::1 '::1 ...:~ \ tl .... 193(] /9<39 ELf( OCCURRENCE \ N .
~ 1930-1960 occurrences ;x: I - To Rogerson .' ~ :.".' ~ 1986-1989 occurrences I .1 : jI ::J ::J Duck <~ o Valley
Idaho Idaho
Nevada Nevada
Mou&n o
~ \..,.k u ' 1 @ ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~:' S8
o 10 r:' I I ~::: " .;; Scale in Miles ~.: :~: ~. i,.
:~~ . Hwy 'l. IOC. 'l. IlL
.T, It '\
1' ......
... u[.
1'..... ". Elk Management Area' = o Elk Wintering Areas "- 0
It.), c.
U.L DU...·".rWT or C;-..c\lL1'\I•• tOllUTSc.. w:C
HUMBOLDT NATIONAL FOREST 1.'UUHTAI1' CIT1'. J",anIlJll;r.; "ANC[,M OISlIl1CT31 NEVADA MT. DIAOI.O AND IJOISF: ~n:nIlJIANS
25