Environmental

Assessment United States Department of Agriculture North Schell Restoration Project Forest Service Ely Ranger District

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

White Pine County, Nevada

Responsible Official: Jose Noriega, District Ranger Ely Ranger District 825 Avenue E Ely, Nevada 89301

North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Page 2 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED 5

1.1 Introduction 5 1.2 Project Area Location 5 1.3 Background 5 Map 1: Vicinity Map 6 1.4 Vegetation Communities 7 1.4.1 Pinyon-Juniper 7 1.4.2 Mountain Big Sagebrush/Mountain Shrub 8 1.4.3 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 8 1.4.4 Stable and Seral Aspen 8 1.4.5 White Fir 9 1.4.6 Riparian Areas 9 1.4.7 Other Vegetation Communities and Rock 9 1.5 Purpose and Need for Action 9 1.6 Proposed Action 10 1.7 Forest Plan Direction 10 1.8 Decision to be Made 11 1.9 Public Involvement 11 1.10 Identification of Issues 13 CHAPTER 2: PURPOSE AND NEED 14

2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 14 2.2.1 No mechanical treatments in designated roadless areas 14 2.2.2 Mechanical treatment without prescribed burning 14 2.2.3 Mechanical and prescribed fire only during winter 14 2.2.4 Passive Restoration Alternative 14 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail 15 2.3.1 No Action Alternative 15 2.3.2 Proposed Action 15 2.3.2.1 Prescribed Fire 15 2.3.2.2 Mechanical treatments 16 2.3.2.3 Vegetation Objectives 17 2.3.2.4 Design Features: 19 Wildlife 19 Heritage Resources 20 Noxious weeds 20 Vegetation 20 Range 21 Hydrology/Soils 21 Public Safety 22

Page 3 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Roadless Areas 22 2.3.4 Monitoring 22 2.4 Summary Comparison of Alternatives 23 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 27

3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Cumulative Effects Area 27 3.3 Vegetation 27 3.4 Noxious Weeds 36 3.5 Watershed/Hydrology 46 3.6 Soils 58 3.7 Wildlife/Fisheries 63 3.8 Sensitive Plants 111 3.9 Livestock Management 121 3.10 Roadless Areas 123 CHAPTER 4: CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 129

CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PRIMARY PREPARERS 132

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES 133

APPENDIX A: TREATMENT ACRES 145

APPENDIX B: VEGETATION MAP 151

APPENDIX C: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AREA 153

APPENDIX D: ROADLESS AREA MAP 154

APPENDIX E: LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENT MAP 155

APPENDIX F: SOIL GUIDELINES 156

APPENDIX G: TREATMENT UNIT MAP 161

Page 4 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the temporary, short and long term, direct, indirect, irretrievable, irreversible, and cumulative environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative for the North Schell Restoration Project on the Ely Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in White Pine County, Nevada. This document has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

1.2 Project Area Location The project area is located on National Forest lands on the Ely Ranger District from Shellborne Pass road and continuing south to the Kalamazoo Summit road. The project is located approximately 20 miles north of the town of Ely, Nevada. The legal description for the project area is Township 22N, Range 64E, Township 22N, Range 65E, Township 21N, Range 64E, Township 21N, Range 65E, Township 20N, Range 64, and Township 20N, Range 65E in all or parts of the sections. A vicinity map is included on the next page.

1.3 Background Within the project area past management activities and other impacts including fire suppression, historical livestock grazing practices, historical mining, noxious and invasive weeds, and other land management practices have resulted in vegetation communities which are not in desired condition. Changes in ecosystems are putting many important vegetation communities such as aspen and sagebrush at risk. Important wildlife habitats for species such as sage grouse, mule deer and other sagebrush dependent species are being impacted or lost. An assessment of the vegetation condition on the North Schell Mountain Range was completed May, 2009 in partnership with The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The Forest Service utilized a landscape assessment process facilitated by TNC and identified vegetation communities which are in a declining state of health. One measure of health is the resiliency of a vegetation community when affected by both natural and human caused disturbances such as fire, invasive and noxious weeds, diseases and insects. One way to measure the health and resiliency of a vegetation community is to measure ecological departure. Fire regime condition class (FRCC) determines how similar or how departed a landscape’s current disturbance regime is to its historic or natural state. FRCC is an integrated measure of structure and composition of vegetation types and their disturbance regimes. Current vegetation structure and composition is compared to the historic or natural state, and from this comparison, vegetation treatment recommendations can be made. The assessment identified areas in need of treatment and those most likely to respond successfully to treatment (Conservation Action Planning in the Schell Creek Range: Developing a Watershed Assessment for North Schell, May 28, 2008).

Page 5 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 1:

Page 6 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

1.4 Vegetation Communities Table 1: Current vegetation cover types mapped for the project area (Gillham, et al. 2004)

MAPPED COVER TYPE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL

Pinyon-Juniper 39,581 50%

Mountain Big Sagebrush/Mountain Shrub 17,119 22%

Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 9,101 12%

Aspen and Mixed Aspen/Conifer 1,475 2%

White Fir 4,395 6%

Other Vegetation/Rock 6,329* 8%

TOTAL ACRES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA 78,000* 100% * Estimated Acres

1.4.1 Pinyon-Juniper The project area includes approximately 39,581 acres of pinyon–juniper cover type. Pinyon dominates this mix. Since the presettlement period (pre 1880’s) pinyon and juniper have expanded mainly into sagebrush and to a lesser degree, other ecosystems. This rapid expansion is due to fire suppression, grazing practices, and a climate which favored the establishment and growth of these woodland species (Tausch et. al. 1981). It is estimated that 2/3’s of the area within the Great Basin currently occupied by the pinyon–juniper cover type is considered expansion pinyon–juniper; only 1/3 are historic woodlands (Miller, et. al. 2008). Expansion pinyon–juniper are in various phases of development. Miller et. al. 2008 defines the early, mid, and late phases of pinyon-juniper woodland successional development as: Phase I - trees are present but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes on the site (low canopy). Phase II - trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site (medium canopy). Phase III - trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing ecological processes on the site (high canopy). As phase I and II transition into Phase III, the understory shrubs, grasses and forbs are lost as trees dominate the site and tree canopy cover increases. The loss of the ground vegetation and increased density of canopy fuels marks a shift in biomass to crown fuels which can significantly affect fire severity. The more tree dominated the woodlands become, the less likely they are to burn under moderate conditions. In addition, Phase III pinyon-juniper has lost much of the seed source necessary to regenerate understory herbs, grasses and shrubs following a disturbance (Miller et, al. 2008).

Page 7 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

As pinyon-juniper stands mature and increase in density, shrub and herbaceous species decline. Sagebrush communities provide critical habitat components for many wildlife species, including mule deer, elk, sage grouse and other sagebrush dependent species. Objectives for pinyon-juniper include: • Restore and/or maintain sagebrush and shrub communities where they are actively being replaced by phase I & II pinyon-juniper. • Reduce Fuels with an emphasis near private lands and developments. • Maintain and/or enhance mature pinyon-juniper communities

1.4.2 Mountain Big Sagebrush/Mountain Shrub The project area includes approximately 17,119 acres of mountain big sagebrush cover type. The TNC assessment indicates that this vegetation type is lacking acreage in the early successional stages. Sagebrush communities provide critical habitat components for many wildlife species, including mule deer, sage grouse and other sagebrush dependent species. A portion of these vegetation communities are slowly being replaced by phase I pinyon-juniper. Objectives for mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush communities include: • Increase age class and species diversity within stands. • Maintain stands through removal of phase I pinyon-juniper.

1.4.3 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany The project area includes approximately 9,101 acres of mountain mahogany cover type. The TNC assessment determined this type to be in fair condition. Mountain mahogany is difficult to regenerate and often occupies rocky harsh sites. Objectives for mountain mahogany communities include: • Maintain stands through removal of pinyon-juniper encroachment.

1.4.4 Stable and Seral Aspen The project area includes approximately 1,475 acres of aspen cover types. Aspen is an important tree species throughout the western United States. One of the few broad-leaved hardwood trees in many western forests, it is a valuable ecological component of many landscapes, occurring in pure forests as well as growing in association with many conifer and other hardwood species. The diversity of understory plants that occur in the filtered light under aspen trees supply critical wildlife habitat, valuable grazing resources, and protection for soil and water. (GTR-178, Pg 1) There are two aspen types described in the Intermountain Region, seral aspen and stable aspen. Seral aspen is defined as those stands where aspen are actively replaced over time by conifers. Stable aspen are those areas where aspen remain dominant with little or no conifer replacement over at least one generation (approximately 70-100 years). (R4 Aspen White Paper, Ferguson, 2004.) The TNC assessment determined that both seral and stable stands aspen lacked regeneration and younger age classes. Objectives for aspen communities include: • Reduce conifer dominance and regenerate seral aspen communities.

Page 8 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Regenerate and expand stable aspen communities where appropriate. • Restore fires natural role within these communities.

1.4.5 White Fir The project area includes approximately 4,395 acres of white fir cover types. White fir is scattered in small patches throughout the Project area at higher elevations and within steep canyons in the mid elevations. In a number of locations the white fir communities are intermixed with seral aspen communities and mapping of these community types is somewhat difficult. In other areas white fir occurs without an aspen component. In part due to fire suppression, white fir is encroaching slowly into high elevation mountain big sagebrush communities. Objectives for white fir communities include: • Where stands are associated with seral aspen communities, restore fire into the communities to maintain and enhance the aspen component. • Where white fir is encroaching into mountain sagebrush communities allow fire to interact along this edge to maintain these high elevation sagebrush basins. • Allow fire to play its natural role within these communities.

1.4.6 Riparian Areas Riparian areas are scatter in small areas throughout the Project area. In a number of locations riparian communities are intermixed with seral and stable aspen communities. Mapping of these community types is somewhat difficult due to their small size. Objectives for riparian communities include: • Encourage regeneration of aspen within riparian areas. • Reduce pinyon-juniper encroachment within riparian areas. Within these areas encourage the dominance of species such as aspen, cottonwood, willow and herbaceous species. • Future projects could be developed to address resources issues within riparian communities, however, these potential activities have not been fully developed within this analysis.

1.4.7 Other Vegetation Communities and Rock The project area includes approximately 6,329 acres of other vegetation (acreages for riparian are included here) and rock. These vegetation communities include low sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, limber pine and other minor types. There are no objectives identified for these vegetation communities associated with this project. Future projects could be developed to address resources issues within these communities, however, these potential activities have not been incorporated within this analysis.

1.5 Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to restore and maintain healthy and resilient vegetation communities, wildlife habitats and to reduce fuels and wildfire risks near private lands and structures. There is a need to:

Page 9 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Restore, maintain and/or enhance mountain sagebrush and mountain brush communities at a landscape scale. • Regenerate and maintain healthy seral and stable aspen communities. • Maintain and enhance pinyon-juniper and mountain mahogany woodlands. • Improve and/or maintain habitats for a variety of wildlife species including sage grouse, mule deer and other sagebrush dependent species. • Reduce fuels across the landscape with an emphasis near private lands and developments to minimize the potential impacts from wildfires.

1.6 Proposed Action The proposed action will use mechanical treatment methods and prescribed fire to restore important vegetative communities, enhance the diversity of age classes and structure of vegetation communities, restore and improve wildlife habitats, and reduce the severity of wildfires on approximately 24,361 acres. Approximately 12,000 acres will be treated using prescribed fire. Burned openings will generally range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will occur in a mosaic pattern. Size of openings will vary widely depending upon the specific vegetation community and intensity of burn prescriptions. Treatment will be scattered across the landscape. Larger openings may occur due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of fire and weather conditions. Prescribed fire treatments may include: • Ground ignition-drip torches and/or flares • Aerial ignition using helicopters-helitorch and/or Plastic Sphere Dispenser (PSD) • Management of naturally occurring (unplanned ignitions) wildfires for resource benefits Approximately 12,361 acres will be treated using primarily mechanical methods. Mechanical treatments may be followed by limited prescribed burning to reduce residual slash or meet other vegetation objectives specific to that site. Mechanical treatment methods that may be used include: • Mastication, chipping, or similar methods • Hand cutting/thinning with chainsaws. • Hand cutting/thinning with chainsaws (personal green fuelwood harvest). • Commercial green fuelwood harvest using low impact mechanized vehicles or other equipment. • Whole tree removal using low impact mechanized vehicles or other equipment. • Slash created from any of the above treatments may be disposed of through chipping, removal from the project area or jackpot burning during periods of low fire risk.

1.7 Forest Plan Direction The Proposed Action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions. Forest-wide goals applicable to this project are: Goal #10 Identify, protect, interpret and manage significant cultural resources

Page 10 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Goal #14 Improve the current productive level of wildlife habitat with emphasis on maintaining or improving limiting factors such as big game winter ranges measured in acres in cooperation with Nevada Department of wildlife. Goal #21 Maintain sensitive plant species Goal #24 Emphasize the control of priority 1 noxious weeds Goal #29 Provide water and soil resource input to other resource activities to protect or improve water quality and soil productivity Goal #51 each wildfire ignition will receive an appropriate response (confine, containment or control). The extent of suppression will be based on resource values, costs, burning conditions, safety, protection of private property, spread potential, and the fire organization commitment. Goal #52 Establish and maintain fuel mosaics which result in an acceptable hazard and spread potential of wildfire, allow an appropriate wildfire suppression and contribute to other resource programs and aesthetics. Forest plan direction and standards and guidelines applicable to this project are shown below: • Use prescribed fire by planned ignition when cost effective, to manipulate vegetation to benefit timber, wildlife, range or recreation. • Prescribed burning will comply with state air quality standards. • Fuels reduction program will be directed towards high risk areas and high valued facilities. • Livestock grazing will not be allowed for two years following treatments, and/or seeding. • Utilize fire as a tool to improve or maintain ecological conditions. • Vegetation manipulation projects will be designed to consider the needs of wildlife. • Vegetation manipulation projects will be permitted within key deer winter range to the extent they maintain or enhance the area for mule deer. • Mature aspen stands will be managed to increase regeneration.

1.8 Decision to be Made Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and environmental analysis in order to make the following decisions: 1) Whether to approve the proposed North Schell Restoration Project as written or with modifications. 2) Whether or not the project has the potential for significant impacts and if an environmental impact statement would need to be prepared prior to issuance of any decision.

1.9 Public Involvement Public involvement on this project has occurred throughout the planning and analysis process leading to this document. The proposed project has been listed on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since April, 2009.

Page 11 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• In February, 2007 a scoping notice was sent to 54 individuals, groups, agencies and tribes providing an opportunity to comment on the upcoming Watershed analysis being conducted by The Nature Conservancy and the Ely Ranger District. • On June 5, 2009 a scoping notice for the North Schell Restoration Project was mailed to 257 individuals, groups, agencies and tribes providing an opportunity to comment. A total of eight comments were received on the project. A detailed response to these comments was completed and is located within the project record. • On June 10, 2009 a legal notice requesting public comments was published in the Ely Times Newspaper. • On February 22, 2010 District Ranger Noriega and Archeologist Eric Stever went to Duckwater to attend a tribal council meeting. The meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum. A summary of projects including this project was provided to the office to share with the tribal council. • On May 10, 2010 a letter was sent to the Duckwater Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe and the Goshute Tribe providing an update on the project. • On June 7, 2010 a Notice of Proposed Action was sent to the project mailing list providing a 30 day notice of opportunity to comment on the proposed project. • On June 9, 2010 a legal notice providing a 30 day notice of opportunity to comment on the proposed project was published in the Ely Times Newspaper. • On June 9, 2010 an update on this project was provided to the White Pine County Commission. • On June 30, 2010 District Ranger Jose Noriega and Wildlife Biologist Kathy Johnson led a field trip to the Project Area with Katie Fite from Western Watersheds Project. A copy of the field trip notes is included in the project record. • On July 30, 2010 the details of this project were presented during testimony before the Nevada Legislative Committee on Public Lands in Ely, Nevada. • On August 6, 2010 a letter and more detailed project area maps were mailed to Katie Fite from Western Watersheds Project. • On February 28, 2011 an update on this project was given to the Duckwater Tribal Council during their regularly scheduled meeting. • On March 4, 2011 a brief update on this project was provided to Kevin Kirkeby, Rural Representative for Senator John Ensign. • On April 1, 2011 an update on this project was given to the Goshute Tribal Council during their regularly scheduled meeting. • On April 2, 2011 a brief update on this project was presented during the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition Board meeting. • On April 6, 2011 an update on this project was provided to potentially affected Outfitter & Guide permit holders at the annual meeting. • On April 12, 2011 District archeologist Eric Stever provided a written summary of various projects on the District to the Ely Shoshone Tribal Council during their regularly scheduled meeting. • On May 23, 2011 an update on this project was given to the Ely Shoshone Tribal Council during their regularly scheduled meeting. • On June 27, 2011 an update on this project was given to the Duckwater Tribal Council during their regularly scheduled meeting.

Page 12 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Annual updates on this project were presented to potentially affected permittees from 2009 to 2011. • Brief updates on this project were presented at 13 Tri County (White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln) meetings between 2009 and present. • Brief updates on this project were presented at 6 Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) meetings between 2009 and present. • Brief updates on this project were presented at 5 White Pine County Water Advisory Committee meetings between 2009 and present. • Brief updates on this project were presented at 5 Public Land Use Advisory Committee (PLUAC) meetings between 2009 and present.

1.10 Identification of Issues Through the scoping process, the public and other agencies identified concerns in response to the Proposed Action. Identification of issues included reviews of written and verbal comments, input from Forest Service resource specialists, review of the Forest Plan, and comments from state, federal agencies and tribal governments. Comments identified during scoping were evaluated against the following criteria to determine whether or not the concern would be a major factor in the analysis process. • Has the concern been addressed in a previous site-specific analysis, such as in a previous Environmental Impact Statement or through legislative action? • Is the concern relevant to and within the scope of the decision being made and does it pertain directly to the Proposed Action? • Can the concern be resolved through design criteria (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, or compensating for the proposed impact)?

1.10.1 Unresolved Resource Conflicts Although a number of concerns and potential issues were noted during scoping and the analysis, no unresolved resource conflicts were identified. As documented in Chapter 3 and this project’s planning record, the Proposed Action would not result in unacceptable impacts on any given resource and the Proposed Action would not be inconsistent with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. All comments, and issues raised during the various scoping periods have been addressed and those documents have been included in the project record for the North Schell Restoration Project.

Page 13 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the proposed action and no action alternatives. This chapter concludes with a comparative summary of the alternatives considered in detail. This comparison, combined with the more detailed disclosure of impacts in Chapter 3, provides the information necessary for the decision-maker to make an informed choice between alternatives.

2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study In addition to the proposed action and no action alternatives evaluated in this document, other management approaches were considered by the IDT in response to preliminary concerns generated from internal and external scoping of the Proposed Action. These alternatives, which were not studied in detail, are described in this section along with an explanation of why the alternatives were not considered further.

2.2.1 No mechanical treatments in designated roadless areas This alternative would involve no mechanical treatments with tracked or wheeled equipment in designated roadless areas. Prescribed fire would be the primary tool in this alternative. Using prescribed fire as the primary tool would not decrease the threat of fire to private lands and would increase the risk to cultural resources and wildlife habitats particularly within lower elevation sites. This alternative does not adequately address that portion of the purpose and need to reduce fuels with an emphasis near private lands, and therefore this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

2.2.2 Mechanical treatment without prescribed burning Under this alternative mechanical treatments would be the primary type of treatment. This alternative does not restore fire adapted ecosystems by eliminating of the use of prescribed fire. Treatments would be limited to slopes < 30% so only parts of the project area would be treated. This Alternative would not restore or regenerate aspen communities within the project area. This alternative was eliminated because it doesn’t allow for restoration throughout the project area and does not meet the purpose and need for action.

2.2.3 Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments only during winter This alternative would not be feasible because the project area receives considerable snow and is not accessible at least 4-5 months out of the year. The conditions needed to do prescribed burning would be limited to only pile burning and if there is too much snow then this would not be an option. These treatments would not restore and regenerate aspen communities within the project area. This alternative would not decrease the threat for fire to private lands due to very limited treatments adjacent to the private lands. Access too much of the project area is very limited during winter months. This alternative does not adequately address the purpose and need and therefore was eliminated from further consideration.

Page 14 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

2.2.4 Passive Restoration Alternative A comment letter provided by Western Watersheds Project (WWP) suggested an alternative utilizing passive restoration techniques. The commenter provided no further details on the potential alternative. Based on previous comment letters from WWP we believe that this alternative would involve the elimination of or a reduction in livestock grazing in the project area. This alternative may improve conditions of several vegetation communities such as stable aspen and riparian areas. This alternative would not, however, improve or regenerate seral aspen communities. Under this alternative pinyon-juniper would continue to expand into sagebrush communities and impact habitats for sage grouse and mule deer. There would be no reduction of fuels and therefore there would continue to be increased wildfire risks near private lands. This alternative does not adequately address the purpose and need and therefore was eliminated from further consideration.

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail

2.3.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No treatments would be implemented to improve wildlife habitats, reduce fuels or improve vegetation conditions. Wildfires would continue to occur and could be managed for resource benefits in accordance with existing policy and regulations. Pinyon-Juniper will continue to increase in density across the landscape. Seral aspen stands would continue to progress toward the climax community dominated by white fir and the aspen component may be lost within some stands. Sagebrush and stable aspen communities would continue to age and will contain limited early seral components.

2.3.2 Proposed Action The proposed action will use mechanical treatment methods and prescribed fire to restore important vegetative communities, enhance the diversity of age classes and structure of vegetation communities, restore and improve wildlife habitats, and reduce the severity of wildfires on approximately 24,361 acres. Appendix A provides a summary of the proposed treatments including an estimate of the number of acres of treatment by unit and vegetation community.

2.3.2.1 Prescribed Fire Approximately 12,000 acres will be treated using prescribed fire. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. Prescribed fire will be used to treat pinyon-juniper particularly at mid elevations and on slopes greater than 30%. Prescribed fires under very cool prescriptions will be used in mosaic patterns to improve and create diversity within mountain sagebrush communities at higher elevations. As prescribed fire is implemented within mountain big sagebrush communities, those treatments will bump the edges of a number of stable aspen communities. These treatments will regenerate aspen on the outer edges of those stands, and expand the size of the stands, while maintaining the core of the mature trees in the interior of the stands.

Page 15 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Burned openings will generally range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will occur in a mosaic pattern. Size of openings will vary widely depending upon the specific vegetation community and intensity of burn prescriptions. Treatment will be scattered across the landscape. Larger openings may occur due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of fire and weather conditions. Prescribed fire treatments may include: • Ground ignition-drip torches and/or flares • Aerial ignition using helicopters-helitorch and/or Plastic Sphere Dispenser (PSD) • Management of naturally occurring (unplanned ignitions) wildfires for resource benefits Ground support staging areas will occur on existing roads or in designated areas. Handlines may be used on a limited basis to protect historic properties, important resources or to contain fire movement. In addition, firefighting resources would be present to ensure full containment of the prescribed fire within the project area. The target areas for prescribed fire treatments include Phase I and Phase II pinyon/juniper stands, seral and stable aspen stands and mountain sagebrush communities. Steep south facing slopes that have lost their herbaceous understory vegetation and are at high risk for dominance by cheatgrass will not be treated using prescribed fire. Roads within the project area would be closed to the public for the brief time that operations are in progress. Proper signs would be posted as would a notification through proper media (e.g., television, radio, and newspapers). A communication plan would be developed and local leaders, private landowners, and potentially affected businesses and residents would be notified of prescribed fire activities. The project area would also be checked and cleared of any campers, hunters, and any other recreational users. These actions would ensure the safety of both the public and project personnel.

2.3.2.2 Mechanical treatments Approximately 12,361acres will be treated using primarily mechanical methods. Mechanical treatments may be followed by limited prescribed burning to reduce residual slash or meet other vegetation objectives specific to that site. Mechanical treatments would be emphasized on slopes less than 30% and around private lands to reduce the risk from wildfire, improve the health and diversity of vegetation, and to improve wildlife habitats in areas where prescribed fire would be difficult to implement or achieve desired objectives. A variety of treatments will be used to meet site specific objectives. For example; thinning of pinyon- juniper with more even spacing may occur around private lands or developments to reduce fuels and meet visual objectives in that area. Another example may use crews and chainsaws to selective cut young trees in a specific area to maintain sagebrush communities for sagegrouse and mule deer. Mechanical treatment methods that may be used include: • Mastication, chipping, or similar methods. • hand cutting/thinning with chainsaws. • Hand cutting/thinning with chainsaws (personal green fuelwood harvest). • Commercial green fuelwood harvest using low impact mechanized vehicles or other equipment. • Whole tree removal using low impact mechanized vehicles or other equipment.

Page 16 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Slash created from any of the above treatments may be disposed of through chipping, removal from the project area or jackpot burning during periods of low fire risk. Potential equipment that may be used would include chainsaws, three wheeled shears, tracked vehicles, rubber tire skidders and chippers. Use of low impact equipment will be emphasized as much as possible. Project related work will be accomplished using contractors, partnerships, and/or force account crews. Existing roads will be used for access. Roads within the project area may be closed or restricted to the public for the brief time that operations are in progress and proper signs would be posted. The public would be notified about project activities and possible closures through proper media contacts and public message boards (e.g., radio and newspaper).

2.3.2.3 Vegetation Objectives Prescribed fire and/or mechanical treatments will create a diversity of vegetation age classes and structure, improve the health of vegetation communities, improve and/or restore wildlife habitats, reduce fuels, and minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfires. The following are the priority for treatments and specific objectives of those treatments: • Regeneration and restoration of aspen communities which currently contain a conifer component. These treatments will be focused with an objective to treat a minimum of 800 acres of various vegetation types in a select area and within a season to ensure that big game browsing does not prevent successful regeneration of the stands. Treatments to restore aspen will be done in coordination with treatments in adjacent vegetation communities. • Restoration of sagebrush steppe communities through the treatment of pinyon-juniper (phase I & II). These treatments will involve a wide range of methods that are identified above. Specific treatment methods will be selected based upon site specific conditions to ensure objectives are met. • Treatment of pinyon-juniper to reduce fuels particularly around private lands, developments or other areas which need to be protected from wildfires. These treatments may also be implemented to improve the health of the stands or to encourage pinyon nut production in a particular stand. • Improvement within mountain mahogany communities though the selective treatment of pinyon-juniper. These treatments will be primarily limited to the selective cutting of pinyon or juniper trees to maintain mountain mahogany stands which are important to a variety of wildlife species. • Restoration and improvement of riparian communities. Treatments may include selective cutting of pinyon, juniper, or white fir trees to maintain, enhance, or restore riparian areas and watershed function. • Treatment of mature sagebrush steppe communities using cool prescription prescribed burns to increase age class diversity and improve the herbaceous vegetative component. • Treatment and regeneration of stable aspen communities in association with treatments in sagebrush communities.

Page 17 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 2: Specific treatment needs and objectives by project area unit or groups of units (a map of the units within the project area is included in Appendix G):

Unit Primary Vegetation Treatment Methods Specific Objectives or Comments Number(s) Communities 1 and 21 pinyon-juniper Use chainsaws to cut Treatments will occur in Phase 1 and mountain big young pinyon-juniper early phase 2 pinyon-juniper to sagebrush restore sagebrush habitats. Very low impact treatments with no ground disturbance. 2 and 11 pinyon-juniper Hand cutting/thinning Prescribed fire within pinyon-juniper mountain big with chainsaws. to restore sagebrush communities. sagebrush Prescribed fire Hand cutting pinyon-juniper to mountain mahogany improve wildlife habitats and maintain mountain mahogany. 3 pinyon-juniper, No treatments are Unit 3 has limited pinyon-juniper and mountain big proposed. there are cheatgrass concerns related sagebrush, to the use of prescribed fire. mountain mahogany, stable aspen, 4, 10, 15, pinyon-juniper, All mechanical Prescribed fire will be used to treat 16, 17, 19, mountain big treatment methods may pinyon-juniper and restore and 20 sagebrush, be used within these improve sagebrush communities and mountain mahogany, units. Prescribed fire regenerate stable aspen stands. stable aspen, within mountain big Mechanical treatments will restore sagebrush, pinyon- wildlife habitats and big game winter juniper and on the ranges. Fuels will be reduced perimeter of a portion adjacent to private lands and in the of the stable aspen surrounding landscape. Hand cutting stands. pinyon-juniper to improve wildlife habitats and maintain mountain mahogany. 14 pinyon-juniper, All mechanical Prescribed fire will be used to treat mountain big treatment methods may pinyon-juniper and restore and sagebrush, be used within this unit. improve sagebrush communities and mountain mahogany, Prescribed fire within regenerate seral and stable aspen seral and stable aspen mountain big stands. Mechanical treatments will sagebrush, pinyon- restore wildlife habitats and big game juniper and within both winter ranges. Fuels will be reduced seral and stable aspen adjacent to private lands and in the stands. surrounding landscape. Hand cutting pinyon-juniper to improve wildlife habitats and maintain mountain mahogany. 5 and 8 pinyon-juniper, Prescribed fire within Prescribed fire will be used to treat mountain big mountain big pinyon-juniper and restore and sagebrush, sagebrush, pinyon- improve sagebrush communities and mountain mahogany, juniper and seral aspen regenerate seral aspen stands. The seral aspen stands. Hand cutting or majority of Prescribed fire treatments

Page 18 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Unit Primary Vegetation Treatment Methods Specific Objectives or Comments Number(s) Communities thinning with to regenerate aspen will occur within chainsaws. units 5, 8, and 14. Hand cutting pinyon-juniper to improve wildlife habitats and maintain mountain mahogany. 6, 7, 18, 22, pinyon-juniper, Limited prescribed fire Prescribed fire may impact some and 23 mountain big within pinyon-juniper white fir stands incidental to sagebrush, stands. Hand cutting or treatments in pinyon-juniper. Hand mountain mahogany, thinning with cutting pinyon-juniper to improve and white fir chainsaws. wildlife habitats and maintain mountain mahogany. 9 and 13 mountain big Prescribed fire within Prescribed fire will be used to treat sagebrush, mountain mountain big sagebrush sagebrush communities and mahogany, and stable and on the perimeter of regenerate stable aspen stands. aspen. a portion of the stable Sagebrush communities and stable aspen stands. aspen will be treated to create a mosaic pattern with multiple age classes and increase vegetative diversity. 12 pinyon-juniper, Limited prescribed fire Prescribed fire will be used to treat mountain big within pinyon-juniper pinyon-juniper and restore and sagebrush, stands. Hand cutting or improve sagebrush communities. mountain mahogany, thinning with Prescribed fire may impact some and white fir chainsaws. white fir stands incidental to Approximately 700 treatments in pinyon-juniper. acres near Snowbank Mechanical treatments will restore Canyon may be treated wildlife habitats and big game winter with a variety of other ranges. Hand cutting pinyon-juniper mechanical treatment to improve wildlife habitats and methods listed above. maintain mountain mahogany.

2.3.2.4 Design Features: Design Features have been developed to ensure the project maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks to resources in the project area. Wildlife: • Establish a minimum of a 230 acre protection area around any active goshawk nests. Also, establish an appropriate aircraft buffer around any active goshawk nests during spring or early summer burns to prevent disturbance to the nesting birds. • Goshawk and Flammulated owl nesting surveys will be done before prescribed fire is used in potential nesting habitat. • No igniting prescribed fire in pure mountain mahogany stands identified on the H-T current vegetation map; avoid burning these stands which provide important wildlife habitat

Page 19 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Prescribed fire will not be used in occupied habitat for pygmy rabbits. Trees in these areas may be removed with chainsaws and be accessed by foot. • Ensure that ignition activities for prescribed burning are less than 2 weeks in duration within treatment units to allow for migratory birds that may lose their nest to re-nest. • If mechanical treatments are implemented during the breeding season (May 1 to July 15), surveys will be done and areas where concentrated bird nesting is occurring will be flagged and avoided. • In areas where spring burning will occur, areas of high nesting activity will be avoided. • Flag and avoid populations of Broad-pod freckled milkvetch. Heritage Resources: • Avoid burning known historic wood features within the project area. Hand clearing of vegetation around these features may be done as needed to protect the sites. • Avoid active ignition of other known cultural sites. Noxious and Invasive Weeds: • Prescribed fire treatments will be encouraged during spring; avoiding south facing slopes in areas where cheatgrass is abundant. If cheatgrass is present it will likely increase over time. • Treatment of known infestations with herbicide before and after implementation will occur where ever possible and will help limit the further establishment and spread of invasive and noxious weed species. Successful pilot treatments have been completed across the Forest to minimize cheatgrass along roadways and treat Canada thistle in willow communities. • Inventoried invasive and noxious weed infestations will be flagged and avoided to reduce the expansion of undesirable species. • To mitigate ground disturbance during mastication, track equipment operators will avoid making abundant sharp right angle turns, instead utilize a gentle curved pattern with the lowest possible sharp angles during implementation to reduce ground disturbance. • In areas where Jackpot burning will be applied, monitoring will be implemented before and after treatment and any infestations of noxious or invasive weeds will be treated. • The District Weed Coordinator will complete follow-up monitoring within the North Schell Restoration Project Area following completion and at regular intervals to determine the reoccurrence or spread of invasive and noxious weeds. • Inventory of new and existing population of undesirable species will continue to be recorded and treated along existing roads being used during and after project implementation. • To ensure continuation of an integrated pest management program across the project area, additional funding opportunities will be pursued through collaboration with other entities such as; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, and others.

Page 20 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• During implementation, wash all vehicles prior to entering the project area to avoid transmission of invasive and/or noxious weed seeds. • As needed, control of noxious weeds and invasive species would be done under the Forest’s approved treatment program. • No fire treatments will occur in North Creek (Units 1 and 3) due to potential cheatgrass issues. Vegetation: • No ignition will occur on rocky outcrops to avoid burning presettlement trees and rare plant communities • Avoid igniting or cutting identifiable presettlement trees. These trees are identifiable on the landscape by their, flattened, rounded and/or asymmetrical crowns which stand well above the surrounding younger trees that are shorter with conical crowns that may display a pointed tip (stronger apical dominance). • Seeding of native grasses and forbs may be done following treatment to provide additional seed sources for vegetative recovery. Range: • Grazing of treated areas would be prohibited for minimum of two years and in aspen treatment areas grazing will be deferred until the regeneration reaches an average height of 6 feet. • In areas where prescribed fire and reseeding is employed, a mandatory two year rest will be implemented as designated by the Forest Plan. • In areas where mechanical methods are used, adjustments will be made to lessen impacts by livestock. Adjustments may include temporary head month reductions, changes in rotation of livestock operations, and resting areas where reseeding has occurred. Soils/Air/Water • Skidding or other activities that would tend to loosen the soils should be kept away from areas of steep slopes. Skidding across drainages will be avoided where feasible. • Protect water quality through the use of BMPs, which are employed by the Forest Service and the State of Nevada to prevent water quality degradation and to meet state water quality objectives relating to non-point sources of pollution. In addition, use site-specific mitigation measures that relate directly to these BMPs to minimize erosion and resultant sedimentation. • For ephemeral streams that do not show scour and deposition employ streamside management zone (SMZ) widths of 25’. Harvesting equipment is excluded from this area. Equipment may reach into the exclusion zone to remove material. • Exclude equipment from channels, except at equipment crossings, unless specifically allowed for in the environmental document. Minimize the number of crossings. Crossings will be back-bladed after use, as necessary, to restore the natural relief and reduce erosion. • Remove any slash generated by project activities from stream courses as soon as practicable.

Page 21 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Do not locate landings within channels. Mulch and then subsoil landings and other disturbances within 200 feet of stream channels. • Remove no trees adjacent to channels that provide bank stability and/or contribute to channel integrity (except for hazard trees). • Drainages breached, rerouted, or infilled by existing and activity related landings, skid trails and temporary roads would be restored to their natural contour. This would occur during subsoiling operations. • Do not locate skid trails parallel to the bottom of swales. Treat swales as stream courses, crossing at right angles and skidding away from these features. • Retain at least 90% of large woody debris in channels and leave 50-75% of the ground unburned within the interior 50’ of drainages. Within these core areas, ensure that burned areas appear intermittent, not concentrated. Maintain a minimum of 75% ground cover over stream channels. Locate burn piles outside of the “green line” or at least 25’ away from channels having evident scour and deposition, whichever is greater. Burn piles prior to under burning. Public Safety: • Roads within the project area would be closed to the public for the brief time that operations are in progress. • Signs would be posted as would a notification through public media. • Local residents and permittees would be notified. • The project area would also be checked and cleared of any campers, hunters, and any other recreational users that could be impacted by any of the types of treatments. Roadless Areas: • Following completion of mechanical treatments, any skid trails or locations used by vehicles off established roads will be revegetated to ensure that unauthorized roads and/or trails do not develop. • Project will not involve the construction of any roads.

2.3.2.5 Monitoring Monitoring is proposed to 1) assess the effectiveness of treatments in achieving objectives; 2) identify unintended impacts to resources; and 3) determine success in achieving desired vegetation re-establishment. Monitoring documentation will be maintained within the project record in the central files. Wildlife: • Known or identified Goshawk nests will be monitored annually. • Known flammulated owl nest or areas will be monitored annually. • Sites visits will occur in treatment areas within habitat for sage grouse to assess use by the species. • Photo points will be established to document change over time. • Vegetation transects within aspen stands were established by TNC in 2010. These will continue to be monitored.

Page 22 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Heritage Resources: • Cultural Resources - Conduct a post burn assessment on a minimum of three sites identified by the district archeologist to determine the effects of the treatments. Noxious and Invasive Weeds: • Annual site visits will be conducted of treatment areas and noxious weeds will be identified and treated. Vegetation: • Aspen monitoring plots have been established by the Nature Conservancy. These plots will be monitored following treatment to document vegetation response compared to existing conditions. • Photo points will be established at representative locations within all vegetation communities. Photo point information and other monitoring data will be documented and tracked within a project specific monitoring folder. • Random transects will be established within treatment areas to document vegetation response. Roadless Areas: • Treatment areas should be inspected annually for unauthorized vehicle use and /or development of unauthorized vehicle routes. • Within roadless areas, photo points will be established to document recovery and visual changes over time.

2.4 Summary Comparison of Alternatives Table 3 presents a comparative summary of the environmental effects for the alternatives being considered in detail. Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives and Effects

Vegetation Communities

Resources Proposed Action No Action Pinyon-Juniper Total acres within Phase I&II would be No treatments would occur. Communities reduced by approximately 10,000+ acres. Phase I&II pinyon-juniper would Phase III would be thinned to reduce continue to expand and increase fuels in several areas. in density. No fuels treatments would occur around private lands. Sagebrush Acres of sagebrush would increase as a Acres of sagebrush would Communities result of treatments in pinyon-juniper. continue to decrease as pinyon- The diversity of age classes in sagebrush juniper increases. Age classes of would also increase sagebrush would continue to move to mature stands with few areas of younger age classes. Aspen Seral aspen stands which contain white Seral aspen stands would Communities fir would be regenerated and contain an continue to decline as the stands

Page 23 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

abundance of young aspen. Some stable move towards a community aspen stands would increase as dominated by white fire. Many prescribed fire bumps the outer edges and of these stands may be lost over promotes regeneration. time. Stable aspen stands would remain static. White Fir Acres of white fir would decrease as Acres of white fir would increase Communities prescribed fire is implemented to restore as seral aspen communities move seral aspen communities. towards a stand dominated by fir. Mountain Pinyon-juniper trees would be thinned Mountain mahogany stands Mahogany from mountain mahogany stands. would remain static over the Communities short term. Pinyon-juniper densities may increase within the stands over the long term. Watersheds/Hydrology

Resources Proposed Action No Action Increase in 0.3% to 28% increase No Increase in ERA Values Equivalent in ERA Values assuming no large scale wildfire Roaded Acre events (ERA) Values Soils

Resources Proposed Action No Action Soil Erosion Potential increase of up to 25 tons/square No immediate increase in soil mile immediately following treatment. erosion. Under a wildfire Increase of up to 1.3 tons/square mile situation without treatments there annually, and decreasing over time. is a potential immediate increase of 806 tons/square mile and an annual increase of 21-26 tons/square mile Noxious Weeds

Resources Proposed Action No Action Acres of Noxious Acres of noxious weeds may increase in Acres of noxious weeds are Weeds the short term as a result of disturbance. expected to remain static or Over the long term the total acres of increase slightly over time if noxious weeds should remain static or weed treatments do not occur decline as a result of improved due to funding constraints. vegetation conditions and weed treatment efforts. Wildlife/Fisheries Species and Sensitive Plants

Resources Proposed Action No Action Sage Grouse Acres of sage grouse habitat would Acres of sage grouse habitat increase and populations are expected to would decrease and populations remain static or increase. are expected to remain static or decrease.

Page 24 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Northern Individual goshawks may be affected in There would be no effects on Goshawk the short term. Local populations are goshawks in the short term. expected to remain static in the short Local populations would remain term and may increase over the long term static in the short term, however, as seral aspen stands increase and they may decline over the long mature. term as seral aspen stands are lost to white fir and the quality of nesting habitats decline. Flammulated Owl There will be short term impacts to There will be no short term flammulated owls and a reduction in impacts to flammulated owls. potential habitats. This habitat will be Seral aspen stands will decline restored over the long term as seral aspen and may be lost over time and communities mature. may impact available habitat in the long term. Three-Toed Quality and quantity of potential habitat There would be an increase in Woodpecker would remain static potential habitat as seral aspen stands move towards conifer dominated communities. Pygmy Rabbit Potential habitat will increase as Phase I Pygmy rabbit habitats would pinyon-juniper is treated to maintain decrease as pinyon-juniper sagebrush communities. Individuals may stands expand and increase in experience minimal disturbance during density. treatments. Townsends Big- Treatments may result in minimal No individuals would be Eared and Spotted disturbances to foraging individuals. impacted by treatments. Bats Populations are expected to remain static. Populations are expected to remain static. Peregrine Falcon No decrease in potential habitat. No decrease in potential habitat. Populations are expected to remain static Populations are expected to remain static Bighorn Sheep No impacts. No impacts. Bonneville No impacts. No impacts. Cutthroat Trout Mule Deer Availability and quality of habitats are Availability and quality of expected to increase as sagebrush and habitats are expected to decline aspen stands are restored and improved. as sagebrush and aspen stands Populations are expected to remain static are lost to conifers. Populations or increase. are expected to remain static or decline. Trout (MIS) There will be short term adverse effects During the short term erosion as a result of increased erosion and and sedimentation will remain sedimentation into streams. Over the long relatively static and there will be term sedimentation levels will decline as no impacts on trout habitats. vegetation recovers. Availability and quality of stream habitats may improve over the long term as treatments may increase flows within springs and streams Rocky Mountain Restoration of sagebrush and aspen The availability of habitat would Elk communities will increase the availability not change; however, the quality and quality of habitats for elk. of habitat would decline over

Page 25 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Populations of elk are expected to remain time. Populations of elk are static or increase expected to remain static Migratory Birds Treatments will affect and may result in Availability of habitats for disturbance to individual birds. Some sagebrush obligate species will species habitats will increase and be decrease as pinyon-juniper improved such as sagebrush obligate expands and increases in density. species. Available habitats for species Availability of habitat for species which utilize pinyon-juniper may be which rely upon pinyon juniper reduced. There will be no effects on the will increase. viability of any species. Sensitive Plants Individual plants may be impacted or There will be no direct or disturbed during treatments. The indirect effects upon sensitive proposed action will not affect the plant species. There will be no viability of any sensitive plant species. affect on the viability of any sensitive plant species. Roadless Areas

Resources Proposed Action No Action Developments No No within Roadless Areas Roadless There will be short term impacts as a There will be no impacts. Characteristics result of smoke and visual impacts resulting from treatments in vegetation communities. Over the long term the visual impacts will be reduced as vegetation communities recover and revegetate. Wilderness There will be short term impacts to the There will be no impacts. Characteristics apparent naturalness of the area as a result of treatments. There will be no long term impacts as vegetation communities recover. There will be short term impacts on remoteness and solitude as treatments are being implemented associated with noise from equipment and other activities.

Page 26 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing conditions of the environment within the North Schell Restoration Project Area that may affect or be affected by the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The individual discussions are organized by resource. This chapter also discloses the effects on the environment that would occur following implementation of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects are discussed by resource area. Direct and indirect effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place or later in time or farther removed in distance, but is still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action, when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Pursuant to direction found at 40 CFR 1500.1(b) and 1500.4, the discussions presented here are summaries of the complete analysis and form the scientific and analytical basis for the alternatives’ comparison at the end of Chapter 2. Unless specifically stated otherwise, additional supporting information, as well as analysis assumptions and methodologies, is contained in the project planning record located at the Ely Ranger District.

3.2 Cumulative Effects Area The Cumulative Effects Analysis Area for the North Schell Restoration Project includes all public and private lands north of the Kalamazoo-North Creek Road (FS Road #427), east of US Highway 93, south of the Schellbourne Pass Road (County Road #18) and west of the primary Spring Valley Road (State Route #893). This area is approximately 150,000 acres in size and includes Forest Service, BLM and private lands (see Appendix C). This area includes a wide range of habitats for various wildlife and fish species that may occur within the project area. This area also includes vegetation communities which represent those communities that typically occur within the project area. If an alternative Cumulative Effects Area is utilized for the analysis of a specific resource, that area will be described within the specific specialist report. A cumulative effects white paper has been prepared for this project which outlines all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities which occur within the cumulative effects area. A copy of this document has been included in the project record and was used during the analysis of the proposed action and no action alternatives.

3.3 Vegetation

3.3.1 Affected Environment Existing vegetation cover types were mapped for the project area (Gillham, et al. 2004); this existing vegetation map reflects current vegetation composition, structure and patterns, and will be referred to as the current vegetation map throughout this document. Existing vegetation mapped will be referred to as a cover type. Cover types reflect the current dominant life form.

Page 27 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Assessment of the vegetation condition on the North Schell range was completed May 2008 as a partnership effort between TNC and the Ely ranger district and will be referred to as the TNC Assessment in this document. The TNC Assessment and supporting documents are included within the project record. The Forest Service utilized a landscape assessment process facilitated by TNC and identified vegetation communities which are in a declining state of health. One measure of health is the resiliency of a vegetation community when affected by both natural and human caused disturbances such as fire, invasive and noxious weeds, diseases and insects. One method to measure the health and resiliency of a vegetation community is to measure ecological departure. Fire regime condition class (FRCC) determines how similar or how departed a landscape’s current disturbance regime is to its historic or natural state. FRCC is an integrated measure of structure and composition of vegetation types and their disturbance regimes. Current vegetation structure and composition is compared to the historic or natural state, and from this comparison, vegetation treatments recommendations can be made. The assessment identified areas in need of treatment and those most likely to respond successfully to treatment. These areas in need of treatment are referred to as focal conservation targets in the TNC assessment and are defined as a limited suite of species, ecological communities and ecological systems that are chosen to represent and encompass the full array of biodiversity found in a project area. (Conservation Action Planning in the Schell Creek Range: Developing a Watershed Assessment for North Schell, 2008). The TNC Assessment identified focal conservation targets and areas in need of treatment, which are: • Aspen/mixed montane forest and woodland: Treat approximately 4,990 acres of aspen/montane conifer forest to restore natural condition and improve wildlife habitat diversity • Montane sagebrush steppe: Treat approximately 12,000 acres of montane sagebrush to restore natural condition and improve wildlife habitat diversity • Pinyon-juniper/mountain mahogany woodland: Restore natural condition and improve wildlife habitat diversity of pinyon-juniper/mountain mahogany woodland • Mixed sagebrush shrubland and grassland: Treat approximately 8,200 acres of mixed sagebrush shrubland to restore natural condition and improve wildlife habitat diversity • Subalpine conifer: No conservation strategy required The treatment recommendations from TNC were used a guideline; actual acres recommended for treatment varied due to on the ground resource concerns. The historic or natural vegetation state was determined through identifying Landfire biophysical setting models (BpS) present in the North Schell assessment area. These BpS models represent the vegetation that may have been dominant on the landscape prior to Euro-American settlement and is based on both the current biophysical environment and an approximation of the historical disturbance regime. The models for each Bps describe vegetation successional stages, each successional stage is described as to the types and quantity of vegetation present, and each successional stage is assigned a percentage indicating presence on the landscape under historic disturbance regimes. Refer to the Conservation Action Planning in the Schell Creek Range: Developing a Watershed Assessment for North Schell, May, 2008, for details of the BpS models used and the comparison of current condition versus historic condition within each.

Page 28 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The biophysical setting (BpS) models identified for the North Schell assessment area, the map created and the acres assigned to each BpS are not going to correspond to the current vegetation map. The differences between the two will vary greatly in some vegetation types and will be similar for others. That is to be expected, the maps provide different information. However, the information provided by both vegetation mapping systems support the recommendations for treatment in the project area. Biophysical settings are Landfire classifications which represent the vegetation that may have been dominant on the landscape prior to Euro-American settlement and is based on both the current biophysical environment and an approximation of the historical disturbance regime. A map which represents BpS types will usually be different than a current vegetation map since BpS represents more than one vegetation class or successional stage. For example, the Inter- Mountain basins montane sagebrush steppe focal area, BpS 1711260 and 1211260, contain four vegetation classes or successional stages, each dominated by a different lifeform - herbaceous, open shrub, closed shrub, and conifer dominated. Table 4 reflects the acres found in four of the focal areas. Table 4. Focal Area Acres Focal Area Landfire BpS models Acres Inter-Mountain basins montane 1710860, 1711240, 1211240, 1711260, 20,210 sagebrush steppe 1211260 Mixed sagebrush shrubland and 1710800, 1210800, 1710790, 1210790 12,846 grassland Rocky mountain Aspen forest and 1210520, 1710520, 1210610, 1710610, 8,788 woodland 1210110, 1710110 Pinyon Juniper Mountain Mahogany 1710190, 1210190, 1710620, 1210620 32,705 Woodland Total 75,549

3.3.1.1 Pinyon juniper and mountain big sagebrush The lower elevations within the project area are currently dominated by pinyon juniper (p/j) cover type. Pinyon dominates this mix. On the current vegetation map, the appearance of this vegetation band which surrounds the project area on three sides is striking, see Appendix B. There are approximately 39,581 acres of pinyon–juniper (p/j) mapped on the current vegetation map. Pinyon dominates this mix. Since the presettlement period, the mid 1800’s, pinyon and juniper have expanded mainly downslope into sagebrush and to a lesser degree, other ecosystems (Tausch et. al. 1981). This rapid expansion is due to fire suppression, grazing practices, and a climate which favored the establishment and growth of these woodland species (ibid). It is estimated that 2/3’s of the area within the Great Basin currently occupied by p/j is expansion p/j; only 1/3 are historic woodlands (Miller, et. al. 2008). The expansion p/j lands are in various Phases of development. Miller et. al. 2008 defines the early, mid, and late Phases of pinyon-juniper woodland successional development as: Phase I - trees are present but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes on the site.

Page 29 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Phase II - trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site. Phase III - trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing ecological processes on the site. As Phase I and II transition’s into Phase III, the understory shrubs, grasses and forbs are lost as trees dominate and the tree’s canopy cover increases and dominates the site. The loss of the ground vegetation and increased density of canopy fuels marks a shift in biomass to crown fuels which can significantly affect fire severity. The more trees dominated the woodlands become, the less likely they are to burn under moderate conditions. In addition, Phase III pinyon-juniper has lost much of the seed source necessary to regenerate understory herbs, grasses and shrubs following a disturbance (Miller et, al. 2008). As stated above, it is estimated that 2/3 of the landscape dominated by p/j is a phenomenon of recent expansion; formerly these areas were dominated by sagebrush. As pinyon-juniper mature and increase in density shrub and herbaceous species decline, reducing critical habitat components for many wildlife species, including mule deer, elk, sage grouse and other sagebrush dependent species. Pinyon/juniper low, medium and high canopy designations correspond to Phase I, II, and III, respectively. The low, medium, and high, canopy designations correspond to the canopy closure classes for woodland vegetation. These canopy closure breakouts are low = 10-20%, medium = 21-40%, and high = 41%+ (Gillham et. al. 2004). Phase II and III of p/j expansion correlate to vegetation classes D and E in BpS models 1711260 and 1211260 Inter-mountain basins montane sagebrush steppe (table 5). These vegetation classes describe increased conifer dominance and decreasing understory dominance. The current abundance of p/j on the North Schell landscape is due to post settlement expansion into this sagebrush steppe biophysical setting. Historically, 15% of this BpS would have been distributed in vegetation classes D and E. The TNC assessment determined that 32% of the BpS is within these two vegetation classes and an additional 11% is in an uncharacteristic class, described as either depleted (understory), cheatgrass, or full of trees (FRCC matrix spreadsheet dated 5/12/08). On the current vegetation map, classes D, E, and “full of trees” Class U are mapped as p/j. In addition, vegetation class C historically contained 15% of the BpS; current conditions are at 56%. This class represents initial p/j expansion and an increasingly decadent shrub layer with a decreasing herbaceous layer. Class C is described in as having less than 10% conifer component. On the current vegetation map, Class C would be mapped a shrubland. Classes A and B represent a dominant herbaceous component and an open shrub component and are lacking on today’s landscape. Treatments such as prescribed fire and/or mechanical treatments will be targeted at the expansion p/j to set back succession and regenerate a herbaceous (perennial grass and forb) and young shrub component. Similar treatments will be targeted at the older, decadent shrub component in order to regenerate a herbaceous and young shrub vegetation. Table 5 below illustrates this discussion.

Page 30 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 5: Landfire BpS models - Inter-mountain basins montane sagebrush steppe Models 1711260 and 1211260 Vegetation A B C D E U class Early Mid- Late Late Late development- Un- development development development development- closed characteristic -open. -open -closed open Dominant Herbaceous Shrub cover Shrub cover Conifers – Conifers (pinyon lifeform vegetation (mt big (mt big (pinyon /juniper) – 36- sage)– sage) – 26- /juniper) – 80% 6-25% 45% 11-25%

Historic 20 50 15 10 5 0 distribution % Current 0 <1 56 5 27 11 vegetation %

For a full description see the TNC assessment and supporting documentation. Dominant lifeform as described in the BpS descriptions can be thought of as a surrogate for current vegetation. If the existing vegetation in this BpS was in a historic, or non-departed condition (FRCC=1) current vegetation would correspond more closely with the percentages described above in the chart. The majority of vegetation (50+15=65%) on the current vegetation map would be mapped as sagebrush and most sagebrush would be in an open canopy condition (class B), plus there would be a mapped herbaceous component (class A). The information provided by the BpS models, the TNC assessment, the research referenced above which speaks to pinyon expansion and the subsequent loss of understory vegetation and fuel increase, along with the pinyon mapped in the current vegetation map supports the need to treat pinyon and closed canopy sagebrush classes to restore herbaceous and shrub vegetation.

3.3.1.2 Aspen Aspen was identified during the TNC Assessment as an area in need of treatment and likely to respond successfully to treatment (Conservation Action Planning in the Schell Creek Range: Developing a Watershed Assessment for North Schell, 2008). Aspen may be a small portion of this landscape, but it is a priority to treat; with the exception of riparian areas, aspen communities are considered to be the most biologically diverse in the intermountain west (Kay 1997). Stable and seral aspen is in poor condition in the North Schell project area, few clones are regenerating. Seral aspen are aspen that may be rapidly replaced by conifers within a single aspen generation. Aspen is a shade intolerant species that requires sunlight to reproduce. Dense shade from conifers, especially fir species will eventually shade out, weaken and kill an aspen clone. In a seral aspen stand, conifers are prominent, not merely present, and a conifer forest will dominate if no disturbance, usually fire, occurs to kill the conifers. Stable

Page 31 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

aspen are aspen stands that can persist for several generations, several centuries, without much change; that is, aspen continues be the dominant species (Mueggler, 1985). The TNC Assessment rated aspen as poor, meaning the aspen is not regenerating; most aspen clones have died or have been replaced entirely by conifers. Twenty six plots assessing aspen over-story, mid story and understory were established throughout the project area. No plots had a vigorous regenerating understory; elk and/or deer sign was observed in 10 plots and cattle sign in one plot; aspen shoots are frequently browsed by deer, elk, sheep and cattle. Aspen regenerates primarily by sending up root sprouts (suckers), if aspen is to persist and survive, successful suckering (regeneration) must occur. Successful is defined by a sucker that can grow tall enough that it is no longer in danger of having its terminal leader eaten by animals. Domestic livestock will not usually browse sprouts over 6’ tall, but elk can break off and consume aspen saplings up to 1.5” at DBH (4.5’) tall. It can take up to ten years for sprouts to achieve this size. (Shepperd, 2008). Another method to assess successful aspen regeneration is whether a person can see well into or through the stand, if this is possible, the regeneration lacks vigor and is not likely to be successful in perpetuating the stand. Aspen targeted for treatment will need to be protected from herbivory. Units will be rested after treatment from domestic grazing for two years per the Humboldt Forest plan (USDA 1986), although this does not address deer and elk herbivory impacts. Protection can range from barrier methods such as fencing or “hinging” trees to create a barrier, preventing domestic grazers from grazing until adequate height growth is obtained, or treating a large block of contiguous, or somewhat connected, acreage so that herbivores will be dispersed throughout the area. Treating large acres at the same time creates a pulse of regeneration on a scale that ungulate populations can only partially or minimally impact. Literature suggests that hundreds of acres is the scale to consider to disperse wild ungulate grazing pressure (Shepperd, 2001). On the current vegetation map, aspen is underrepresented. Seral aspen occurs as a component of white fir. In some stands of white fir there is not enough aspen for the map to either identify aspen as a separate polygon or to map the vegetation as an aspen/conifer stand. In the current vegetation map upland vegetation polygons were aggregated to 5 acres, riparian polygons aggregated to ½ acre (Gillham, et al. 2004), so small remnant populations of aspen will not be mapped if less than these minimum acres. Walkthroughs of vegetation mapped as white fir have revealed scattered understory aspen in units 5, 8, and 14. This aspen will die out completely if the white fir overstory is not removed. Removal of the white fir with prescribed fire will allow the aspen to regenerate. If the white fir does not have enough decadence (dead and dying trees) the unit might be difficult to ignite. Felling fir prior to prescribed fire treatments may be needed to create some dry ground and ladder fuels needed to help with initial ignition and spread of fire. The BpS models containing aspen, Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer forest and woodland and Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland, indicate that historically, only 1% of the vegetation would be in a decadent or non-regenerating stage. On the North Schell project area, almost all of the aspen is in that condition. The seral aspen stands are a priority to treat since they are rapidly being outcompeted by the white fir. All stands that can be treated and protected from herbivory utilizing strategies as discussed above, should be a priority for treatment.

Page 32 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.3.1.3 White Fir As mentioned above in the aspen discussion, white fir is a component of seral aspen and due to limitations of the vegetation map, there are white fir stands that contain an unidentified aspen component. White fir is a prolific seeder and provides dense shade; however, it is very susceptible to fire mortality. The absence of fire on this landscape has allowed fir to establish itself and dominate sites more so than would have happened with a functioning fire regime. Prescribed fire will introduce heterogeneity into fir stands and will help restore aspen communities and sagebrush communities where fir has expanded or is currently dominating.

3.3.1.2 Mountain Mahogany Mountain mahogany is a shade intolerant, long lived species. It has value as a big game forage species and provides thermal cover. Generally, mountain mahogany is a sparse reproducer. It mainly reproduces by seed, and while seed production can be high, the germination requirements are rather specific and the seedlings are preferred browse. Few seedlings grow to maturity. The species is also sensitive to fire; the bark is thin and easily killed by fires. The species does not sprout after fire (Fire Effects Information System). Mountain mahogany stands will not be targeted for ignition, however some may burn due to adjacency with other vegetation types targeted for prescribed fire, for example pinyon. Treatments targeted for mountain mahogany are mechanical removal of competing pinyon. Since mountain mahogany has a low tolerance for shade, other conifers which have become established amongst mahogany will out compete and eventually replace the mahogany. Shade provided by full crowned species like pinyon will also inhibit mahogany regeneration (Fire Effects Information System).

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences Proposed Action

3.3.2.1 Pinyon Juniper and Mountain Big Sagebrush Approximately 22,367 acres of pinyon juniper and mountain big sagebrush cover types are proposed for treatment (Appendix A). These treatments will target the removal of expansion pinyon from sagebrush and pinyon juniper focal areas and improve the distribution of vegetation classes in the sagebrush steppe focal area. Mechanical Treatment The majority of the 12,361 mechanical treatment acres will occur in pinyon juniper cover type that has expanded into sagebrush. Mechanical treatments will be used on slopes <30%. These treatments will either fell all, or thin (remove only some of the trees), expansion pinyon. The trees cut will range in size from small seedlings (less that 4.5’ tall) in Phase I stands to much larger trees found in Phase II and III stands. In historic pinyon juniper, treatments will have the objective of protecting and maintaining the historic pinyon. Smaller, younger trees may be cut to reduce ladder fuels and reduce competition for water and nutrients. No identifiable presettlement trees will be targeted for removal. These trees are identified by their flattened, rounded and/or asymmetrical crowns. Also, they are taller than the surrounding younger trees which usually have conical crowns - stronger apical dominance typical of younger trees.

Page 33 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Mechanical treatments would be emphasized on slopes less than 30% and around private lands to reduce the risk from wildfire, improve the health and diversity of vegetation, and to improve wildlife habitats in areas where prescribed fire would be difficult to implement or achieve desired objectives. A variety of treatments will be used to meet site specific objectives. For example; thinning of pinyon-juniper with more even spacing may occur around private lands or developments to reduce fuels and meet visual objectives in that area. Another example may use crews and chainsaws to selectively cut young trees in a specific area to maintain sagebrush communities for sage grouse and mule deer. Treatments may range from hand treatments such as chainsaw felling and either leaving the tree lie, or cutting the tree up and lopping and scattering the slash; or mechanical treatments such as masticators; or harvest machinery or personal use fuelwood that will remove the trees from the site. Mechanical methods will follow Best Management Practices to protect soil and water resources as outlined in Appendix F. Prescribed burning may follow mechanical treatment to reduce slash. Slash also may be reduced by chipping. Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire will be used to treat pinyon-juniper particularly at mid elevations and on slopes greater than 30%. Prescribed fires will be used in mosaic patterns to improve and create diversity within mountain sagebrush communities at higher elevations Burned openings will generally range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will occur in a mosaic pattern. Size of openings will vary widely depending upon the specific vegetation community and intensity of burn prescriptions. Treatment will be scattered across the landscape. Larger openings may occur due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of fire and weather conditions. Prescribed treatments may include: ground ignition-drip torches and/or flares, aerial ignition using helicopters-helitorch and/or Plastic Sphere Dispenser (PSD), and management of naturally occurring (unplanned ignitions) wildfires for resource benefits. Ground support staging areas will occur on existing roads or in designated areas. Handlines may be used on a limited basis to protect historic properties, important resources or to contain fire movement. In addition, firefighting resources would be present to ensure full containment of the prescribed fire within the project area. The target areas for prescribed fire treatments include Phase I and Phase II pinyon/juniper stands, seral and stable aspen stands and mountain sagebrush communities. There will be no intentional ignition of presettlement trees, however, due to their adjacency to Phase I and II pinyon juniper, some trees may be scorched or killed. Steep south facing slopes that have lost their herbaceous understory vegetation and are at high risk for dominance by cheatgrass will not be treated using prescribed fire.

3.3.2.2 Aspen Approximately 1,000 acres of aspen is proposed for treatment with prescribed fire (Appendix A). The target areas for prescribed fire treatments include seral and stable aspen stands. As prescribed fire is implemented within mountain big sagebrush communities, those treatments will bump the edges of a number of stable aspen communities. These treatments will regenerate aspen on the outer edges of those stands, and expand the size of the stands, while

Page 34 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

maintaining the core of the mature trees in the interior of the stands. Prescribed fire will also regenerate aspen which currently contain a conifer component. These treatments will be focused with an objective to treat a minimum of 800 acres of various vegetation types in a select area and within a season to ensure that big game browsing does not prevent successful regeneration of the stands. In Appendix A, the white fir vegetation types in units 5, 8, and 14 identified as areas to treat are mapped as white fir, but field observations have revealed an understory of aspen. Removal of the fir will allow the aspen to regenerate. Successful regeneration of aspen relies on three components: hormonal stimulation, growth environment, and protection of suckers. Fire meets all these requirements. It stimulates suckering by killing overstory stems and interrupting the flow of auxin to the roots. Auxin is the hormone which suppresses suckering. Fire removes competing overstory vegetation and conifers allowing the sunlight to reach the forest floor. The burned vegetation provides a pulse of nutrients and the blackened soil warms the roots. Dense suckering over a large area can provide a deterrent to wide spread browsing (Shepperd, 2001). Monitoring to assess suckering response and establishment success should occur the first, third and fifth year after treatment. The first year will assess whether a suckering response is occurring and if any browse is occurring. If no suckering is occurring, a second year assessment may be needed. Subsequent assessments will determine whether the suckers are surviving and whether this new cohort will survive over time. Monitoring may need to occur later than five years after treatment if the suckers have not reached a height or diameter which is resistant to browsing. Domestic livestock will not usually browse sprouts over 6’ tall, but elk can break off and consume aspen saplings up to 1.5” at DBH (4.5’) tall. It can take up to ten years for sprouts to achieve this size. (Shepperd, 2008). A quick plot or transect method may be used to take a representative count of the suckers in each treatment unit.

3.3.2.3 White Fir See discussion on aspen, the white fir proposed for treatment has an understory of aspen. Prescribed fire will be used to regenerate the aspen.

3.3.2.4 Mountain Mahogany Approximately 900 acres of mountain mahogany is proposed for mechanical treatment (Appendix A). These treatments will selectively remove pinyon-juniper that has expanded into mountain mahogany stands.

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative

3.3.3.1 Pinyon Juniper and Mountain Big Sagebrush Pinyon juniper currently dominates the lower elevations of the project area. Without treatment the pinyon will continue to progress towards Phase III. As the stands move towards Phase III, the grass, herbaceous, and sagebrush understories in the expansion area will die off. The understory components cannot persist with Phase III pinyon. The increasing tree density will be accompanied by an increase in crown fuels which can significantly affect fire severity. Phase II and III woodlands are less likely to burn under moderate conditions. A severe fire accompanied with loss of understory plants and seed

Page 35 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

sources will make it much more likely that the post burn stand will be dominated by invasive non native plants (Miller et. al.2001). The mountain big sagebrush will continue in the closed shrub condition, lack age class diversity, and the herbaceous component will continue to be non-existent. Pinyon will continue to expand into this sage brush system, and as the pinyon fills in, there will be further loss of understory shrub, grass and herbaceous components. The no action alternative will promote the status quo of the current vegetation development. Sagebrush will continue to be a homogeneous cover of older, decadent sagebrush. Pinyon juniper will continue to grow occupying the site and out-competing the understory components. Fuels reduction will not occur near ranches, habitat improvement will not occur, the ability of this system to respond favorably after disturbance, such as wildfire, will decrease over time as the diversity of understory vegetation decreases.

3.3.3.2 Aspen Aspen in the project area is in poor condition as discussed above. Stable clones are not regenerating and are invaded by sagebrush; seral clones are rapidly being shaded out by white fir. No action will seal the fate of these clones; they will continue to decline and die. A wildfire might provide the needed disturbance but wildfire occurrence and scale are unpredictable and may be too late if the clones have weakened and reduced in size due to die off. Further loss of this keystone species is not a desirable outcome.

3.3.3.3 White Fir No action alternative will affect the white fir only slightly. The main effect will be on the vegetation types that the white fir is outcompeting, the seral aspen and fringes of the mountain sage community where white fir has expanded.

3.3.3.4 Mountain Mahogany Minor amounts of mechanical treatment are proposed in selected mountain mahogany stands. The treatment will be removal of pinyon which has expanded into mahogany. The effect of not doing this treatment will not be immediately evident; it will take time for the pinyon to out compete the mahogany. The longer term consequences are pinyon will continue to establish itself and crowd out the mahogany. Also, the pinyon component will provide an additional fuel component and make the stands more susceptible to stand replacement fire.

3.4 Noxious Weeds

3.4.1 Affected Environment There are 47 plant species designated as noxious by the State of Nevada (NAC 2010). Noxious weeds are highly invasive plants that generally possess poisonous, toxic, parasitic, invasive, and aggressive characteristics. Noxious weeds are capable of producing highly viable seeds, which can persist in the soil for several decades (D’Antonio and Meyerson 2002). The presence of noxious weeds signifies an area is at risk from a health and sustainability viewpoint, whether or not the landscape is disturbed or pristine (O’Brien et al. 2003).

Page 36 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Infestations reduce the amount of available forage for wildlife and livestock, and have the ability to take over large areas of land, reducing valuable public land resources (NAC 2010).

3.4.1.1 Known Noxious Weeds The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest utilizes an integrated pest management program that includes early detection, mapping, mechanical, biological, and herbicide treatments. Surveys conducted during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 field seasons found a majority of the project area is relatively free of noxious and/or invasive weeds with the exception of a few isolated infestations (Table 7). Most of the noxious weed infestations are concentrated along the Kalamazoo Summit road and within low elevation sites. The district in its entirety has not been surveyed so these acres are not inclusive. It can be expected to find other species and more locations of current species within the treatment units during implementation or in future inventories. Weeds occurring in small populations across the project area include; Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Hoary Cress (Cardariadraba), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea bieberteinii), Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and Yellow Spine Thistle (Cirsium ochrocentrum). These species typically dominate areas after major disturbances such as fire, overgrazing, or heavy recreational use. Inventory and treatment will continue under current management direction on an annual basis or as funding allows. Detailed information and locations of noxious and invasive weed populations within the project area are included within the Noxious Weed Specialist Report in the project record.

3.4.1.2 Cheatgrass The impacts of cheatgrass have been widely documented. Chambers et al. (2007) citing several authors conclude that the magnitude of the invasion and effects on native ecosystems makes this possibly the most significant plant invasion in North America. Chambers et al. (2007) also discuss the various adaptive characteristics that make this annual plant so successful including prolific seed production, rapid root growth at low temperature, high nutrient uptake rates, and, most significantly, a ready adaptation to frequent fire. It is known that cheatgrass occurs at most elevations and along roadways across the Ely Ranger District, adjacent Bureau of Land Management sites, and private lands. There has not been an attempt to map cheatgrass; therefore, total acres could not be calculated. Cheatgrass is widely distributed in the Ely Ranger District; however, mapping has not been concluded. Generally known infestations of noxious weeds are small. Predicting the rate of expansion of cheatgrass under either alternative is difficult. Invasion of cheatgrass is often assumed to be exacerbated by cattle grazing particularly heavy grazing. However, the scientific literature presents a complex picture of the interactions of various disturbance factors such as grazing, fire, insects, and pathogens, and site characteristics such as soil, moisture regime, and competing vegetation. Noteworthy concerns have also been raised about the potential impacts of a warmer and possibly drier climate on the spread of invasive species such as cheatgrass and medusahead. Higher elevation sites with cooler temperatures and greater precipitation, such as are represented on Ely Ranger District, have generally been more resistant to cheatgrass invasion than surrounding lower elevation lands (Tausch et al.1994). As Chambers and Pellant (2008) note, “The current distribution of cheatgrass is limited by the effects of cold

Page 37 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

temperature…Under warming scenarios the upper distributional limit of cheatgrass could greatly expand.” Equally problematic is the finding that cheatgrass appears to respond robustly to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). In laboratory studies Ziska and others (2005) compared cheatgrass responses in various CO2 concentrations representing levels in the early 19th century, the levels in the1960s, current levels, and projected levels for 2020. Increasing CO2 concentrations increased cheatgrass biomass production significantly and increased the indigestible portion of the plant material. Cheatgrass biomass production in atmospheres projected for 2020, was double that of the early 19th century. It should be noted that many plant species respond positively to the “fertilization effects” of CO2, and it is difficult to predict the relative plant community impacts to increasing CO2 concentrations (Weltzin et al. 2003). Microbiotic crusts have been shown to help stop the spread of cheatgrass. Deines and others (2007) showed a reduction on cheatgrass seed establishment and Serpe and others (2006) showed a possible reduction of cheatgrass density when biological crusts were present. Destruction of microbiotic crusts can occur through livestock trampling and vehicle traffic. Beymer and Klopatek (1992) noted a reduction in visible crust cover in grazed study sites. Gelbard and Belnap (2003) concluded that livestock trampling is physically detrimental to biological crust and the subsequent loss of crust aided in the invasion of undesirable plants. Memmott and others (1998) reported that areas grazed during the spring or summer experienced significant declines in biological crust cover, while areas grazed during the winter had little damage. Marble and Harper (1989) observed similar types of impacts from grazing on biological crust. Table 6: Acres of Noxious and Invasive Weeds occurring within Project Area Total Acres in Project Common Name Scientific Name Area Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum UNKNOWN Whitetop Cardaria draba 84 Musk Thistle Carduus nutans 463 Spotted Knapweed Centaurea bieberteinii 0.5 Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 189 Yellow Spine Thistle Cirsium ochrocentrum 889 Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare 55 Total Acreage 1680.5

Table 7: Estimated Acres of Noxious and Invasive Weeds Polygons by Treatment Unit. Bromus Cardaria Carduus Centaurea Cirsium Cirsium Cirsium Unit tectorum draba nutans bieberteinii arvense ochrocentrum vulgare

1 5.5 10.3 0 0.3 54.6 4 2 Unknown 15.1 4.6 0 7.3 0 0 3 0.7 14.2 0 18.7 89.6 3.6 4 50.1 27.9 0 34.5 6.8 0

Page 38 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Bromus Cardaria Carduus Centaurea Cirsium Cirsium Cirsium Unit tectorum draba nutans bieberteinii arvense ochrocentrum vulgare 5 4.9 1 0 0 337.5 0

6 0.9 0 0 5.5 164 0.2

7 0 0.8 0 0.1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Unknown 0 2.7 0 0 0 0

10 0 1.7 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 0 8.9 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 39.9 0 0.2 0.1 0

14 0.1 58 0.1 0.9 17.3 0 Unknown 15 0.1 35.9 0 0.4 35.9 0 16 2.3 23.3 0 0 14.4 1 17 1.1 171.1 0 117.2 6.2 25.5 18 0 0 0 0 19.1 0 19 1.4 60.1 0 3.1 117.3 19.8 20 0.9 8.2 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4.1.2 Noxious Weed Risk Assessment The Noxious Weeds Risk Assessment (FSM 2200 Chapter 2080 HTNF Supplement 2000- 2004-1) has been completed for the ‘North Schell Restoration’ project (Table 8). The overall potential for weed spread as a result of project implementation is low to moderate, with the exception of specific treatment units within the project area which are on the upper end of moderate. Units with a low risk rating will proceed as planned and initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that are established in the area. Units with a moderate risk rating will be required to implement preventative management measures and complete post- project monitoring for at least 3 years. Table 8: Summary of Weed Risk Assessment for North Schell Restoration.

Unit Value Risk Rating Action

1 25 *MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 2 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 3 25 *MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 4 25 MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 5 25 *MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations.

Page 39 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Unit Value Risk Rating Action

6 25 MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 7 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 8 25 MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 9 25 MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 10 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 11 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 12 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 13 25 *MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 14 25 *MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 15 25 *MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 16 25 MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 17 25 *MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 18 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 19 25 MODERATE Implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 20 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 21 1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. *Indicates: upper end of moderate rating

Prevention and control measures (FSM-2000 Chapter 2081.2) provide guidance for noxious weed prevention and control following ground disturbing activities. Along with design criteria identified above, specific management actions to be adhered too are outlined in the “Noxious and Invasive Weeds Preventative Management Measures for North Schell Restoration Project”. When fully implemented as planned, these actions would greatly reduce the risk factors described in this document, resulting in reduced risk of noxious weed invasion.

Page 40 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Activities associated with prescribed burning and mechanical treatments can have many effects related to noxious and invasive weeds. For this discussion, the measurement indicator for comparison of the alternatives is the number of acres affected by noxious and invasive weeds.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences Proposed Action

3.4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Infestations of noxious weeds occur within most vegetative communities to varying degrees within the project area. Infestations in mountain brush, low sagebrush, and higher elevation mountain sagebrush communities are generally isolated and limited in size. Wyoming big sagebrush and lower elevation mountain big sagebrush communities have more infestations of larger size and are at greater risk for infestation of noxious weeds. Potential direct effects of the proposed prescribed burning and mechanical treatments may be an increase in weed population by displacing native vegetation. Noxious weeds have a competitive advantage in areas where the native bunchgrasses and forbs are stressed and degraded which can result in areas of disturbance. The simplest effect of some invasions is the displacement of native plant species by simple crowding, competition for resources, or other mechanisms (USDI BLM 1998). An aggressive identification and treatment program on the district has minimized the cumulative effects of noxious weeds on these upland vegetation communities. Known weed populations in the project area are currently small and found near roadways Potential indirect effects of the proposed action may be to promote resistance to weed invasion. Phase I, II and III pinyon-juniper are intermingled throughout the project area. The intermingling of the Phase I, II, with Phase III across the project area will ensure that adjacent, native seed sources are available for understory recovery after potential treatment of the overstory fuels. Over the long-term, implementation of prescribed burns and other vegetative treatments should reduce the amount of bare ground and promote healthier understory and ecosystem communities; thus, giving desired plant species greater opportunity to compete with the noxious and invasive weeds.

3.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects Mining/Mineral Exploration and Energy Development Mining and mineral exploration in the vicinity of Muncy Creek and Ruby Hill have historically created areas of disturbance where noxious weeds have established. These activities have altered vegetation near springs and streams; as a result, many riparian sites are infested with thistle and other non-desirable species. Future mineral exploration would create areas of disturbance where new infestations of noxious weeds may become established and/or increase existing populations. Vehicle traffic associated with exploration may also contribute as a vector for dispersal of seed. There are currently no known active mines or exploration activities taking place within the cumulative effects area; nor, are there indications or proposals of future endeavors.

Page 41 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Monitoring and treatment would continue; thus, weed infestations would remain stable or decline resulting in long-term positive effects. Livestock Grazing Domestic livestock can play a role in transporting weed seed on the Forest through various ways. Livestock can enter the Forest with seeds in their fur, hooves, or digestive system from some other area (Chambers and MacMahon 1994, Olsen 1999). The likelihood of animals spreading seeds within a given allotment is much greater because they will be utilizing the allotments through the flowering season. Long distance seed dispersal between pastures may occur when cattle are rotated (Parks et al. 2005). Equipment used to manage livestock may also be a source of seed transport; this can include OHVs, trucks, and stock trucks. Trunkle and Fay (1999), Parendes and Jones (2000), and Gelbard and Belnap (2003) showed that vehicles and roads were major vectors for noxious weed dispersal. Davies and others (2009) also report the results of comparisons of grazed areas with area reserved from grazing for over 50 years. The researchers established and compared four treatment areas: grazed and burned, grazed and unburned, ungrazed and burned, and ungrazed and unburned. Grazed areas were subjected to low to moderate levels of grazing (30 to 40 percent utilization rates). As might be expected burned plots, whether grazed or ungrazed, had significantly lower levels of sagebrush compared to unburned plots. However, grazed/burned treatments had significantly higher cover of perennial grasses than the other three treatments. Most surprising was the difference in cheatgrass response in the various treatments. Cheatgrass density was 15-fold greater in the ungrazed/burned treatment than in the other treatments which did not differ significantly in cheatgrass density. From these finding the authors suggest that low-severity disturbance may be needed in some plant communities to increase resilience to more severe disturbances. The authors also conclude that modern deviations from historic conditions (such as cheatgrass invasion) can alter ecosystem response to disturbances and thus restoring the historical disturbance regime may not be an appropriate strategy for all ecosystems. Livestock grazing and associated activities would continue to provide a source of disturbance and vector for weed movement across the project area; however, the mandatory two year rest will provide time for desirable vegetation to re-establish. Monitoring and continued treatment would identify areas of concern and provide proper treatment. In the short-term, known weed populations may be exacerbated following treatment; however, the long-term effects would be positive. Under the proposed action ecological systems would move toward desired condition, giving desired plant species greater opportunity to compete with the noxious and invasive weeds. Livestock Developments Historic and potential future livestock developments associated with grazing allotments can have a wide range of potential cumulative effects. Historically many livestock water developments were placed close to springs or seeps. In many cases, the spring head was fenced to provide protection and minimize additional grazing impacts from livestock; however, water developments and fences can concentrate livestock and increase use levels and disturbance. Heavy grazing in these areas results in the depletion of native vegetation.

Page 42 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Livestock trails and livestock congregation areas within the project area provide ideal areas for noxious weed establishment. Within these locations, there is soil disturbance and reduced competition from native vegetation (Olsen 1999, Augustine and McNaughton 1998). Degraded or stressed plant communities can provide open habitat or sites for the establishment of noxious weeds. Many of these sites are located on riparian areas, dry benches adjacent to streams, salting locations, roadsides, trails, or areas around water developments. Germination requirements for cheatgrass are enhanced when there is a litter layer, or when there is a rough microtopography (Young and Evans 1973). The microtopography that is needed can be caused by hoof depressions on bare soil (Young and Evans 1973). Range developments would remain on allotments within the cumulative effects area to ensure appropriate management of livestock; thus, noxious and invasive weed infestations would continue to occur in areas of high concentrated use. Noxious weed locations associated with allotment developments are currently limited to a few isolated locations; however, there is potential risk for future infestations. Monitoring and continued assessments would identify areas of concern. Special Uses Historically the Ely Ranger District has had minimal Special Uses activities within the cumulative effects area. Activities include Outfitting and Guiding permits, water developments or ditch easements, power lines, and road right of ways. Most special use activities have the potential to act as a vector to spread weeds out of road prisms and into other areas by way of pack animals, vehicles, equipment, or other by human interactions. Most permits require rehabilitation plans or commitment to follow mitigation measures or preventative action plans. Special Use activities would continue to provide a source of disturbance and vector for weed movement across the project area. Monitoring and treatments would continue to identify areas of concern and provide treatment. Weed populations would likely remain stable or decline in areas with intensive weed management. Fuelwood Harvest The Ely Ranger District has historically allowed and continues to allow the harvesting of fuelwood in the cumulative effects area. Fuelwood permits allow only cutting of dead and down pinyon, juniper, aspen and white fir. Off road travel can create disturbed sites and bare ground where noxious weeds can become established. Weed seed can be accidentally transported into an area resulting in a new noxious weed infestation. Harvesting of forest products considered minimal with only limited impacts. In general, the harvesting of forest products on the Ely Ranger District will continue and may increase in the future. These activities have the potential to create soil disturbance that can easily become infested by noxious weeds. Off road travel can contribute to the movement of noxious weed infestations. Monitoring and treatment would continue to target noxious and invasive weeds.

Page 43 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Wildfire Wildfire can change the vegetation on these sites and make them more vulnerable to noxious weeds or other impacts. In most cases, communities recover following wildfires; however, recovery can be slowed due to the size and intensity of the fires, and the possible of encroachment and dominance of cheatgrass following the fire. Although fires have always been a natural occurrence in the Great Basin grasslands, they normally occurred no more than every 60 to 100 years, while cheatgrass has a fire cycle of every 3 to 5 years (Kaczmarski 2007). Native plants cannot recover from such frequent burnings. After a few cycles, a cheatgrass monoculture develops, which further induces the wildfire/annual grass cycle (Kaczmarski 2007). Impacts from wildfire have been shown to increase the competitive advantage of plants such as cheatgrass. Historically fires within the cumulative effects area have been small and isolated. Most fires have been less than 1 acre in size. Over the past 30 years only two wildfires greater than 100 acres have occurred within the cumulative effects area. Less than 600 acres have burned in the area over that same time frame. Rehabilitation actions usually consist of seeding native species, repairing fences, and aggressively treating noxious weeds to minimize infestations. Rehabilitation activities following wildfires have assisted in restoring perennial vegetation in burned areas. Two or more years of rest have allowed vegetation resources including riparian areas to recover following fires. Two years of rest are mandatory following a wildfire. Wildfires and associated activities will likely continue to impact resources within the cumulative effects area by creating areas of disturbance and providing vectors for transport. The locations and timing of potential wildfires in the future cannot be predicted and are therefore not foreseeable. Noxious and invasive species will continue to expand following wildfires; however, in areas where rehabilitation and weed treatments are implemented, the rate of spread would be at a slower rate. Monitoring and treatment would continue to target noxious and invasive weeds. Wildlife and Wild Horses Wildlife and wild horses have the potential to transport seed in the same manner as permitted livestock but to a greater degree because they remain on the land year round and can travel long distances. In areas of high concentrated use, there is a potential to deplete native vegetation, increase susceptibility to invasive and noxious weed infestations, and increase soil compaction. In general, effects can be observed most readily in riparian sites where water is present. Wildlife and wild horses would continue to provide a source of disturbance and vector for weed movement across the project area. Monitoring and treatments would continue to identify areas of concern and provide proper treatment. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments Prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, and brush mowing would continue within the cumulative effects area. The goal of these projects is to reduce decadent sagebrush cover, and improve overall vegetative composition including the growth of forbs, perennial grasses and health of shrubs. The risk for invasion by noxious/invasive weeds is dependent upon location; therefore, monitoring and mitigation strategies need to be developed prior to project

Page 44 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

implementation. Treatment areas are generally monitored annually to ensure that no weed infestations are identified. In general, spraying and inventory of invasive and noxious weeds will continue and/or increase within the project area for the next 2-3 years as a result of project activities. Noxious and invasive species will continue to expand following ground disturbing activities; however, in areas where rehabilitation and weed treatments are implemented, the rate of spread would be at a slower rate. Developed and Dispersed Recreation Roads, trails, dispersed campsites, road maintenance, and vehicles (OHVs, cars, trucks, etc.) contribute to the movement of noxious weed infestations within the project area. Dispersed use activities can create disturbed sites and bare ground where noxious weeds can become established. Weed seed can be accidentally transported into an area resulting in a new noxious weed infestation. Noxious weed seed, such as hoary cress, is easily dispersed along roadways and can spread quickly along these routes. Weed infestations are easily located along roads and can be treated efficiently (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Schmidt 1989). Visitors can transport new weeds into an area which pose an additional risk to vegetative communities. Future developments have the potential to increase the abundance of noxious weed infestations. The implementation of the Ely Travel Management Plan will reduce the spread of noxious and invasive weeds associated with unrestricted off-road travel. There will be a reduction in soil erosion (bare ground, sediment/turbidity). Road densities will decline as unrestricted off road travel is eliminated and unauthorized roads are closed and rehabilitated. Impacts from existing open roads, trails, and recreation would continue to create soil disturbance that can easily become infested by noxious weeds. Monitoring and treatment would continue to target noxious and invasive weeds. Private Lands Management/Development Most private landowners maintain some level of noxious and invasive weed treatment program; therefore, the potential risk of spread from private land is small. Currently no new construction is proposed to take place within the cumulative effects area. However, in the event of new construction, ground disturbance could increase noxious and invasive weed populations or make areas more susceptible to invasion. In general, the rate of spread on private and adjacent lands would likely remain stable or decline in areas with intensive weed management.

3.4.2.3 Summary The proposed action has the potential to increase noxious and invasive weed populations over the short-term by increasing the number of vectors for weeds and displacing native vegetation by performing ground disturbing activities. Weed risk assessments completed for the project area found the potential for weed spread as a result of project implementation as low to moderate. By adhering to the actions outlined in the “Noxious and Invasive Weeds Preventative Management Measures for North Schell Restoration Project” would greatly reduce the risk factors described in this document, resulting in a reduced risk of noxious weed invasion. Ground disturbing activities increase potential for some areas to become

Page 45 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

infested with undesirable plant species even when preventative management actions are followed. By avoiding areas documented to have large infestations and completing inventory of new and existing population of undesirable species across the project area during and after project implementation, the potential for regeneration and expansion will be minimized. To ensure treatment and effectiveness monitoring following implementation funding opportunities will be pursued through collaboration with other entities. By removing pinyon- juniper overstory and preserving the nearly intact understory, native plant seed sources will be available to occupy the site post-treatment. Over the long-term native vegetation would increase and promote healthier understories and ecosystems to effectively compete with invasive species.

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences No Action

3.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed project area has not burned for a number of years and has a good population of native plant species. Small populations of Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Hoary Cress (Cardariadraba), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea bieberteinii), Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and Yellow Spine Thistle (Cirsium ochrocentrum) are known to occur along several roadways within the project area. These undesired populations would continue to expand over time. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest utilizes an integrated pest management program that includes early detection, mapping, mechanical, biological, and herbicide treatments. Infestations will continue to be monitored and treated with herbicides and other methods as permitted under current management direction. Inventory and treatment efforts will continue but may be limited due funding or staffing constraints.

3.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are expected to be similar to those described for the Proposed Action. Under the No Action alternative, noxious weed infestations may continue to increase in size and disperse from the originating sites. Animals, vehicles, and humans affect noxious weeds by both serving as a vector to introduce new populations and species, as well as creating conditions that may contribute to weed establishment. Currently, weed populations are low, and the majority of the project area is in Phase II, indicating that an understory still exists which is capable of recovery after a disturbance. Regarding post wildfire cheat grass threat, vulnerability to cheatgrass invasion is lowest on sites with relatively high cover of perennial herbaceous species (Chambers et. al. 2007). Delaying treatment and allowing further degradation of the native understory will increase the likelihood of invasives dominating the site after a wildfire event.

3.5 Watershed/Hydrology

3.5.1 Affected Environment

3.5.1.1 Introduction The project area contains portions of twelve HUC 6 watersheds; however, there are no municipal watersheds within the project area. The project area contains approximately 53

Page 46 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

miles of perennial stream and 360 miles of seasonal stream. Stream channels are typically Rosgen A type, confined within steep and narrow canyons until they enter the valley bottoms where streams become less steep and wider. Due to the porous geology of the area, surface water typically transfers into the groundwater system. Groundwater in and around the project area typically originates as precipitation in the Schell range. Since the project is generally confined to the higher elevations, groundwater is typically flowing out of the project area west into Steptoe Valley and east into Spring Valley.

3.5.1.2 Scope of Analysis This section describes the geographic and temporal boundaries used to assess watershed and soil effects within the project area. The area used to analysis the watershed effects differs from the area used for the soil assessment. Table 9 lists the specific measures used to examine the cumulative watershed effects. Table 9. The specific measures used to examine watershed effects. Key Ecosystem Element Environmental Indicators Variable Assessed Chronic sedimentation, Equivalent Roaded Acres Water Quality accelerated hillslope erosion (ERA)

3.5.1.3 Road System There are approximately 160 miles of roads distributed through eleven of the twelve HUC 6 watersheds within the project area. For this analysis, road density ratings fit into three categories: low-less than 1 mile per square mile (mi/ mi2), moderate-2 to 3 mi/ mi2, and high- greater than 3mi/mi2. Road density within HUC 6 watersheds in the project area is generally low to moderate, ranging from 0.4 to 1.7 mi/mi2. Road-stream crossing densities are also generally low to moderate, ranging from 0.29 to 1.2 crossings/mi2. Road density and road- stream crossing density in the project area are shown in Table 10 for each HUC 6 watershed. Table 10. Road density and road-stream crossing density for each HUC 6 watershed. Road Number of Road-stream Miles of Watershed density road/stream crossing density road (mi/mi2) crossings (crossings/mi2) Duck Creek/Tehama 15.85 0.81 20 0.65 Canyon Spring Valley 9.22 0.39 8 0.44 Creek/McCurdy Creek Spring Valley 27.86 0.41 39 0.29 Creek/Seigel Creek Duck Creek/Rattlesnake 2.38 0.97 4 0.58 Canyon Duck Creek/Big Indian 25.7 0.69 35 0.5 Creek Spring Valley 21.49 0.85 23 0.79 Creek/Snowbank Creek

Page 47 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road Number of Road-stream Miles of Watershed density road/stream crossing density road (mi/mi2) crossings (crossings/mi2) First Creek 10.68 1.11 18 0.66 Muncy Creek 14.56 1.16 14 1.2 Spring Valley Wash 0 0 0 0 Kalamazoo Creek 9.55 1.71 14 1.17 North Creek 17.68 1.1 40 0.49 Duck Creek/Mattier 4.34 1.27 8 0.69 Creek

3.5.1.4 Beneficial Uses Existing beneficial uses of surface waters within the project area are defined in the White Pine County Resources Plan (August 2006) and can be found online at http://water.nv.gov. This plan identifies beneficial uses for water in White Pine County; the project area impacts two valleys in White Pine County: Steptoe and Spring Valleys. Spring Valley Beneficial uses in Spring Valley include: • Irrigation-252,538 afa, 97.5% • Mining-4,226 afa, 2% • Other uses all under 1% include: stock watering, quasi-municipal, domestic wells, wildlife and domestic uses Steptoe Valley Steptoe Valley has the most diverse water use of any basin in White Pine County. Beneficial uses, and the volume consumed annually, include: • Industry-67,770 acre feet annually (afa), 27% of consumption in the valley • Irrigation-101,833 afa, 41% • Mining-31,585 afa, 12.5% • Wildlife-25,074 afa, 10% • Municipal-11,990 afa, 5% • Power-4,706 afa, 2% • Other uses all under 1% include: quasi-municipal, recreation, stock watering, storage, commercial activity, domestic use, domestic wells and environmental use.

3.5.1.5 Cumulative Effects Area The project area contains portions of twelve Hydrologic Unit Code 6 (HUC 6) subwatersheds, which encompass approximately 150,000 acres, or about eight percent of the Ely Ranger District. The HUC 6 subwatersheds contained within the project area, the total acres of each watershed and the acres that are within the project area are depicted in Table 11. Prescribed fire may be used in all of the subwatersheds in the project area; however, mechanical treatment will not occur in four subwatersheds: Muncy Creek, Spring Valley Wash, Kalamazoo Creek and North Creek.

Page 48 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Many watershed effects have temporal bounds, meaning after a period of time passes, the impact no longer has any effect on the watershed. For example, temporal bounds for fuels/harvest activities and wildfire are often 25-35 and ten years respectively. Roads have no temporal bound regardless of when they were constructed. For this analysis, effects were considered fully recovered after 30 years, so activities occurring prior to 1979 were excluded. A summary of cumulative impacts is included in the Cumulative Effects White Paper in the Project Record. Table 11. Watershed acres within and outside the project area. Subwatershed HUC 6 Watershed HUC 6 Subwatershed Acres (within Number Acres (total) project area) Duck Creek/Tehama Canyon 160600080602 46664 8285 Spring Valley Creek/McCurdy Creek 160600081402 19645 2273 Spring Valley Creek/Seigel Creek 160600081403 26822 7249 Duck Creek/Rattlesnake Canyon 160600080601 14118 1475 Duck Creek/Big Indian Creek 160600080404 31405 11298 Spring Valley Creek/Snowbank Creek 160600081404 28455 11646 First Creek 160600080403 37239 7605 Spring Valley Wash 160600081409 175836 859 Kalamazoo Creek 160600081406 12461 10445 Muncy Creek 160600081405 21042 10771 North Creek 160600080203 13624 12502 Duck Creek/Mattier Creek 160600080402 18294 3539 This cumulative effects analysis considers all known potential past, present, and future activities that affect surface waters of the Forest lands within the analysis area, as well as private in-holdings and lands (U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private) immediately adjacent to the analysis area that are part of sub-watersheds originating on the Forest.

3.5.1.6 Cumulative Watershed Methods Analysis (CWE) Historically, cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analyses have focused on impacts to downstream beneficial uses, including: aquatic habitat, hydroelectric power generation and domestic water supplies. Recently, considerable emphasis is being placed on near-stream disturbances and there site-specific biological effects in addition to the downstream physical effects (Menning et al, McGurk and Fong 1995). There are numerous methods for assessing the effects of land use activities on the landscape. Discussions and comparisons of different methodologies can be found in documents such as: A Scientific Basis for the Prediction of Cumulative Watershed Effects: Applicability of Available Methodologies to the Sierra Nevada, and Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects (Dunn et al. 2001, Berg et al. 1996, Reid 1998, USDA Forest Service 1988a). For this analysis, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future impacts were assessed using the Region Five Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1988a). Under this approach, the impacts of land management activities were evaluated on the basis of equivalent roaded acres (ERA).

Page 49 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

ERA is a conceptual unit of measure used to assess ground-disturbing activities. One acre of road surface equals one ERA. Numeric coefficients are used to convert acres of management activities such as timber harvest, underburning and grazing to ERAs. For example: the numeric coefficient for underburning is 0.05, meaning 1 acre of underburning is equivalent to 0.05 ERA. The disturbance coefficients used in this analysis are shown in Table 12. In a given watershed, the ERA values are summed to determine a cumulative ERA for that watershed. This cumulative ERA value is then divided by the watershed’s area, providing the fraction of that watershed that is hypothetically in roaded condition and the final ERA value. This final ERA value is compared with a parameter called the Threshold of Concern or TOC to determine the overall disturbance. Watersheds can tolerate some amount of disturbance without substantial effect; however, there is a threshold after which disturbances begin to substantially impact downstream channel stability and water quality. In ERA analysis, this upper tolerance of the watershed is represented with the Threshold of Concern (TOC). As disturbances approach the TOC, there is an increased loss of soil porosity and soil cover, resulting in greater runoff potential and higher peak flows. When ERA values exceed the TOC, susceptibility for significant adverse cumulative effects is high. Water quality may be degraded to such extent that the water is no longer acceptable for established uses, such as municipal water supplies and fisheries habitat. The TOC is generally expressed as a fraction of the watershed, and for this analysis, the TOC for each watershed is 12%. Additionally, the ERA is often expressed as a fraction of the TOC; for example, in a 1,000-acre watershed where the TOC is 12 percent of the watershed area, 100 percent of the TOC represents a disturbance similar to: 120 acres of road surface, 600 acres of mechanical harvest or 3000 acres of mastication. The assessment area for the North Schells project is contained within twelve HUC 6 subwatersheds (Table 10). The CWE analysis included the entire area of each HUC 6 subwatershed within the project area. Past management activities were analyzed to determine the cumulative amount of land disturbance that has occurred in each subwatershed. The amount of land impacted by past management activity was converted to an equal area of road surface, providing an ERA estimate. Dividing each subwatershed’s total ERA by its area yields the fraction of the subwatershed that is in roaded condition. This value is compared to the TOC, and is divided by the TOC to express the fraction of the TOC, to describe impacts to water quality. An increase in the ERA of a watershed can result in impacts to downstream water quality. As a guide to the CWE assessment, when planned activities within forest watersheds result in increases in ERA of 25 to 30 percent of the TOC, we generally realize relatively small increases in peak flows. Given the TOC for subwatersheds in this analysis is 12 percent, ERA increases of 3 to 4 percent would produce relatively small peak flow increases. In watersheds where streams are stable and ERA values (watershed disturbances) are not approaching threshold, such increases generally do not stress the system. However, where ERA increases approach 40 to 50 percent of threshold (5 to 6 percent ERA or higher for this analysis), stream channels are in poor condition, or ERA values are approaching the TOC, a closer look at activities planned within the watershed is important.

Page 50 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.5.1.7 CWE Model Assumptions To use the ERA model requires making some assumptions about the ecosystem being analyzed. Numeric disturbance coefficients were used to convert management effects to equivalent road effects. The numeric coefficients used vary by management activity and are shown in Table 12. The conversion of disturbances to roaded acres, using disturbance coefficients, was done by assuming coefficients would remain the same regardless of: soil type, landscape characteristics (ex. rock outcrops, open areas), slope conditions, season of operation, or equipment characteristics. Additionally, all roads were assumed to be twenty feet wide, and were assumed equal regardless of surface material or drainage characteristics. Due to the uncertainty of the mechanical treatment that will be implemented in this project, coefficients for mastication (0.05) and whole tree removal (0.2) were used. Table 12. Disturbance coefficients used to calculate ERA values. Treatment Activity Era Treatment Activity Era Coefficient Coefficient Clearcut Slash Treatment, Site Preparation tractor yard, tractor pile, burn 0.35 activity fuels burn piles 0.05 tractor yard, broadcast burn 0.3 burn of activity fuels piles 0.03 Skyline yard, no site prep 0.15 mechanical site prep for planting 0.25 Skyline yard, broadcast burn .2 - .25 burning site prep for planting 0.08 Seed-Tree Cut DFPZ Treatments Mechanical Treatment, Prescribed Fire tractor yard, tractor pile, burn 0.35 above with tractor yard piles 0.2 tractor yard, broadcast burn 0.3 above with skyline yard 0.1 Overstory Removal above with helicopter yard 0.05 tractor yard, tractor pile, burn 0.25 biomass, prescribe fire piles 0.08 tractor yard, underburn 0.18 prescribe fire 0.05 Skyline yard 0.1 Aspen Treatments Mechanical Treatment, Prescribed Fire Single-Tree Selection above with tractor yard 0.25 tractor yard, tractor pile, burn .15 - .2 above with skyline yard piles 0.15 tractor yard, hand pile, burn 0.1 above with helicopter yard piles 0.05 Group Selection Individual Tree Selection Tractor yard, tractor pile burn 0.35 tractor yard .1 - .2

Page 51 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Activity Era Treatment Activity Era Coefficient Coefficient piles Skyline yard, underburn 0.2 skyline yard 0.05 helicopter yard, underburn 0.1 helicopter yard 0.02 Shelterwood, Seed Step Mastication By Slope: 25%> 0.04 25%< 0.06 tractor yard, tractor pile, burn 0.35 Grapple Piling piles Shelterwood, Removal Step non- aspen .05 - .1 tractor yard 0.25 aspen 0.15 Commercial Thin Roads tractor yard 0.2 existing 1 Sanitation And Salvage new construction 1 tractor yard .1 - .2 obliteration -1 Precommercial Thin Grazing .1 - .25 tractor yard .1 - .2

The assessment of historical events was restricted to the last 30 years. This is done to represent the period of time required for natural site recovery. Beyond this time frame, it is assumed vegetation has reestablished and developed adequate crown and ground cover which provide physical protection against soil erosion. In addition, roots have reoccupied the soil mantle and most effects from compaction have been negated except along established roadways. These factors tend to moderate peak flows, and therefore diminish adverse effects on channel condition and water quality. The areas of disturbances were calculated with Geographic Information System (GIS) programs, using Humboldt National Forest corporate data files. Disturbances on BLM and private lands were assumed to be similar to the disturbances on Forest lands when analyzed in the CWE analysis. In general while calculating the ERA contributions all of the proposed mechanical treatment area on slopes less than 30 percent were assumed to be treatable. For example, rock outcrops and open areas may not be treated during actual project implementation but were included in the CWE analysis.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences Proposed Action

3.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Wildfires are expected to continue in the project area, the proposed action would reduce the likelihood of high intensity wildfires. This would be due to the enhanced ability of fire management to suppress, control and contain fires that start in the fuel treatments under 90th

Page 52 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

percentile weather conditions. Reducing pinyon-juniper expansion will also reduce impacts to water quality and soil productivity. Under Alternative 1, approximately 12,361 acres may be treated with a combination of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments; an additional 12,000 acres would be treated with prescribed fire alone. Mechanical treatments will include both whole tree removal and mastication. This project is proposed to address the continued expansion of pinyon-juniper into shrub-steppe ecosystems. These treatments are predicted to increase erosion by 1.3 tons per square mile per year (ton mi-2y-1); immediately following the treatment, erosion is estimated to increase by 26 tons per square mile (ton mi-2). Prescribed fire will have a mosaic nature and active ignition will avoid drainage bottoms, fire will be allowed to creep down into drainages. Fire may also: create a hydrophobic layer, consume soil cover and fine organic matter, rapidly oxidize organic matter and alter the nutrients available to plants and soil organisms. Harvest and mastication activities may temporarily compact the soil, displace soil cover and fine organic matter. Mechanical treatments may alter local soil moisture regimes and water yield due to interception and evapotranspiration. These areas would also be more susceptible to erosion and sediment transport to stream channels. These effects will diminish with natural recovery; additionally, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to mitigate negative effects. Under Alternative 1, the increase in ERA values range from three tenths of one percent to 7 percent of the TOC when the mechanical treatment is entirely mastication and one to 28 percent of the TOC when the mechanical treatment is entirely whole tree removal (Table 13, Figures 1 and 2). The ERA values remain below threshold for all subwatersheds regardless of mechanical treatment option used. The cumulative watershed effects analysis is presented in the section below. Table 13. Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA), Presented as the Percent of the Threshold of Concern for Each Alternative. ERA (% of Threshold of Concern) Analysis Alt 1Proposed Alt 1Proposed Alt 2 No Subwatershed Action Action Action All Mechanical All Mastication Duck Creek/Tehama 61 47.5 43.2 Canyon Spring Valley Creek/McCurdy 77 70.7 68.7 Creek Spring Valley 90 74.5 69.4 Creek/Seigel Creek Duck Creek/Rattlesnake 60 48 44 Canyon Duck Creek/Big 92 70.7 63.6 Indian Creek Spring Valley 64 63.2 63

Page 53 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

ERA (% of Threshold of Concern) Analysis Alt 1Proposed Alt 1Proposed Alt 2 No Subwatershed Action Action Action All Mechanical All Mastication Creek/Snowbank Creek First Creek 66 57.5 54.7 Muncy Creek 66 65.9 65.9 Spring Valley Wash 7 7.3 7.3 Kalamazoo Creek 51 51.2 51.2 North Creek 36 35.9 35.9 Duck Creek/Mattier 55 49.8 48.2 Creek By following the Humboldt Land Management Plan standards and guidelines, and the Soil and Water conservation practices in the FSH 2509.22 handbook - R-1/R-4 Amendment No. 1 1988, there would be a low risk that soil productivity would be impaired. In general, Alternative 1 would have a low to moderate amount of ground disturbance due to mechanical treatment (e.g. equipment, and landings) and prescribed fire across the project area. As a result, there is a low to moderate risk that proposed treatments might stress the hydrologic system within individual subwatersheds.

3.5.2.1 Cumulative Effects Detrimental effects that may result from increases in ERA include erosion from treated hillsides, resulting in sedimentation of streams in the project area. The primary factors contributing to increased erosion include: ground disturbance, loss of organic ground cover, compaction and loss of canopy cover. Both mastication and whole tree yarding mechanical treatments will produce ERA values that remain below the TOC for each subwatershed in the project area. The ERA analysis indicates that mechanical treatments will likely produce relatively small increases in peak flows.

Page 54 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) for whole tree yarding and existing land uses, shown as the fraction of TOC for each subwatershed.

Figure 2. Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) for mastication and existing land uses, shown as the fraction of TOC for each subwatershed.

Page 55 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences No Action

3.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Table 13 above illustrates the changes in ERA values for the analysis subwatersheds for the existing condition and action alternative proposed for the North Schell project. The existing ERA values are shown in Alternative 2. ERA values for the Proposed Action are shown in Alternative 1; ERA values for Alternative 1 represent the mechanical treatments for the project being entirely whole tree removal or entirely mastication. Existing ERA values for the project area currently range from 7 and 69 percent of the TOC, and are shown in Table 14. Figure 3 shows how land use activities contributed to the existing ERA for each subwatershed. These activities include the existing transportation system and grazing Table 14. Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) contributions to the existing conditions by activity. Total Watershed Road Grazing Total (% of TOC) Duck Creek/Tehama 0.4 4.7 5.1 43 Canyon Spring Valley Creek/McCurdy 1.0 7.3 8.3 69 Creek Spring Valley 0.9 7.4 8.3 69 Creek/Seigel Creek Duck Creek/Rattlesnake 0.4 4.9 5.3 44 Canyon Duck Creek/Big 0.6 7.0 7.6 63 Indian Creek Spring Valley Creek/Snowbank 0.4 7.1 7.5 63 Creek First Creek 0.3 6.2 6.5 54 Muncy Creek 0.3 7.6 7.9 6.6 Spring Valley Wash 0.0 0.9 0.9 8 Kalamazoo Creek 0.2 5.9 6.1 51 North Creek 0.3 4.0 4.3 36 Duck Creek/Mattier 0.3 5.5 5.8 48 Creek The absence of fuels and vegetation treatments in Alternative 2 would leave the watershed at increased risk of damaging effects from future intense wildfires. Juniper and piñon tree species are expected to continue to increase in density, perpetuating the loss of grasses, shrubs and ground cover. The changes in fuel type and loading will exacerbate fire intensity and residence times. Predicted increases for erosion rates in the event of a wildfire are 21 to

Page 56 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

26 ton mi-2y-1. Additionally, erosion immediately after a wildfire was predicted to be 806 ton mi-2. This alternative will also be described as the existing condition. The ERA of past disturbances would decline as watersheds continue to recover; ongoing land uses such as roads would continue to result in a static ERA. Continued expansion of pinyon- juniper into woodland plant communities would increase the risk to water quality due to increased risk of high intensity wildfire. (Tausch 1999). As tree dominated woodlands continue to increase within the project area, water quality and downstream beneficial resources are gradually more impacted. The more tree dominated a woodland becomes, the less likely it will burn in moderate conditions. The result is infrequent, but high intensity fires that are more likely to destroy vegetation and ground cover and create a water resistant layer on the soil surface. Without vegetation and organic matter, soil is likely to erode and water is less likely to infiltrate. Peak flows may increase five to ten times above existing levels, sediment loads may increase 50 to 100 times above existing levels and top soil may be lost.

3.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects If future severe wildfires occur within the project area, affected areas will be highly erodible and large amounts of sediment are likely to be delivered to stream channels (Elliot and Robichaud 2001). After severe wildfire, watersheds are not able to absorb as much water so more becomes runoff, which results in increased peak flows in streams and rivers. Currently, the ERA values for each subwatershed in the project are is below the TOC.

Figure 3. Alternative 2, the existing condition: Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) contributed by each activity, shown as a fraction of TOC for each analysis subwatershed.

Page 57 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.6 Soils

3.6.1 Affected Environment Soils are the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems, providing nutrients and hydrologic functions. The ability to grow vegetation is a reference to the productivity of the soil; soil productivity indicators include: ground cover, porosity and organic matter. These indicators also represent essential physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. Ground cover is essential to preventing soil erosion. Porosity indicates how compacted the soil is, which impacts vegetation growth. Organic matter in and on the soil contains nutrients used by vegetation and organisms. Soil thresholds represent a stage in soil properties and conditions that, if exceeded, can result in long-term degradation of soil productivity and hydrologic function. This assessment will evaluate direct and indirect effects of the project, and cumulative impacts of past, present and future actions on the soil resource; additionally, standard soil mitigation measures are described in Appendix F. Soil and vegetation have a symbiotic relationship: they depend upon one another to function. Soil requires ground cover to prevent it from eroding, in the project area much of the ground cover is provided by vegetation or organic matter created from decaying vegetation. In the project area, vegetation depends on the relatively nutritious top soil. Soil cover dissipates the energy of falling raindrops: higher velocities falling rain causes rain splash, a force that can move soil grains and begin erosion. The litter layer also acts as a sponge, increasing storage capacity and slowing overland runoff. At high velocities overland flow can cause rain-wash, another erosive force. Without vegetative cover, an intense storm can generate huge quantities of sediment from hillsides (Cawley 1990). Reduced soil erosion helps retain soil nutrients and a favorable growth medium on site. Pinyon-juniper woodlands have been encroaching into shrub-steppe habitats in the absence of wildfire. This transition from shrub-steppe to woodland results in a decrease on understory species, particularly shrubs (Miller et al 2000).The increase in piñon and juniper dominance within intermountain plant communities can have significant impacts on soil resources, plant community structure and composition, forage quality and quantity, water and nutrient cycles, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and fire severity and frequency (Miller and others 2005, Miller and Tausch 2001).

3.6.1.1 Soil Assessment Methods The soil quality standards and guidelines that apply to this project exist at both the regional level (USDA Forest Service 2003) and at the forest level with the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan’s standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2001). These standard and guidelines focus on protection and improvement of National Forest System lands for continuous forest and rangeland productivity and favorable water flows. To address these standards and guidelines, this soil assessment focused on soil productivity measures including surface organic matter, ground cover, and soil porosity and compaction. Surface organic matter covers mineral soil and prevents detrimental erosion; surface organic matter consists of plant litter, duff, and woody material less than three inches in diameter (USDA Forest Service 1995). Ground cover includes surface organic matter, live vegetation,

Page 58 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

rocks and large woody debris. The 2001 Forest Service Region 4 Soil Quality Standards recommends limited removal of organic matter and large woody debris but no numeric standard exists. Detrimental soil compaction exists when soil porosity is reduced by more than 10 percent, relative to natural conditions (USDA Forest Service 1995). Soil porosity is a measurement of the void (empty) space in the soil effects gas exchange and water movement into and through the soil. To avoid productivity loss due to soil compaction, the Regional Soil Quality Standards (Intermountain Region, 2003) states that no more than 15 percent of a project area should have detrimentally disturbed soil after project completion. Additionally, regional soil standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2001) suggest that: • Equipment should operate over deep snow, frozen ground, slash • Avoid operations on wet soils near field capacity • Limit amount of traffic off of dedicated roads and trails • Restrict size and type of equipment • Restrict vehicle traffic to dedicated roads and trails • Use aerial equipment. The current soils condition reflects the cumulative effects of past activities, regardless of when they took place. If multiple activities have occurred in a given treatment unit over the past 50 years, it is not necessarily possible to separate the effects of older treatments from more recent ones. As a result, it is not practical to set a time constraint on those effects. The future timeframe for the soils analysis must extend until the resource has recovered from the impact of the proposed activities. The persistence of soil effects into the future can vary widely. The effects on soil porosity, however, may last for decades. Thirty years was chosen as a future timeframe for soil effects. After this time, the degree and variability of soil conditions are expected to be similar to the no-action alternative. Soil erosion was modeled using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Fuel Management Erosion Analysis (FuME) Interface. This version of the WEPP model predicts soil erosion associated with fuel management practices (prescribed fire and thinning) and the road density of the project area; this model compares these results with the soil erosion caused by wildfire. Like any model, there is a confidence interval associated with the WEPP model: estimates using this model are ± 50%. WEPP reports the annual rate of hillslope erosion following a disturbance in addition to the sediment rate immediately following the disturbance. The WEPP model requires making assumptions about: climate, soil texture, hillslope length, hillslope gradient, buffer length, wildfire return period, prescribed fire return period, thinning return period and road density. The climate was assumed to be similar to Austin, NV, a town approximately 150 miles west of Ely and similar elevation and climate to the project area. The road density is assumed to be the average road density of the project area, 0.87 mi/mi2. Other assumptions include: • Soil texture – clay loam • Hillslope length – 500 feet • Hillslope Gradient – 70%, 30% and 10% represent the top, middle and toe slopes • Buffer length – 10 feet • Wildfire return period – 40 years • Prescribed fire return period – 20 years

Page 59 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Thinning return period – 20 years Table 15. The specific measures used to examine soil effects. Key Ecosystem Element Environmental Indicators Variable Assessed Organic matter losses, soil Surface fine organic matter, Soil Productivity losses, detrimental effective soil cover and compaction predicted erosion rates.

3.6.1.2 Climate The project area is located within both the Great Basin Hydrophysiographic Region and the Carbonate Rock Province. This region is characterized by an arid climate with: • Hot summers, hottest in July which has an average max temperature of 87.0ºF • Cold winters, coldest in January which has an average min temperature of 10.6º F • Light precipitation year round, averaging 10-25 inches • Potential for erosion inducing rainfall in any month (Western Region Climate Center, 2006) Much of the precipitation that falls in the vicinity of the project area does not end up as runoff in streams because the area is mainly carbonate rock having numerous cracks and fissures. Precipitation seeps into these cracks and fissures and becomes part of the groundwater system.

3.6.1.3 Geology The geology of the project area is complex, and represents different stages of formation. During the late Precambrian to early Paleozoic, eastern Nevada was a shallow marine shelf depositing sandstone, shales, dolomites and limestones. During the middle Paleozoic to Early Cenozoic, the western margin of the North American continent experienced collisions with volcanic island arcs and microcontinents. Compression broke and folded the rocks creating mountains and basins. Limestones, dolomites and shales were deposited in marine basins as the highlands eroded away. During the early Cenozoic to late Cenozoic was dominated by volcanism covering the land with rhyolite, andesite and airfall tuffs from large caldera complexes, and igneous intrusions squeezing granitic rocks into older rocks. The volcanic rocks filled the valleys until they created a hard, flat plain and metamorphic core complexes were formed. During the late Cenozoic extension pulled apart the Great Basin creating a series of north-south trending faults. The faults created the mountains and valleys of the Basin and Range. Younger volcanic flows erupted onto the valley floors and erosion of the mountains began to fill the basins. The project area includes various ages of metamorphic and sedimentary rocks whose formations are long, thin and follow the north-south trend of the Schell Creek range. As you move east to west across the range the metamorphic and sedimentary rocks get progressively younger. They begin with Precambrian age rocks and ending with Permian age rocks that are overlain by massive Tertiary volcanic rocks and alluvial sediments.

Page 60 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences Proposed Action

3.6.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects By following the Regional Soil Quality Standards and the Humboldt land management plan, there would be lower risk of impacts to soil productivity. Approximately 12,361 acres of mechanical treatments are proposed in Alternative 1, these treatments have the potential for low to moderate amounts of ground disturbance. It is likely that the Proposed Action will create a short-term increase in soil erosion rates within the project area. Mechanical treatment activities may temporarily reduce ground cover and soil porosity and increase soil compaction. Mastication will have similar impacts to soil porosity and compaction but will increase ground cover. Erosion potential and sediment transport to streams will also be temporarily increased. The WEPP model predicted an increase of 1.3 ton mi-2 y-1 annually and 25 ton mi-2 immediately following the disturbance (Table 16). However, as vegetation regenerates, the risk of erosion will diminish and resiliency of the area will increase, likely above the current state. These results are dramatically less than what was predicted for wildfire within the project area. For any mechanical treatment, the effects to soil porosity depend upon site-specific soil conditions such as: texture, rock-component, moisture content and harvest equipment features (Gomez et al 2002). Soil monitoring for Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group pilot projects have shown an increase in compaction between two and 40 percent, with an average of 13.5 percent, following thinning and group selection treatments. Soil compaction decreases and porosity increases over time, taking decades, through root penetration, extension and decay in addition to burrowing animals and freeze-thaw (Grigal 2000). Incorporating organic matter into the soil also helps relieve compacted areas and increase soil porosity. Highly compacted areas, such as skid trails and landings, may be subsoiled following implementation. Subsoiling has been shown to be 66 to 100 percent effective at mitigating the effects of compaction. The Proposed Action includes Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that include soil protection measures such as restricting mechanical treatments to slopes less than 30 percent and following Best Management Practices (BMPs). By following SOPs and BMPs, impacts to soil porosity, erosion and sediment transport will be minimized.

3.6.2.2 Cumulative Effects The proposed action and other management actions within the Cumulative Effects Area are likely to cause a reduction in ground cover, which will be short lived as grass and shrub communities recolonize the area. Litter from trees and shrubs will gradually contribute to ground cover in the project area. A high intensity wildfire in the project area will likely create a greater reduction in ground cover than the Proposed Action. Mechanical treatment activities will cause compaction and reduce soil porosity. If SOPs and BMPs are followed, these effects will be minimized and are likely to be short lived. It is likely that the Proposed Action will not reduce soil porosity be more than 10 percent, relative to natural conditions. This 10 percent value is the Forest’s threshold for detrimental compaction (USDA Forest Service 1995), and above this value, detrimental compaction occurs.

Page 61 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 16. Modeled erosion associated with mechanical treatment and wildfire.

Immediate Erosion Annual Erosion Event Increase (ton mi-2) Increase (ton mi-2 y-1)

Mechanical Treatments 25 1.3

Wildfire 806 21-26

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative

3.6.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Ground cover is necessary to prevent detrimental soil erosion. Following the end of any disturbance, the Region 4 Soil Quality Analysis Standards (Intermountain Region 2003) states that ground cover, at minimum, should be sufficient to prevent detrimental erosion. The WEPP model was used to analyze soil erosion caused by wildfires in the absence of the proposed action; WEPP estimates annual erosion to range from 21 to 26 tons per square mile per year (ton mi-2y-1). WEPP predicted the erosion immediately following a wildfire to be 806 tons per square mile (ton mi-2). The increased pinyon-juniper density within intermountain plant communities can have significant impacts on: soil resources, plant community structure and composition, forage quality and quantity, water and nutrient cycles, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and fire severity and frequency (Miller et al 2005, Miller and Tausch 2001). Alternative 2 will likely result in decreased soil cover as the density of pinyon and juniper increases and understory plants diminish (Miller et al, 2000). As a result of decreased soil cover, the risk of soil erosion may increase on forested hillslopes. Soil cover dissipates the energy of falling raindrops through interception; at higher velocities, falling rain causes soil grains to mobilize. Soil cover also increases storage capacity and slows overland flow velocity. As the velocity of overland flow increases more soil is eroded. Without vegetative cover, an intense storm can generate huge quantities of sediment from hillsides (Cawley 1990). Loss of soil cover and increased soil erosion reduces on-site nutrients and resiliency. The impact of increased pinyon-juniper density has on fire severity also effects soil erosion. The WEPP model estimates annual erosion to range from 21 to 26 ton mi-2y-1, and 806 tons ton mi-2 immediately after a wildfire. This alternative would also allow soil porosity to continue to recover from historical disturbances without contributing any new impacts from mechanical treatments.

3.6.3.2 Cumulative Effects Alternative 2 is likely to increase soil erosion, a result of increased pinyon-juniper density and reduced soil cover. Alternative 2 also increases the risk of high intensity wildfire, which would dramatically increase soil erosion.

Page 62 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

In the absence of future fuels projects, road construction or other compacting activities, soil compaction is expected to decline and soil porosity to increase. In the event of a wildfire, severe soil heating may cause physical changes in soils, including a reduction in soil porosity (Clark 1994).

3.7 Wildlife and Fisheries This section describes the existing occupied and potential habitat. The discussion focuses on those species considered most sensitive to management activities: R4 Regional Forester’s sensitive species; Forest management indicator species; elk and migratory birds. Only those species which are known to occur or are likely to occur within the project area will be discussed in detail in this document.

3.7.1 Sage Grouse

3.7.1.1 Affected Environment Sage grouse use the project area for nesting, brood rearing, summer, and winter habitat and are categorized as a R4 Sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The sage grouse is a species of upland game bird, and currently uses sagebrush and meadows located throughout the district. Sage grouse rely heavily on sagebrush communities. Sage grouse generally select low rolling hills and adjacent valleys especially where patches of big sagebrush are intermixed with areas of low sagebrush (Autenrieth 1981). Preferred areas are generally where slopes are less than 30 percent, although they are also found on steeper slopes. Standing water is an essential component of sage grouse habitat. The need for water depends on the availability of preferred, succulent vegetation and when the preferred forbs dry out (Autenrieth 1981, Klebenow 1985). The Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan sets population goals for sage grouse at a minimum population of 3,900 and a maximum potential of 40,000 for the Forest (LRMP II-11). Standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan require that key sage grouse habitat and its various components be identified as part of the analysis of all proposed projects with the potential to adversely affect habitat capability. The Forest Plan also requires project impacts to sage grouse and sagebrush habitats to be evaluated in partnership with Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) (LRMP, Amendment 2). Sage grouse populations within the state of Nevada are currently estimated at approximately 68,500 birds (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). Sage grouse populations in the state peaked during the late 1970’s; however, they have been on a steady decline since (Connelly et al. 2000) and are currently down an estimated 49%-60% from their peak (Neel, 2001). These declines may have resulted from multiple factors that included the hard winters and heavy snow years during the early to mid 1980’s which were followed by multiple drought periods during the 1980’s, 1990’s. Long-term population densities and distribution of sage grouse have also been reduced due to reduction of habitat from fire, overgrazing, and conversion to agriculture. In Nevada, sage grouse populations have been monitored through lek counts during the spring and analysis of hunter wing returns. These counts have been coordinated by NDOW.

Page 63 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Counts are not completed at each lek. A small percentage of leks are surveyed each year to determine sage grouse trends in Nevada. Many sage-grouse populations throughout Nevada showed increasing trends from 2002-2006. However, since 2006, sage grouse populations have declined in several areas. Wildfires that occurred from 1999-2007 diminished the amount of available sage-grouse habitat. In addition to this direct habitat loss, weather patterns during 2006 and 2007 were not conducive to sage grouse production or recruitment (NDOW, 2009 pg 30). Minimum population estimates for the White Pine Planning area show increasing population estimates from 2003 to 2006, and then numbers decreased in 2008 and 2009. Trend leks were down 17% in 2009 (per. comm. C. Baughman, 2010). The projection for the 2009-10 season was for sage-grouse populations to experience a slight upward trend considering the improvement in production exhibited in 2008 as well as the expectation that production and recruitment in 2009 will also be an improvement over 2006 and 2007 numbers (NDOW, 2009 pg 31). Within the Schell Creek Range springs, seeps, meadows, riparian areas, and high elevation sagebrush basins provide important brood-rearing habitats. These areas provide water, succulent forbs, and insects, which are important to young sage-grouse. Nesting and summer habitats occur throughout most of the project area, except the southeast corner. Potential wintering habitats, defined by south-facing and/or wind-swept gentle slopes, occur along the central portion of the project area. There are no known leks within the project area, but there are six known active leks located within three miles of the project area on adjacent BLM Land. One lek, Whiteman Creek, is a trend lek. The encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands from woodland sites to rangeland sites has been responsible for loss of sagebrush habitats. Fire suppression or extended fire intervals allow pinyon-juniper to spread across the landscape. As trees begin to dominate the site, the shrub-herb understory is essentially lost or greatly reduced through a variety of inhibitive processes, including competition for water and the chemical and structural impediments brought to bear on seeds and seedlings by needle accumulation. Sage Grouse generally shun closed pinyon-juniper woodlands and the encroachment of this plant community into sagebrush-herb communities represents a loss of habitat for Sage Grouse, particularly when it reaches its climax expressions. Due to the loss of understory in many of the pinyon-juniper stands, conversion back to sagebrush-herb communities is not a simple process. Where sagebrush still exists in the understory, several options for restoration are available (Neel, 2001).

3.7.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action None of the treatments would impact any known lek sites as the closest lek is two miles away and occurs off the Forest. The mechanical treatments would have short and long- term benefits by maintaining the sagebrush community through the removal of the pinyon and juniper trees that are expanding into the sagebrush community. By removing pinyon and juniper, habitat for sage grouse would improve. There are about 17,120 acres of mountain big sagebrush/mountain shrub within the project area. The majority is considered brood rearing and summer habitat for sage grouse. Nesting habitat would occur within springs, seeps, meadows, and riparian areas, which comprises about 1,170 acres within the project area. The prescribed burn would impact portions of the habitats used by sage grouse. Approximately 7,525 acres will be

Page 64 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment treated using prescribed fire in the montane sagebrush/ mountain brush community types. It is expected that within these areas about 50% of the brush would be directly impacted in a mosaic pattern (3,760 acres, about 22% of the total available habitat). These acres would be patchy across the landscape, allowing for a mix of age classes throughout the area. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. Prescribed fire treatments would be used to improve structural and age class diversity within sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Burn openings will typically range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will create a mosaic pattern across the landscape. There are about 15,780 acres within the project area that would be treated to reduce the densities of pinyon-juniper. About 3,435 acres would be treated using prescribed fire. The target areas for the prescribed burn within the pinyon and juniper communities would be Phase I and Phase II pinyon/juniper stands. There are about 3,435 acres of pinyon-juniper with moderate canopy cover (Phase II) that occur on slopes greater than 30%. Burned openings will typically range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will create a mosaic pattern across the landscape. Larger openings may occur, particularly when utilizing prescribed fire as a tool due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of fire. Using prescribed fire in the pinyon-juniper areas will allow native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring and maintaining the sagebrush/mountain brush habitats. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the understory of shrubs, grasses and forbs will increase. This community type would be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire or other disturbance. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. Mechanical treatment would occur on about 8,360 acres of Phase I and II pinyon-juniper. Mechanical treatments would have short and long term benefits by maintaining the sagebrush and mountain brush communities by removing the pinyon and juniper trees expanding into them. Most of these areas are within winter range for sage grouse. With reduction of the pinyon and juniper canopy the health and diversity of brush communities would improve by removing the competition from the trees for water, sunlight, and nutrients, improving the forage value for sage grouse. These areas would also become more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire. When laying out units, there may be areas that remain untreated due to slope and access limitations. Hand cutting would occur on about 4,000 acres in areas where the pinyon and juniper trees are beginning to invade into the sagebrush, mountain brush, and mountain mahogany communities. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the understory shrubs therefore grasses and forbs will increase. Potential treatment units will be between 5 and 500 acres in size within the project area. On an average there are about 10-50 trees/acre within each unit. Slash generated from the treatment will be left on the ground to provide a microclimate that will retain moisture and facilitate the establishment and growth of grasses and forbs. This alternative would ultimately benefit sage grouse by allowing native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring and maintaining the sagebrush habitat. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory shrubs, grasses and forbs. This community type would be better able to respond with desirable

Page 65 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire. Minor disturbance may occur on brood rearing, summer, or winter habitats. No treatment would be occurring on leks. Prescribed fire in the higher elevation brush habitats would generally occur before sage grouse move into this summer habitat. Minor displacement of sage grouse may occur during the actual burning (usually less than one week), or during mechanical treatments. Areas of existing habitat would be available for sage grouse to move into. The proposed mechanical treatments would have short and long-term benefits by maintaining the sagebrush community through the removal of the pinyon and juniper trees that are expanding into the sagebrush community. The prescribed fire treatments would improve the sagebrush and mountain brush communities by increasing the age class diversity, restoring the natural condition, and improving the herbaceous vegetative component. Disturbance from the treatments would be localized and short-term in duration. Numerous areas of available habitat will remain without disturbance. The disturbance to this species will be minimal and limited to individuals. Population trends for sage grouse are expected to remain static or increase. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of sage grouse. This determination is based on the conclusion that the project does not remove or lessen the quality of any habitat component to the degree that survival or reproductive success for this species is negatively affected.

3.7.1.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect sage grouse habitat. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative effects to sage grouse and their habitat from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected. Within the pinyon-juniper and mountain brush/sagebrush areas that are treated (mechanically or with by prescribed fire) grazing would not be permitted for 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover. In treated aspen areas, the aspen will need to reach an average height of six feet before grazing could resume. Non-use, or change in distribution, in the sheep and cattle allotments would be required within these areas to allow for establishment of regenerating aspen and understory vegetation. The combinations of these actions will have minimal impacts on the quality of habitat for sage grouse, as the design criteria would allow the habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease sage grouse habitat in the short term, while some benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the sage brush habitat from the invasion of pinyon and juniper. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for the sage grouse habitats could be

Page 66 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

considered moderate if in one season large acreage of sage grouse habitat were to burn, to minimal if few acres burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: There are currently no fuels, vegetation or prescribed fire treatments occurring on National Forest or private lands within the cumulative effects area. In the late summer and fall of 2010 the BLM completed a series of pinyon-juniper chainings immediately adjacent to and northeast of the cumulative effects area. Additional fuels/vegetation treatments are being planned on BLM administered lands within the northeastern portions of the cumulative effects area. The BLM has approved the Stonehouse Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project. This project would treat up to 19,000 acres of pinyon-juniper to reduce fuels and improve habitats for sage grouse and other wildlife species. Approximately 9,500 acres of these treatments are proposed within the northeast portion of the cumulative effects area. Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of nesting, brood rearing and summer habitats for sage grouse, by improving the diversity in vegetation communities (which increases age classes), which in turn will increase the quality of the habitat. Also the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat, and the sagebrush habitat would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for sage grouse would be considered minimal to beneficial. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.1.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the Wyoming and mountain big sage cover type. The sage cover type identified in the current vegetation map currently has pinyon and juniper scattered throughout the area. The expansion of pinyon- juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush type, the sage would continue to lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. In addition, as the expansion of the pinyon-juniper continues into the sagebrush habitats the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community, decreasing the quality and quantity of sage grouse habitat. There presently is a lack of age class diversity within the sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Under this alternative the majority of these communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would

Page 67 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. Under this alternative, sage grouse population trends are expected to remain static, or decrease because of the continued expansion of pinyon and juniper trees into the sagebrush habitat and the decrease in understory vegetation and age class diversity in the higher elevation sagebrush areas. The decrease in sagebrush and the understory component of forbs and grasses would continue to reduce the quality of sage grouse habitat.

3.7.1.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. Cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1 would be similar to those disclosed under Alternative 2 for: Mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing and developments, water diversions, special uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, noxious weed treatments, developed and dispersed recreation, and private lands management/development. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the mountain big sage cover type. Increasing pinyon-juniper densities will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper densities increase in the sagebrush type, the sagebrush would lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. In addition, as pinyon-juniper densities increase the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community, decreasing the quality and quantity of sage grouse habitat. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush and mountain brush communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by sage grouse would be increased as a result of no changes in current management. The communities with the most notable changes related to sage grouse include the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, particularly those being encroached by pinyon and juniper trees. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species.

3.7.2 Northern Goshawk

3.7.2.1 Affected Environment The northern goshawk is categorized as a R4 Sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest

Page 68 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Plan identifies goshawks as a management indicator species for old growth cottonwood, aspen, and fir stands associated with riparian areas. Management indicator species are used to monitor habitat for goshawks and other species that use similar habitats. The Northern goshawk is found throughout most of North America, with a few isolated populations in the southeastern and central United States. In northern Nevada, goshawks breed in somewhat atypical habitat as compared to the rest of North America. In Nevada, Northern Goshawks are generally found between 6,000 and 10,000 feet elevation (Neel, 1999). Forest types used by western Goshawk populations include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), various pines, and aspen (Populus tremuloides). In high-elevation shrubsteppe habitats, goshawks nest in small, widely-spaced stands of mature aspen trees that grow along creeks and drainages. These aspen stands are located primarily on north or east-facing slopes (Younk and Bechard 1994). The goshawk in northern Nevada is considered a year-round resident. The typical Northern goshawk nest site in Nevada is located in aspen stringers about 600 feet long and 75 feet wide located near small perennial streams (normally within 100 yards) at approximately 7,400-7,800 feet in elevation. Ninety-eight percent of nests have been located within 100 feet of water (Herron et al., 1985). Aspen is the most commonly used nesting tree with over 85 percent of the observed nests found in this vegetative community (Herron, et al., 1985). Most nests are located in aspen stands in swales, where the deeper soils produce larger trees (Herron et al., 1985). A critical element for goshawks on the Ely Ranger District is the presence of aspen stands or stringers of aspen and cottonwood that follow the drainages. A few nests have been found in pinyon pine. For the North Schell Project area, aspen, aspen/conifer, riparian aspen, white fir/mixed conifer, and whitebark pine/limber pine communities, within ½ mile of perennial water sources, were identified as potential nesting habitat within treatment areas. This analysis revealed an area of about 2,460 acres of suitable nesting habitat within a core area consisting of about 11,635 acres of potential nesting and foraging habitat. One active goshawk nest was discovered within the core area in 2010. A 230 acre nesting territory was delineated around the site.

3.7.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action With this alternative the known nest site will be monitored and no treatment will occur within the 230 acre nest territory. Any spring prescribed fire activities will also include additional buffers for aircraft to further prevent disturbances to active northern goshawk nest areas. Under this alternative nesting habitat for goshawk would be impacted by the prescribed fire in portions of the aspen/conifer stands within the core habitat area. Of the 2,216 acres of aspen, aspen/mixed conifer, riparian aspen, and white fir, approximately 1,000 acres will be treated using prescribed fire within the core area. Additional vegetation communities will be treated within each North Schell Unit. See Appendix A for the treatment acres and percentage by unit. Because of the mosaic pattern that will occur on the ground from the prescribed burn approximately 70% of the acres that are targeted would actually be burned. Of the potential nesting habitat in the project area, 700 acres (32%) would be directly impacted. The remaining 1,516 acres would remain as existing nesting habitat. The treated areas would provide replacement nesting habitat for goshawk in the future. Before any treatments occur, potential nesting habitats would be surveyed for nesting goshawks. Should nesting goshawks be found, treatment would not occur in those units.

Page 69 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Foraging habitat will increase as the prescribe fire would also treat a portion of the surrounding mountain brush habitats, improving the vegetative diversity, structure and composition of these habitats. Table 17. Treatment acres within northern goshawk nesting habitats. Total acres in Target acres to be % of acres core area treated with Rx fire directly impacted by Rx Fire (70%) Aspen 1,200 acres 462 acres 323 acres Mixed 58 acres 19 acres 13 acres Aspen/Conifer Riparian Aspen 26 acres 14 acres 10 acres White Fir 932 acres 505 acres 354 acres Total 2,216 acres 1,000 acres 700 acres Under this alternative, habitat quality and quantity would be expected to increase as the conifer encroached aspen stands are treated to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. Over time these aspen stands will become future nesting habitat. There may be short term adverse impacts to individual goshawks to provide for long term beneficial habitat conditions for goshawk populations. Disturbance from the treatments would be localized and short in duration at any one time, leaving other areas without disturbance. The disturbance to this species will be minimal and limited to individuals. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of northern goshawks. This determination is based on the conclusion that the project does not remove or lessen the quality of any habitat component to the degree that survival or reproductive success for this species is negatively affected. Under this alternative, goshawk population trends are expected to remain static or increase over time as the treated nesting habitat matures, increasing potential nesting habitat.

3.7.2.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect goshawk habitat. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative effects to habitat for the goshawk from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected. In treated aspen areas, the aspen will need to reach a height of six feet before grazing could resume. Non-use, or change in distribution, in the sheep and cattle allotments would be required within these areas to allow for establishment of regenerating aspen and understory vegetation. Within mountain brush areas that are considered foraging habitat for the goshawk that are treated (mechanically or with by prescribed fire) grazing would not be permitted for 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover. The combination of these actions will have minimal impacts on the quality of habitat for the northern goshawk, as the design criteria would allow these habitats to recover before grazing would resume.

Page 70 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease habitat for goshawks in the short term, while some benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the sagebrush and mountain brush habitat and rejuvenation of aspen stands. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The combination of these actions could have moderate impacts on the quality of habitat for the northern goshawk if in one season large acreages of habitat were to burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of nesting and foraging habitat for the goshawks, by rejuvenating the aspen stands and therefore improving long-term nesting habitat and improving the diversity in vegetation communities (which increases age classes), which in turn will increase the quality of the foraging habitat. Also the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat, and the sagebrush habitat would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The combination of these actions will have minimal to beneficial impacts on the quality of habitat for the northern goshawk. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative current management would continue in the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Seral aspen stands would continue to decrease in size and vigor as conifer trees (mainly white fir) continued to replace the aspen. As conifers replace the aspen, the quality and quantity of potential nesting habitats would decrease. There is potential to lose the seral aspen stands entirely. Should a large wildfire occur, then much of the presently available nesting habitat could be moved to an early successional stage at one time. Under this alternative, goshawk population trends are expected to remain static or decrease as nesting habitat decreases. Foraging habitat would still be available within and near the project area.

3.7.2.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. Cumulative effects associated with No Action would be similar to those disclosed under the Proposed Action for: Mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing and developments, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by goshawks would be increased as a result of no changes in the sagebrush, mountain brush, and aspen communities.

Page 71 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the sagebrush and mountain brush cover type. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush type, the sagebrush would lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. This would impact foraging habitats. In addition, as the expansion of the pinyon-juniper continues into the sagebrush habitats the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community, decreasing the quality and quantity of foraging habitat for goshawks. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush and mountain brush communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. No regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would continue to move toward being conifer stands only as no treatment would occur to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes providing future nesting habitat. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by goshawks would be increased as a result of no changes in current management. The communities with the most notable changes related to goshawks include the seral aspen communities and the surrounding foraging habitat.

3.7.3 Flammulated Owl

3.7.3.1 Affected Environment Flammulated owls are a R4 Sensitive Species and a neotropical migrant. Their summer habitat is usually found in mature stands of white fir, subalpine fir, and limber pine: open stands of large Jeffrey pine; and ponderosa pine mixed with aspen (Neel, 1999 pg. 82). In Nevada, flammulated owls will also use old aspen stands (Hayward and Verner, 1994, p. 22). Roosting occurs in dense stands, while stands that are more open are utilized while foraging for insects, mainly moths. These owls nest in the cavities of snags and large live trees that have been excavated by woodpeckers (Wisdom et al., 2000 (2) pg. 40-42; and Hayward and Verner, 1994, pp. 25-26, 28). Flammulated owls occur in limited areas in the mid to higher elevations within the White Pine, Grant-Quinn, Schell Creek and Mount Moriah mountain ranges, and there are known nesting sites for flammulated owls present within each of these ranges. Nests have been found in aspen, white fir and some bristlecone pine habitats in Scofield Canyon on the Grant Range, and in McEllen and Seligman Canyons in the White Pine Range in 2005 (again in Seligman Canyon in 2006). Flammulated owls have also been found in aspen and white fir

Page 72 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

habitats in Kalamazoo Canyon and Sagehen Canyon in the Schell Creek range in 2005, in Berry Creek in the Schell Creek range in 2006, and in Deadman and Big Canyons in the Mount Moriah range in 2005 (Mika, 2006). Using the RSAC vegetation map, potential nesting habitat for flammulated owls was queried based on the following parameters: Aspen, Mixed Aspen/Conifer, Riparian Aspen, Mixed Conifer, and White Fir. There are approximately 52,975 acres of potential habitat within the Schell Creek Range. Most of the habitat for flammulated owls in the Schell Creek Range occurs within Wilderness. Additional areas occur west of Camp Success and in the northern portion on the Schell Creek Range. There are about 2,216 acres of potential nesting habitat for flammulated owls within a core area consisting of about 11,635 acres of habitat. Nesting habitat consists of both stable aspen (aspen stands without a conifer component) and seral aspen (aspen stands where through succession conifers would be the climax species). Seven areas, along with an adjacent area south of Kalamazoo Road, were surveyed for owls in August 2010. One flammulated owl responded to the calling in Unit 7 and two owls responded along the Kalamazoo Road. In addition owls were seen in units 1, 2, 4, and 6, but did not respond to the calling. No nesting owls were found. Flammulated owls are known to occur south of the project area in Kalamazoo Canyon, Berry Creek, and Sagehen Canyon (Mika, 2006).

3.7.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Under this alternative habitat for flammulated owls would be impacted by the prescribed fire in portions of the aspen/conifer stands within the core habitat area. Of the 2,216 acres of potential habitat within the core area, approximately 1,000 acres will be treated using prescribed fire. Additional vegetation communities will be treated within each North Schell Unit. See Appendix A for the treatment acres and percentage by unit. Because of the mosaic pattern that will occur on the ground from the prescribed burn approximately 70% of the acres that are targeted would actually be burned. Of the potential habitat in the project area, 700 acres (32%) would be impacted by prescribed fire. The remaining 1,516 acres would remain as existing habitat. The treated areas would provide replacement habitat for flammulated owls in the future. Before any treatments occur, potential habitat would be surveyed for nesting flammulated owls. Should nesting owls be found, treatment would not occur in those units. Foraging habitat will increase as the prescribe fire would also treat a portion of the surrounding mountain brush habitats, improving the vegetative diversity, structure and composition of these habitats that provide a prey base for flammulated owls. Table 18. Treatment acres within flammulated owl nesting habitats. Total acres in Target acres to be % of acres core area treated with Rx fire directly impacted by Rx Fire (70%) Aspen 1,200 acres 462 acres 323 acres Mixed 58 acres 19 acres 13 acres Aspen/Conifer Riparian Aspen 26 acres 14 acres 10 acres White Fir 932 acres 505 acres 354 acres Total 2,216 acres 1,000 acres 700 acres

Page 73 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Nesting habitat for flammulated owls would decrease immediately after treatment, but improve over time as the aspen stands mature. Although snags would be created for nesting from the prescribed fire, the needed canopy cover from adjacent live trees would be lost in most areas. Flammulated owls forage over a larger area than the nesting stands. Foraging habitat will increase as the prescribe fire would also treat a portion of the surrounding mountain brush habitats, improving the vegetative diversity, structure and composition of these habitats that provide a prey base for flammulated owls. Under this alternative habitat quality and quantity would be expected to increase as the conifer encroached aspen stands are treated to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. Over time these aspen stands will become future nesting habitat. There may be short term adverse impacts to individual flammulated owls to provide for long term beneficial habitat conditions for flammulated owl populations. Disturbance from the treatments would be localized and short in duration at any one time, leaving other areas without disturbance. The disturbance to this species will be minimal and limited to individuals. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of flammulated owls. This determination is based on the conclusion that the project does not remove or lessen the quality of any habitat component to the degree that survival or reproductive success for this species is negatively affected. Under this alternative, flammulated owl population trends are expected to remain static or increase over time as the treated areas mature, increasing potential nesting habitat.

3.7.3.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect flammulated owl habitat, particularly nesting habitat in aspen. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative effects to habitat for the flammulated owls from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected. In treated aspen areas, the aspen will need to reach an average height of six feet before grazing could resume. Non-use, or change in distribution, in the sheep and cattle allotments would be required within these areas to allow for establishment of regenerating aspen and understory vegetation. Within mountain brush areas that are considered foraging habitat for the owls that are treated (mechanically or with by prescribed fire) grazing would not be permitted for 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for flammulated owls would be minimal, as the design criteria would allow these habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease habitat for flammulated owls in the short term, while some benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the mountain brush and rejuvenation of aspen stands. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The combination of these actions will have moderate impacts on the quality of habitat for owls if

Page 74 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment in one season large acreages of habitat were to burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of nesting and foraging habitat for flammulated owls, by rejuvenating the aspen stands and therefore improving long-term nesting habitat and improving the diversity in vegetation communities (which increases age classes), which in turn will increase the quality of the foraging habitat. Also the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat, and the sagebrush habitat would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The combination of these actions will have minimal impacts on the quality of habitat for flammulated owls. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative There are about 2,216 acres of potential flammulated owl habitat within the project area. Under the No Action Alternative current management would continue to guide management of the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Aspen stands would continue to decrease in size and vigor as conifer trees (mainly white fir) continued to replace the aspen. As the conifers replace the aspen the habitat quality and quantity of the potential available nesting habitat would decrease. There would be the potential to lose the aspen stands entirely. Or a wildfire could occur, which may put the entire presently available nesting habitat into an early successional stage. Under this alternative flammulated owl population trends are expected to remain static, or decrease. Over time, existing aspen/conifer areas that are presently potential habitat for flammulated owls would continue to move toward solid conifer stands, reducing the amount and quality of habitat for flammulated owls. In the event of a wildfire a portion of the area, or the entire area, could be set back to an early successional stage, which would not be flammulated owl nesting habitat for 50 to 60 years. Foraging habitat would still be available within and near the project area.

3.7.3.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Cumulative effects associated with No Action would be similar to those disclosed under the Proposed Action for: Mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing and developments, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by flammulated owls would be increased as a result of no changes in the sagebrush, mountain brush, and aspen communities. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush and mountain communities would remain in an

Page 75 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. No regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would continue to move toward being conifer stands only as no treatment would occur to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes which would provide future nesting habitat. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by flammulated owls would be increased as a result of no changes in current management. The communities with the most notable changes related to flammulated owls include the seral aspen communities and the surrounding foraging habitat.

3.7.4 Three-toed Woodpecker

3.7.4.1 Affected Environment In the west, three-toed woodpeckers occur in dense coniferous forests, and are associated with subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce at higher elevations. Three-toed woodpeckers seem to prefer disturbed coniferous forests with trees that exhibit thin, flaky bark such as spruce and lodgepole pine (NatureServe, 2010). In Nevada, the three-toed woodpecker is found in Englemann spruce forest in association with white fir, limber pine, bristlecone pine and aspen. Its preferred habitat within the forest canopy is often in decadent, diseased, or burned portions of the canopy. It inhabits areas where dead timber remains after fires or logging. Three-toed woodpeckers in Nevada appear to be on the peripheral range of their habitat. The only documented sightings have been on the Ely District in the Snake Range. Threats to the three-toed include removal of snags that removes nesting and foraging areas, and fire suppression that eliminates fire-killed trees and increases the threat of catastrophic wildlife (Utah CWCS, 2005 pg 6-35). Potential habitat for the three-toed woodpeckers does occur within the higher elevations in Schell Creek Mountain Range, although there are no documented sightings. This species can be tied to specific types of habitats – conifer forest often with decadent, diseased, or burned trees. The Three-toed Woodpecker is largely a spruce forest obligate (The Lahontan Audubon Society, Snake Range IBA, 2005 pg 11). A query of the RSAC data for conifers showed 75,600 acres for the Schell Creek Range and Mount Moriah. There are 54,684 acres of conifer forest within the Schell Creek Mountain Range and of this approximately 6,867 acres are within the project area. Most of the potential habitat in the Schell Creek Range occurs within Wilderness Areas. This is probably an over estimate of potential habitat since the RSAC vegetation layers do not separate spruce from other conifers. There is spruce within the Schells, but it occurs in limited quantities and tends to be in the drainage bottoms. Potential habitat for three-toed woodpeckers within the project area is considered marginal.

3.7.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Marginal habitat for three-toed woodpeckers does occur within the project area and some occurs within areas proposed for treatment with prescribed fire. Seral aspen with a white fir component and white fir are targeted community types that would be treated with prescribed burning. These areas were called for three-toed woodpeckers in 2010 and none were found.

Page 76 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

While some existing nesting and foraging trees (snags) within potential habitat could be lost to prescribed fire, others would be created. Of the potential habitat within the project area about 1,040 acres, 15% falls within the prescribed fire units. Three-toed woodpeckers are often associated with large scale natural disturbances, such as burns, disease, or pest outbreaks and are nomadic, tending to travel across large landscapes in search of outbreaks of bark beetles (GBBO, 2005 pg 83). Within the prescribed fire units there would be losses and gains in habitat for the three-toed. Under this alternative habitat quality and quantity would be expected to remain static. As the conifer encroached aspen stands and white fir areas are treated, some snags will be lost while others will be created. Mortality from insects will remain static. Under this alternative, three-toed woodpecker population trends are expected to remain static.

3.7.4.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has little potential to affect three-toed woodpeckers, or their habitat. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. The combinations of these actions would have minimal impacts on the quality of nesting and foraging habitat for three-toed woodpeckers. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could increase and decrease habitat for three-toed woodpeckers by creating new snags and by the loss of existing snags. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The combination of these actions will have moderate impacts on the quality of habitat for three-toed woodpeckers if in one season large acreages of habitat were to burn. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) would be in the pinyon-juniper and mountain brush habitats, not areas used by three-toed woodpeckers. The combination of these actions will have minimal impacts on the quality of habitat for three-toed woodpeckers. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative There is marginal potential habitat for three-toed woodpeckers within the project area. Under the No Action Alternative current management would continue to guide management of the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Aspen stands would continue to decrease in size and vigor as conifer trees (mainly white fir) continued to replace the aspen. As the conifers replace the aspen the habitat quantity of the potential available nesting habitat would increase, and quality would depend on wildfires and the mortality from insects. Under this alternative three-toed woodpecker population trends are expected to remain static.

Page 77 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Over time, existing aspen/conifer areas that are presently being encroached by white fir would continue to move toward solid conifer stands, potentially increasing habitat for three- toed woodpeckers.

3.7.4.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Cumulative effects associated with No Action would be similar to those disclosed under the Proposed Action for: Mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing and developments, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by three- toed woodpeckers would be increased as a result of no changes in the aspen communities. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Under this alternative no regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would continue to move toward being conifer stands only as no treatment would occur to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by three-toed woodpeckers would decrease as a result of no changes in current management.

3.7.5 Pygmy Rabbit

3.7.5.1 Affected Environment Pygmy rabbits are categorized as a R4 Sensitive Species. The pygmy rabbit has a discontinuous distribution occurring in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington (Roberts, 2001pg 2). There is little information on the current distribution of pygmy rabbits in Nevada. On January 8, 2008 the US Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a status review to determine of listing the pygmy rabbit is warranted. Pygmy rabbits are impacted by the loss of habitat linked to livestock grazing, large fires, or activities that create broad openings in habitat. Pygmy rabbits are found primarily on plains dominated by big sagebrush and on alluvial fans where plants occur in tall, dense clumps (Green and Flinders 1980a). The hiding/cover attribute of woody vegetation (height) and the herbaceous component is perhaps the most critical habitat element for this species (Green and Flinders 1980b), because they would seldom venture even a short distance from suitable cover, dense stands of big sagebrush along streams, roads, fences and ditches may be the avenues of dispersal (Green and Flinders 1980b). Fragmentation and loss of sagebrush habitat is a major concern because pygmy rabbits are suspected of being reluctant or unable to cross open areas to disperse (Weiss and Verts 1984). On the Ely RD habitat for pygmy rabbits consists of broad sagebrush basins where thick and healthy Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush communities occur adjacent to riparian areas, springs or other sources of water. Old mine sites and/or homesteads may also provide potential habitats. The elevational range of pygmy rabbits in Nevada extends from 4,494 to over 7,004 feet (1,370-2,135 m) (Green and Flinders 1980a). There are no known locations of pygmy rabbits within the project area. The closest known pygmy rabbit site is two miles south of the project area in Duck Creek Basin. Using the

Page 78 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

RSAC vegetation map, potential habitat for pygmy rabbits was queried based on the following parameters: Basin Big Sage, Wyoming Big Sage, and Mountain Big Sage vegetation types on slopes less than 25%, and at elevations below 8,500 feet (Gabler, 2000, pg 762 and Larrucea, 2007). There are approximately 2,900 acres of potential habitat within the project area that met these criteria. These areas were visited on September 9 and October 8, 2009 and September 28, 2010 by biologists from the district and the habitat was assessed. Most of these areas are not considered potential habitat for pygmy rabbits because: • Some areas occur on volcanic soils, not the friable soils preferred by pygmy rabbits. • Other areas occur in old chainings with non-native grasses. • On some sites there is an increased density of pinyon and juniper trees which precludes the area as potential habitat. Small areas of marginal habitat occur throughout the project area. No signs of pygmy rabbits were observed during field visits.

3.7.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Small areas of marginal potential habitat occur throughout the project area. Any treatments within these areas would be hand cutting of pinyon and juniper which would be accessed by foot from existing roads. The removal of the pinyon and juniper trees within these areas of potential pygmy rabbit habitat would have the long-term beneficial effect by maintaining the sagebrush community. No habitat component important to pygmy rabbits would be adversely impacted by this project. Disturbance from the treatments would be localized and short in duration at any one time, leaving other areas without disturbance. This alternative would have a beneficial effects by removing small pinyon and juniper that are expanding into the sage brush community. The disturbance to this species will be minimal and limited to individuals. Population trends for the pygmy rabbit are expected to remain static. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of pygmy rabbits. This determination is based on the conclusion that the project does not remove or lessen the quality of any habitat component to the degree that survival or reproductive success for this species is negatively affected.

3.7.5.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect pygmy rabbit habitat. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on adjacent BLM administered lands. Cumulative effects on pygmy rabbits and their habitats would occur as a result of livestock grazing within the proposed hand cutting treatment areas are. These impacts are presently occurring and if pygmy rabbits are present they are persisting. Impacts associated with the proposed treatments would be minimal and are primary limited to short term disturbances. Cumulative effects would occur within potential habitat in the North Creek drainage resulting from cattle grazing. The combinations of these actions would result in minimal impacts on the quality of habitat for the pygmy rabbit.

Page 79 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease pygmy rabbit habitat in the short term, while some benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the sage brush habitat from the invasion of pinyon and juniper. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The cumulative impacts of these actions would increase if in one season large acreages of pygmy rabbit habitat were to burn under wildfire conditions. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: In the late summer and fall of 2010 the BLM completed a series of pinyon-juniper chainings immediately adjacent to and northeast of the cumulative effects area. Additional fuels/vegetation treatments are being planned on BLM administered lands within the northeastern portions of the cumulative effects area. The BLM has approved the Stonehouse Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project. This project would treat up to 19,000 acres of pinyon-juniper to reduce fuels and improve habitats for sage grouse and other wildlife species. Approximately 9,500 acres of these treatments are proposed within the northeast portion of the cumulative effects area. Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of pygmy rabbit habitat, by reducing the densities of pinyon and juniper trees within the sage brush communities, which in turn will increase the quality of the habitat. Also the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat. The combinations of these actions would result in minimal to beneficial impacts on the quality of habitat for pygmy rabbit. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area, vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.5.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative No treatments would occur in the sage brush habitat within the project area. Pygmy rabbit population trends are expected to remain static, or decrease, because of the potential future loss of habitat due to increasing densities of pinyon and juniper trees in potential habitat.

3.7.5.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. Cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1 would be similar to those disclosed under Alternative 2 for: Mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing and developments, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the sage brush cover type. Pinyon-juniper densities will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper densities increase

Page 80 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

in the sagebrush types, the sagebrush would be lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. In addition, as pinyon-juniper densities increase the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community, decreasing the quality and quantity of pygmy rabbit habitat. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by pygmy rabbits would be increased as a result of no changes in current management. The communities with the most notable changes related to pygmy rabbits are the sagebrush communities, particularly those being encroached by pinyon and juniper trees. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species.

3.7.6 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat and Spotted Bat

3.7.6.1 Affected Environment The Townsend’s big-eared and spotted bats are categorized as a R4 Sensitive Species. The Townsend’s big-eared bat primarily uses pinyon-juniper, mahogany, white fir, blackbrush, sagebrush, salt desert scrub, agricultural, and occasionally urban areas. It is often associated with caves and mines. This bat is found throughout the state of Nevada, as well as the Western U.S. There are known historical records within the White Pine, Grant/Quinn, Schell Creek and Mount Moriah mountain ranges for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Bradley et al., 2006, pg. 19). These mountain ranges have cave-like structures within the rock walls of the canyon and old mines that could be used for roosting and foraging. Potentially suitable roosting and maternity habitat may be present in caves, rock crevices, old buildings and abandoned mines. Potentially suitable foraging habitats would likely include springs, seeps, and riparian areas. The spotted bat is closely associated with rocky cliffs. It has been found in a variety of habitats from low elevation desert scrub to high elevation coniferous habitats, including pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, riparian and on urban high-rises. Day roosts are primarily in the crevices in cliff faces but there is some indication that mines and caves may occasionally be used, primarily in winter (Bradley et al., 2006, pg. 22). There are no known historical records for the spotted bat near the project area. The closest known sites are in the South Snake Mountain range and the Cherry Creek range (Bradley et al., 2006, pg. 23).

3.7.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Potential habitats for Townsend’s big-eared and spotted bats occur within the project area. Known tunnels, mineshafts, cliff faces, or cave-like structures occur within the project areas but would not be affected by the treatments. Although most of their foraging occurs in

Page 81 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

riparian areas, the use of nearby uplands may occur. Minor displacement of these bats during foraging and roosting may occur during the prescribed burn or mechanical treatments. The duration of the project activities will be short term and although foraging habitat and some roosting habitat will be altered within the units, it would not be eliminated. The prescribed burn will occur in a mosaic pattern and the vegetation that will occupy the site after the burn will provide roosting and foraging habitat. The mechanical treatment areas would not be removing the understory component and the slopes over 30% would not be treated, therefore retaining roosting and foraging habitat within the project area. Vegetation treatments under this proposal may increase flows within springs and meadows which may increase available foraging habitats for these species. The disturbance to this species will be minimal and population trends for the Townsend’s big-eared bat and spotted bat are expected to remain static. No potentially suitable maternity or hibernacula habitat will be impacted by this alternative and only minor displacement in roosting and foraging may occur. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of either bat species. This determination is based on the conclusion that the project does not remove or lessen the quality of any habitat component to the degree that survival or reproductive success for this species is negatively affected.

3.7.6.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Potentially suitable roosting, maternity, and hibernacula habitat occur within rocky cliffs, caves, and old mines. Grazing is not expected to affect these habitats because the natural features of these habitats would limit access by cattle. Livestock grazing has the potential to affect foraging habitat for both bat species, especially near springs, seeps, and riparian areas. Vegetation treatments under the proposed action may increase the amount of spring and meadow habitats within the project area. These treatments are also likely to improve distribution of livestock and big game which is likely to improve the condition of springs and meadows and in turn improve foraging habitats for these species. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). The impacts from grazing are already occurring and the bats have persisted. Grazing activities are not expected to increase in the area. In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative effects to foraging habitat for bats from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected to be similar to those occurring in project area. Within mountain brush areas that are considered foraging habitat for the bats that are treated (mechanically or with by prescribed fire) grazing would not be permitted for a minimum of 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover. The combinations of these actions would result in minimal impacts on the quality of habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat and spotted bat. The design criteria would allow potential habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease habitat for bats in the short term, while some benefits could occur in the long term

Page 82 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment by maintaining the mountain brush and rejuvenation of aspen stands. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for bats would be considered moderate if in one season large acreage of habitat were to burn, to minimal if few acres burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of foraging habitat for bats, by rejuvenating the aspen stands and improving the diversity in vegetation communities (which increases age classes), which in turn will increase the quality of the foraging habitat. Also, the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitats. Sagebrush habitats would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for bats would be considered minimal to beneficial. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis. Developed and Dispersed Recreation: Developed and dispersed recreational uses within the cumulative effects area are generally considered light. The cumulative effects area contains no developed recreation sites. There is a concentrated use camp area in Kalamazoo Creek that includes a couple of picnic tables, fire rings, and a restroom. No new developed recreation facilities are planned over the next ten years. Recreational uses are expected to remain stable or increase slightly over current levels. An EA for Travel Management for the Ely Ranger District was signed in February 2009. This will reduce the amount of routes and prohibiting motor vehicle use off the designated NFS roads and NFS trails. These road closures and prohibition of motor use off designated routes, along with the proposed treatments from the North Schell Project, would ultimately benefit wildlife species throughout the area by allowing native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring the connectivity of important habitats and reducing the amount of disturbance to wildlife from motor vehicles. There are no additional plans for the construction of any roads or motorized trails at this time. Recreational use (such as camping near meadows systems or along creeks) may impact bats by altering vegetative communities that provide potential foraging habitats for prey species used by them. Bats generally forage at night while most of the activities described above occur during the day. Recreational activities generally occur near roads, trails, and developed sites. Although recreational activities may disturb bats, it is generally localized and represents only a small portion of the habitats available. The potential cumulative impacts associated with recreational and proposed treatment activities are generally localized in nature and often occur during the day when bats are not actively foraging. Disturbance from treatment activities would be short in duration. The proposed treatment would have the beneficial effect of improving foraging habitats for bats. The potential effects would be minimal and limited to individual bats. Although disturbance to foraging bats will still occur from recreation activities the combination of these actions and the proposed action would be minimal. There would beneficial effects to the quality of the foraging habitat for bats by reducing the number of routes within the area, which will reduce

Page 83 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment disturbance to bats in the long term, and by improving and maintaining foraging habitat from the vegetation treatments.

3.7.6.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative current management would continue in the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the sagebrush and mountain brush habitat types. The sage cover type identified in the current vegetation map currently has pinyon and juniper scattered throughout the area. The expansion of pinyon- juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush type, the sage would continue to lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. Aspen stands would continue to decrease in size and vigor as conifer trees (mainly white fir) continued to replace the aspen. There presently is a lack of age class diversity within the sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Under this alternative the majority of these communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. Under this alternative Townsend’s big-eared bat and spotted bat population trends are expected to remain static. No potentially suitable roosting, maternity, hibernacula, or foraging habitat will be impacted by this alternative. Foraging habitat would still be available within and near the project area, although at a reduced quality.

3.7.6.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Cumulative effects associated with No Action would be similar to those disclosed under the Proposed Action for: Mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing and developments, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by bats for foraging would be increased as a result of no changes in the sagebrush, mountain brush, and aspen communities. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush and mountain communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity or structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. No regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would continue to move toward conifer dominated stands as no treatment would occur to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. Under this alternative the potential cumulative effects on vegetative communities used by bats would be increased as a result of ongoing changes in those vegetation communities. Vegetation communities with the most notable changes related to bats foraging habitats

Page 84 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

would include the sagebrush and mountain brush, the loss of aspen and the loss of spring and meadow communities.

3.7.7 Peregrine Falcon

3.7.7.1 Affected Environment The peregrine falcon was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on August 25, 1999. Since their de-listing, they have been addressed as a sensitive species during environmental analysis. Peregrines often nest on ledges or holes on face of rocky cliffs or crags. Nests typically are situated on ledges of vertical rocky cliffs, commonly with a sheltering overhang. Peregrine falcons have nested in Cathedral Canyon in the White Pine range in 2003. They could use other areas in the White Pine, Grant/Quinn, Schell Creek, Mount Moriah or Ward Mountain ranges for nesting, or during migration for resting and foraging. Potential nesting habitats are located high on cliff faces and along steep walled stream canyons. There are no known nest sites in project area, but potential habitat exists. Foraging habitat includes wetlands and riparian habitats, meadows and parklands, croplands such as hayfields and orchards, gorges and mountain valleys, and lakes which support good populations of small to medium-sized terrestrial birds, shorebirds and waterfowl. Peregrines could also use the project area during migration.

3.7.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action No habitat component important to peregrine falcons would be adversely impacted by this alternative. Foraging habitat for Peregrine falcons would improve with the proposed treatments. Because project activities will not be altering or eliminating nesting habitat, disturbance to this species will be minimal. Peregrine falcons forage over large areas so there would be minimal impacts to foraging habitats. Peregrine falcon population trends are expected to remain static as a result of this alternative.

3.7.7.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Potentially suitable nesting habitat occurs within project area on high cliff faces and along steep walled stream canyons. Grazing is not expected to affect these habitats because the natural features of these habitats would limit access by cattle. Livestock grazing has the potential to affect foraging habitat for peregrines, especially near springs, seeps, and riparian areas. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). The impacts from grazing to foraging habitat have already been occurring and if peregrines are in the area they have persisted. Grazing activities are not expected to increase in the area. In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative effects to foraging habitat for peregrines from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected, but would be minimal. Within sagebrush and mountain brush communities, which are considered foraging habitat for peregrines, no grazing would be permitted for a minimum of 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover.

Page 85 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The combination of these actions would result in minimal impacts on peregrine falcons. Design criteria would allow potential foraging habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease foraging habitat for peregrines in the short term, while some benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the mountain brush and rejuvenation of aspen stands. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The combination of these actions would result in minimal impacts on peregrine falcons. The impacts would be considered moderate if in one season large acreage of habitat were to burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of foraging habitat for peregrines, by rejuvenating the aspen stands and improving the diversity in vegetation communities (increase in age classes), which in turn will increase the quality of the foraging habitat. Also the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat, and the sagebrush habitat would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The combination of these actions would result in minimal and potentially beneficial impacts on peregrine falcons. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.7.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Potential nesting, foraging and/or migration habitat is present within the project area. No habitat component important to peregrine falcons would be adversely impacted by the No Action Alternative, because there will be no actions altering or eliminating nesting. Foraging habitat would not be improved, but sufficient foraging areas are present to support falcons. The project would have no impact on peregrines, or their habitat. Under this alternative Peregrine falcon, population trends are expected to remain static.

3.7.7.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Because this alternative will have no direct or indirect effects on the peregrine falcon, there would therefore be no cumulative effects as a result of the no action alternative.

3.7.8 Bighorn Sheep

3.7.8.1 Affected Environment Bighorn sheep are categorized as a R4 Sensitive Species. The Ely Ranger District supports both desert bighorn (O. c. nelsoni) and Rocky Mountain bighorn (O. c. canadensis) sheep. The White Pine Range has been home to a small remnant herd of desert bighorn sheep for many years in the Currant Mountain Wilderness. The Grant-Quinn Range, around Troy Peak also supports a herd of desert bighorn sheep. Augmentations to this herd have occurred twice in the last several years, including December 2006 and October 2007. Rocky Mountain

Page 86 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

bighorn sheep occur on the Mount Moriah Range and utilize open, lower elevation habitats with minimal tree densities during the late fall, winter and spring. Potential habitat exists within the project area; however the area contains no bighorn sheep and is not managed for bighorn sheep.

3.7.8.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action The project area is potential habitat for bighorn sheep, but is presently unoccupied. The closest known bighorn sheep herd is on Mount Moriah. No habitat component important to bighorn sheep would be adversely impacted by this alternative. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects as a result of the proposed action.

3.7.8.3 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative The project area is potential habitat for bighorn sheep, but is presently unoccupied. The closest known bighorn sheep herd is on Mount Moriah. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects as a result of the no action alternative.

3.7.9 Bonneville Cutthroat Trout

3.7.9.1 Affected Environment Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (BCT) are categorized as a R4 Sensitive Species. Historically, BCT occurred throughout the Bonneville Basin; today they are restricted to less than 50 populations in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. On the Ely Ranger District, BCT occupy Hendry’s, Hampton, Smith, Deep Canyon, and Deadman Creeks in the Mount Moriah Range, and Deep Creek in the Grant-Quinn Range. A tributary to Silver Creek may also have Bonneville Cutthroat Trout. Genetic testing to determine if the trout from the Silver Creek tributary are indeed pure strains of BCT is currently in progress.

3.7.9.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action The project area does not contain habitat for the Bonneville cutthroat trout. The area is not within historical habitat or the Bonneville Basin. The proposed action would have no impact on the Bonneville cutthroat trout, or their habitat.

3.7.9.3 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative The project area does not contain habitat for the Bonneville cutthroat trout. The area is not within historical habitat or the Bonneville Basin. The no action alternative would have no impact on the Bonneville cutthroat trout, or their habitat.

3.7.10 Mule Deer

3.7.10.1 Affected Environment Mule deer occur throughout the project area. Mule deer are categorized as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for all vegetative types in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Management indicator species are used to monitor habitat for mule deer and other species that use similar habitats.

Page 87 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Mule deer range is characterized by sagebrush, mountain brush, mountain mahogany, pinyon-juniper, aspen, and all types of vegetative community types in association with herbaceous meadow and riparian community types along stream courses (Taylor 1991). Winter range is found at lower elevations, while summer range is found at higher elevations on the Forest. Winter range is typified by shrublands that do not accumulate large amounts of snow so that forage can be accessible to deer through most of the winter. The project area contains both summer and winter ranges for mule deer. Mule deer fawn in many of the riparian areas as well as in the mountain brush communities. The fawning is dispersed throughout much of this habitat and data about deer fawning use within the mountain brush community is limited. Although fawning areas comprise a relatively small number of acres, they are a very important component of the deer range. The majority of the fawning areas on the District are within a half-mile of riparian areas, perennial streams, or water sources. These areas would also be used as elk calving areas. The district provides a good distribution and diversity of vegetation for mule deer year round. The most common browse plants used by mule deer throughout the district are big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, snowberry, willow, and rubber rabbitbrush (Taylor 1991, pg. 66 and 67). Diets of the deer herds include three major forage classes: 1) browse or shrubs, including both shrub (sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush) and tree material (willow, aspen, and cottonwood); 2) graminoids, which include sedges and rushes and grass-like species; and 3) forbs, which include lower plant forms such as mosses and lichens (ibid). Food habits of deer appear to be influenced by phenological changes in forage as well as the abundance of different species. The Forest Plan set a minimum viable population level for mule deer at 11, 247 with a maximum potential population of 88,200 deer. The 1986 LRMP identified the current (1986) population of mule deer at 63,000. Statewide mule deer numbers have remained relatively stable over the past ten years (HNF Monitoring Report, 2008, pg 27 and 28). The increase in recruitment observed in 2009 has resulted in a modest increase in the statewide mule deer population estimate. Although the 2010 statewide mule deer population estimate is virtually the same as in 2009, many of the state’s management areas are experiencing changes in their population levels. Population declines observed in some areas are being offset by increases in other areas and the end result is a slight statewide increase. Biologists are optimistic that good body condition, low winter mortality, and mild winter conditions in most areas contribute to increased production in the spring of 2010. (NDOW 2009-2010, pg SS-1) The project area falls within NDOW Management Area 11. For Units 111-113 (Eastern White Pine County), the deer population expanded between 2004 and 2007 due to improved habitat conditions and favorable fawn recruitment. A severe drought extended from mid- 2006 through 2008. This resulted in sharply reduced fawn recruitment and a significant population decrease. The improved habitat conditions of 2009 came too late to have a large influence on 2009 productivity. However, without the habitat improvements of 2009, the past winter could have been very negative for mule deer. The 2010 spring fawn ratio indicates a stable to slightly increasing population trend. With improving habitat conditions in the short term, fawn production in 2010 should improve over that of 2009. (NDOW 2009-2010, pg 11- 12) Long-term habitat potential for mule deer is slowly declining due to increasing densities of pinyon and juniper trees upward into mountain brush zones and downward onto bench areas.

Page 88 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

In some areas, degradation from severe drought has resulted in loss of native vegetation and expansion of cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Large-scale projects designed to control the encroachment of trees without imposing long-term impacts to shrub communities will be needed to reverse this trend (NDOW 2009-2010, pg 11).

3.7.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Under this alternative, treatment of mature sagebrush steppe/mountain brush communities would increase age class diversity and improve the herbaceous vegetative component by the use of prescribed fire. Prescribed fire treatments would be used to reduce pinyon-juniper densities in Phase I and Phase II pinyon-juniper stands. Regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur with prescribed fire. These communities would be set back to an early seral stage, which would promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. Mechanical treatments in the pinyon-juniper communities will improve the health and diversity of the understory vegetation by removing the overstory of pinyon and juniper trees. Areas of hand cutting would maintain the existing brush communities that are in the early stages of invasion from pinyon and juniper trees. All of these treatments will improve the health and diversity of the vegetation and restore and improve mule deer habitat, particularly winter ranges and important shrub communities on summer range. There are about 17,120 acres of mountain big sage and about 1,475 acres of aspen habitat within the project area. The majority is considered summer habitat for mule deer. Fawning habitat would occur within ½ mile of riparian areas. Approximately 7,425 acres will be treated using prescribed fire in the sagebrush/mountain brush community types at the higher elevations. It is expected that within these areas about 50% of the brush would be directly impacted in a mosaic pattern (3,760 acres, about 22% of the available habitat). These treated acres would be patchy across the landscape, allowing for a mix of age classes throughout the area. Prescribed fire treatments would be used to improve structural and age class diversity within these brush communities. As prescribed fire is implemented within the sagebrush/mountain brush communities, some treatments areas will bump the edges of a number of stable aspen communities. These treatments will regenerate aspen on the outer edges of those stands, and expand the size of the stands, while maintaining the core of the mature trees in the interior of the stands. Burn openings will typically range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will create a mosaic pattern across the landscape. About 1,000 acres of aspen and mixed aspen/conifer stands would be treated within the project area. Within each stand about 70% of the stands would be expected to burn, leaving untreated areas within each unit. The cover values in the treated areas would decrease immediately after treatment, but improve over time as the aspen stands mature. Foraging habitat around the aspen areas will increase as the prescribe fire would also treat a portion of the surrounding sagebrush/mountain brush habitats, improving the vegetative diversity, structure and composition of these habitats that are foraging habitat for mule deer. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. There are about 15,780 acres within the project area that would be treated to reduce the densities of pinyon-juniper. The target areas for the prescribed burn within the pinyon and juniper communities would be Phase I and Phase II pinyon/juniper stands. There are about

Page 89 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3,435 acres of pinyon-juniper with moderate canopy cover (Phase II) that occur on slopes greater than 30%. Burned openings will typically range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will create a mosaic pattern across the landscape. Larger openings may occur, particularly when utilizing prescribed fire as a tool due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of fire. Using prescribed fire in the pinyon-juniper areas will allow native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring and maintaining the sagebrush/mountain brush habitats. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and shrubs, grasses and forbs will increase. This community type would be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire or other disturbance. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. Mechanical treatment would occur on about 8,360 acres of Phase and II pinyon-juniper. Mechanical treatments would have short and long term benefits by maintaining the sagebrush and mountain brush communities by removing the pinyon and juniper trees expanding into them. Most of these areas are within winter and transitional ranges for mule deer. With reduction of the pinyon and juniper canopy the health and diversity of brush communities would improve by removing the competition from the trees for water, sunlight, and nutrients, improving the forage value for mule deer. These areas would also become more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire. When laying out units, there may be areas that remain untreated due to slope and access limitations. These untreated areas will provide hiding cover for mule deer. Hand cutting would occur in areas where the pinyon and juniper trees are beginning to invade into the sagebrush and mountain brush communities and mountain mahogany, about 4,000 acres, resulting in the loss and degradation of important mule deer habitats. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the understory shrubs therefore grasses and forbs will increase. Potential treatment units will be between 5 and 500 acres in size within the project area. On an average there are about 10-50 trees/acre within each unit. Slash generated from the treatment will be left on the ground to provide a microclimate that will retain moisture and facilitate the establishment and growth of grasses and forbs. This alternative would ultimately benefit mule deer by allowing native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring and maintaining the sagebrush, mountain brush and aspen habitats. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory of shrubs, grasses and forbs. This community type would be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire. Minimal disturbance may occur on summer and winter habitat, resulting in minor displacement of mule deer during the actual burning (usually less than one week), or during the mechanical treatments. This would be short in duration and disturbance to this species will be minimal as it is likely animals will avoid the areas during implementation, causing a temporary change in foraging behavior. This would occur on a small portion of the area at any one time and additional areas would be available. No habitat component important to mule deer will be adversely impacted by this project.

Page 90 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Mule deer population trends are expected to remain static or increase. The proposed action would have a beneficial effect by: maintaining the mountain brush and sagebrush communities, increasing the age class diversity, restoring the natural condition, and improving the herbaceous vegetative component. This will be accomplished by removing the pinyon and juniper that are expanding into those communities. The reduction of pinyon- juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory allowing shrubs, grasses and forbs to increase. The use of prescribed fire will increase the age class diversity, restore the natural conditions, and improve the herbaceous vegetative component within mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Prescribed fire in the seral aspen stands will improve the quality and quantity of the aspen habitat as the conifer encroached aspen stands are treated to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. Prescribed fire treatments will bump the edges of a number of stable aspen communities which will regenerate aspen on the outer edges of those stands, and expand the size of the stands, while maintaining the core of the mature trees in the interior of the stands. These habitats would become more resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. These community types will be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire or other disturbance. Disturbance from the treatments would be localized and short-term in duration at any one time, leaving other areas without disturbance. The disturbance to this species will be minimal and limited to individuals. Population trends for mule deer are expected to remain static or increase. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of mule deer. This determination is based on the conclusion that the project does not remove or lessen the quality of any habitat component to the degree that survival or reproductive success for this species is negatively affected.

3.7.10.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Mule deer may also be disturbed or their patterns disrupted by the various activities described below. Disturbance of mule deer by the various uses and activities are localized in nature and generally short term. Individual mule deer may be displaced to adjacent habitats; however, there is rarely a loss of habitat except in the case of wildfire. Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect mule deer and their habitat. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative effects to deer and their habitat from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected. Within the pinyon-juniper and mountain brush/sagebrush areas that are treated (mechanically or with by prescribed fire) grazing would not be permitted for a minimum of 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover. In treated aspen areas, the aspen will need to reach an average height of six feet before grazing could resume. Non-use, or change in distribution, in the sheep and cattle allotments would be required within these areas to allow for establishment of regenerating aspen and understory vegetation. There is the potential for forage competition between sheep and deer for browse species and between cattle and deer, particularly during late summer when cattle are more likely to use browse species. Livestock have the potential to displace deer from preferred habitats, like riparian areas where deer often fawn. Along with displacement to adjacent habitats there are the

Page 91 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment grazing impacts to meadows and springs. These are important to mule deer for both foraging and water sources, and as fawning habitat. The combinations of these actions would impact the quality of habitat for mule deer. Within treatment areas design criteria would allow the habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Livestock would still have the potential to displace deer and compete for available forage. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease mule deer habitat in the short term, while benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the brush habitat from the invasion of pinyon and juniper. Larger burns within the lower elevations (winter range) would have more adverse effects. Treatments will reduce the potential for adverse effects by making these areas more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire. In addition these communities will be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The cumulative impacts of these actions on the quality of habitat for deer could be considered moderate if in one season large acreage of habitat were to burn, to minimal if few acres burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of winter and summer range for mule deer, by improving the diversity in vegetation communities, which in turn will increase the quality of the habitat. Also the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat, and the mountain brush and sagebrush habitats would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for mule deer would be considered minimal to beneficial. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.10.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the sagebrush and mountain brush cover types. These brush cover types identified in the current vegetation map currently have pinyon and juniper scattered throughout the area. The expansion of pinyon- juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, the brush species would lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses toward Phase III. Aspen stands would continue to decrease in size and vigor as conifer trees (mainly white fir) continued to replace the aspen. As the conifers replace the aspen the quality and quantity of habitat for mule deer would decrease. There would be the potential to lose the aspen stands entirely.

Page 92 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

There presently is a lack of age class diversity within the sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Under this alternative the majority of these communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. Under this alternative, mule deer population trends are expected to remain static, or decrease because of the continued expansion of pinyon and juniper trees into the sagebrush and mountain brush habitats and the decrease in understory vegetation and age class diversity in the higher elevation sagebrush areas. The decrease in sagebrush and the understory component of forbs and grasses would continue to reduce the quality of mule deer habitat. This would continue to reduce the quality and quantity of deer summer and winter range. Over time, existing aspen/conifer areas that are presently habitat for mule deer would continue to move toward solid conifer stands, reducing the amount and quality of habitat for mule deer.

3.7.10.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. Cumulative effects associated with the No Action Alternative would be similar to those disclosed under the Proposed Action Alternative for: Mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing and developments, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the mountain brush and sagebrush cover type. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush type, the sage would lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. In addition, as pinyon-juniper densities increase the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community, decreasing the quality and quantity of habitat for mule deer. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush and mountain brush communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. No regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would continue to move toward being conifer stands as no treatment would occur to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by mule deer would increase as a result of no changes in current management. The communities with

Page 93 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

the most notable changes related to mule deer include the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, particularly those being encroached by pinyon and juniper trees. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species.

3.7.11 Trout

3.7.11.1 Affected Environment Trout are the Management Indicator Species (MIS) for riverine and lacustrine habitat and riparian habitat on the Humboldt NF. Trout within the project area include non-native rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout and are managed as game fish by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Bonneville cutthroat trout, also a MIS, are discussed above as a Sensitive Species. Prime trout waters are clear, clean and cold. Good trout stream habitat is complex, consisting of an array of riffles and pools, submerged wood, boulders, undercut banks, and aquatic vegetation. Threats and impacts to trout populations are found with the reduction of good quality trout habitat due to streambank and upland soil erosion, loss of riparian vegetation, water diversion, mining activities, and point and non–point source pollution from agriculture. The assessment of habitat condition is largely based on riparian vegetation, and stream conditions such as bank stability and does not include specific water quality or instream measurements such as substrate composition or embeddedness. Although not a habitat factor, pounds of trout stocked is also used to assess the status of trout throughout the project area. At the forest-level analysis (HNF MIS Report 2008) perennial waters within the project area, were considered capable/suitable for trout. Streams were considered in satisfactory condition if they were identified as fishable by NDOW. Within the project area Mattier, Seigel, Big Indian, Muncy, Sunkist, and Kalamazoo Creeks, are known to support populations of trout. The Forest Plan, Amendment 2 directs the forest to maintain 2,470 pounds of all trout species for a minimal viable population. This level was met on the District where between 2001 and 2006 when 3,714 pounds of trout were stocked in White River and Cleve Creek.

3.7.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, mechanical treatments within pinyon-juniper communities will result in disturbance to vegetation and soils within treatment units and along roads and skid trails. This disturbance will result in a short term increase in soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation into streams. These short term increases in soil erosion may impact fisheries habitat within Mattier, Seigel, Big Indian, and Sunkist Creeks. No mechanical treatments will occur within drainages that may impact fisheries habitats within Muncy or Kalamazoo Creeks. Mechanical treatments will result in long term beneficial effects on fisheries habitats within Mattier, Seigel, Big Indian, and Sunkist Creeks. As treatment areas recover, grass and shrub communities will reestablish on site and there will be a long term increase in ground cover compared to current conditions. With increased ground cover there will be a reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation into streams. Treatments within pinyon-juniper communities and

Page 94 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

restoration of sagebrush/grasslands may result in an increase in water flows within springs and streams. In locations where this occurs it may improve fisheries habitats by increasing the availability of habitats with sufficient flows to support fish species. The potential that fisheries habitats will be improved is variable and very site specific with many factors affecting the outcome including tree densities, soils, location and types of treatments. Prescribed fire treatments will typically occur at mid to higher elevations within aspen, mixed conifer, mountain big sagebrush, mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper communities. Prescribed burns will consume vegetation material and litter. These treatments will not result in direct soil disturbances; however, these treatments do remove ground cover and leave soils exposed for a period from several weeks up to several years. During this time soils are susceptible to increased erosion potential particularly during spring runoff or during thunderstorm events. This disturbance may result in a short term increase in soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation into streams. These short term increases in soil erosion may impact fisheries habitat within Mattier, Seigel, Big Indian, Muncy, Kalamazoo and Sunkist Creeks. Prescribed fire treatments also have the potential to result in direct impacts to fisheries habitats. Prescribed fire treatments will not target riparian habitats; however, due to the unpredictable nature of fire it is likely that fire may backburn into riparian habitats. In most cases the impacts will be minimal, however, fire may remove vegetation that provides shade to the stream and could result in a short term increase in water temperatures within the section of stream which was impacted. Riparian habitats such as those within the streams identified above are generally dominated by riparian shrub communities which resprout and respond positively following fire. Therefore the shade impacts resulting from the loss of riparian shrub vegetation would be short term in nature. In more severe conditions, fires burning within riparian zones can create enough heat and ash that fisheries species can be killed within the affected areas of the streams. In those situations the population of fish can recover within several years from adjacent unburned sections of stream, or through restocking by Nevada Department of Wildlife if appropriate. Prescribed fire treatments will result in long term beneficial effects on fisheries habitats within Mattier, Seigel, Big Indian, Muncy, Kalamazoo and Sunkist Creeks. As treatment areas recover, grass, shrub, and aspen communities will reestablish on site and there will be a long term increase in ground cover compared to current conditions. With increased ground cover there will be a reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation into streams. Prescribed fire treatments adjacent to streams may also increase large woody debris within streams which will result in long term positive benefits on fisheries habitats. Treatments within pinyon-juniper communities and restoration of sagebrush/grasslands may result in an increase in water flows within springs and streams. In locations where this occurs it may improve fisheries habitats by increasing the availability of habitats with sufficient flows to support fish species. The potential that fisheries habitats will be improved is variable and very site specific with many factors affecting the outcome including tree densities, soils, location and types of treatments. Under this alternative, fisheries populations are expected to remain static over the next several years with potential for a slight long-term upward trend.

Page 95 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.7.11.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing and Livestock Developments: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect fish species and their habitats. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Most of the fisheries habitats within the project area occur on National Forest System Lands. Stream flows generally go subsurface on the lower elevation alluvial fans due to the coarse soils present. Cumulative effects to fisheries and their habitats from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected. Livestock frequently concentrate within riparian habitats and can impact riparian vegetation and streambank stability. Under the proposed action prescribed fire treatment and seeded areas will be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two years to allow recovery of native vegetation. This will also result in improvement in riparian and fisheries habitats during this rest period. Vegetation treatments will also help to improve distribution of both livestock and big game use which will result in an improvement in the condition of fisheries habitats in the project area. The combinations of these actions will result in short term adverse impacts on fisheries habitats within the cumulative effects area. With the implementation of the proposed action it is expected that there will be long term beneficial effects on fisheries habitats compared to current conditions. Within treatment areas design criteria would allow the habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Water Diversions: Existing water diversions were established years ago within the cumulative effects area. Within fisheries habitats, diversions are known to occur within Mattier, Seigel, Big Indian, Muncy, and Kalamazoo Creeks. There are no plans or proposals for future water diversions on National Forest System Lands, BLM, or private lands within the cumulative effects area. Water diversions have an adverse impact on fisheries and fisheries habitats. Diversions reduce the amount of available habitats for fish species. Diversions can also result in the death of individual fish when they are caught in the diversion or when changes in water flows dry up sections of the diversions stranding and killing fish. The proposed action will have short term adverse effects which will be cumulative to the effects from diversions. There will, however, be long term beneficial effects which will reduce the level of long term cumulative impacts associated with water diversions. Wildfire: Wildfires and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires typically burn during the most intensive burning periods which can adversely impact riparian habitats and fisheries populations. Treatments proposed under this alternative will likely reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire events and will reduce the intensity of any fires that occur. The cumulative impacts of implementation of the proposed action in combination with the reduced risk of wildfires will result in fewer long term impacts to fish populations and their habitats. The proposed action will result in long term beneficial cumulative impacts.

Page 96 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, the cumulative effects of all proposed vegetation and fuels projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of habitat for fish species. These treatments will result in short term adverse impacts primarily associated with soil erosion and sedimentation; however, these actions will reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires and reduce the intensity of any wildfires that may occur. Over time treatment areas will be revegetated and ground cover will increase resulting in reduced erosion and sedimentation rates. This will result in long term improvement in riparian habitats. These projects will also reduce pinyon-juniper densities which may also improve flows within springs and streams. Increased flows would result in improved habitats for fish species. The proposed action in combination with other vegetation treatments will result in long term beneficial effects on fish species and their habitats.

3.7.11.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative no habitat component important to fish populations would be adversely impacted. There will be no activities authorized which would alter or eliminate stream or riparian habitats. This alternative would have no direct impact on fish species or their habitats. Under this alternative fish population trends are expected to remain static.

3.7.11.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative The cumulative impacts on fish species associated with mining/mineral development, water diversions, special uses, fuelwood harvest, noxious weed treatments, developed/dispersed recreation, and private lands management will be similar to those effects described for the proposed action above. Livestock Grazing and Livestock Developments: Under the no action alternative there would be no vegetation treatments implemented within the project area. Pinyon-juniper stands will continue to expand into sagebrush and shrublands as well as increasing in density. As these changes occur without active management, the cumulative effects of this alternative and livestock grazing impacts will result in an increase in adverse cumulative effects on fish species and their habitats. Livestock will continue to concentrate in riparian areas and available forage will continue to decline as pinyon-juniper densities increase. Wildfire: Wildfires and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires typically burn during the most intensive burning periods which can adversely impact riparian habitats and fisheries populations. Under the no action alternative there will be no vegetation treatments within the project area. Pinyon-juniper stands will continue to expand and increase in density. The potential risk for catastrophic wildland fires will increase over time and those fires will likely become more destructive. Under this alternative riparian areas and fisheries habitats are at higher risk for significant adverse effects associated with large wildland fires.

Page 97 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Under the no action alternative no vegetation and/or fuels treatments would occur within the project area. Vegetation treatments would likely continue on adjacent BLM administered lands. The potential beneficial cumulative effects of treatments across administrative boundaries would be reduced under this alternative. Without vegetation treatments in the project area, pinyon-juniper stands will continue to expand and increase in densities. These changes will likely result in reduced flows within springs and streams which will have an adverse effect upon fisheries species and their habitats.

3.7.12 Rocky Mountain Elk

3.7.12.1 Affected Environment Rocky Mountain elk were released into the Schell Creek Range in 1932; the elk herd has reached the population objective of 1,200 animals (White Pine County Elk Plan, 2007). Although elk calving areas comprise a relatively small number of acres, they are a very important component of the elk range. The majority of the calving areas are within a half- mile of riparian areas, perennial streams, or water sources. Calf recruitment was fair in 2010 but still allowed for population increases in most units. The 2010 statewide spring adult elk population estimate is 13% higher than last year with 12,300 elk estimated compared to 10,900 last year. Nevada’s elk harvest management continues to be based on meeting population objectives within the guidelines of the state’s Elk Species Management (NDOW 2009-2010, pg SS-2) The project area falls within the NDOW Management Area 11. For Units 111-115, 221, and 222 (Schell, Egan, and Snake Ranges; Eastern White Pine, and Northern Lincoln Counties) the overall population trend should be static in coming years depending on harvest levels and calf recruitment rates. Management will continue to focus on controlling elk numbers in some of the larger units while allowing for growth where other units have yet to reach objectives. Based on the latest information, the 2010 population estimate is 8% higher than the 2009 estimate. (NDOW 2009-2010, pg 51-52)

3.7.12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Under this alternative, treatment of mature sagebrush steppe/mountain brush communities would increase age class diversity and improve the herbaceous vegetative component using prescribed fire. Prescribed fire treatments would be used to reduce pinyon-juniper densities in Phase I and Phase II pinyon-juniper stands. Regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur with prescribed fire. These communities would be set back to an early seral stage, which would promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. Mechanical treatments in the pinyon-juniper communities will improve the health and diversity of the understory vegetation by removing the overstory of pinyon and juniper trees. Areas of hand cutting would maintain the existing brush communities that are in the early stages of invasion from pinyon and juniper trees. All of these treatments will improve the health and diversity of the vegetation and restore and improve habitat for elk, particularly winter ranges and important shrub communities on summer range. There are about 17,120 acres of mountain big sage, 4,860 acres of low sage and about 1,475 acres of aspen habitat within the project area. The majority is considered summer

Page 98 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment habitat for elk. Calving habitat would occur within ½ mile of riparian areas. Approximately 7,425 acres will be treated using prescribed fire in the sagebrush/mountain brush community types. It is expected that within these areas 50% of the brush would be directly impacted in a mosaic pattern (3,715 acres, 25% of the total available habitat). These acres would be patchy across the landscape, allowing for a mix of age classes throughout the area. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. Prescribed fire treatments would be used to improve structural and age class diversity within sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Burn openings will typically range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will create a mosaic pattern across the landscape. The target areas for the prescribed burn within the pinyon and juniper communities would be Phase I and Phase II pinyon/juniper stands. There are about 7,935 acres of pinyon-juniper with moderate canopy cover (Phase II) that occur on slopes greater than 30%. Burned openings will typically range from 0.25 to 200 acres in size and will create a mosaic pattern across the landscape. Larger openings may occur, particularly when utilizing prescribed fire as a tool due to somewhat unpredictable nature of fire. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. Using prescribed fire in the pinyon-juniper areas will allow native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring and maintaining the sagebrush/mountain brush habitats. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the understory of shrubs, grasses and forbs will increase. This community type would be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire. About 1,000 acres of aspen and mixed aspen/conifer stands would be treated within the project area. Within each stand about 70% of the stands would be expected to burn, leaving untreated areas within each unit. The cover values in the treated areas would decrease immediately after treatment, but improve over time as the aspen stands mature. Foraging habitat around the aspen areas will increase as the prescribe fire would also treat a portion of the surrounding sagebrush/mountain brush habitats, improving the vegetative diversity, structure and composition of these habitats that are foraging habitat for mule deer. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. Mechanical treatments would have short and long term benefits by maintaining the sagebrush and mountain brush communities by removing the pinyon and juniper trees expanding into them. Most of these areas are within winter range for elk. With reduction of the pinyon and juniper canopy the health and diversity of brush communities would improve by removing the competition from the trees for water, sunlight, and nutrients, improving the forage value for elk. These areas would also become more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire. When laying out units, there may be areas that remain untreated due to slope and access limitations. These untreated areas will provide hiding cover for elk. Hand cutting would occur in areas where the pinyon and juniper trees are beginning to invade into the sagebrush and mountain brush communities and mountain mahogany, about 4,000 acres, resulting in the loss and degradation of important elk habitats. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the understory shrubs, grasses and forbs will increase. Potential treatment units will be between

Page 99 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

5 to 500 acres in size within the project area. On an average there are about 10-50 trees/acre within each unit. Slash generated from the treatment will be left on the ground to provide a microclimate that will retain moisture and facilitate the establishment and growth of grasses and forbs. This alternative would ultimately benefit elk by allowing native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring and maintaining the sagebrush, mountain brush and aspen habitats. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the understory of shrubs, grasses and forbs will increase. This community type would be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire. Minimal disturbance may occur on summer and winter habitat, resulting in minor displacement of elk during the actual burning (usually less than one week), or during the mechanical treatments. This would be short in duration and disturbance to this species will be minimal as it is likely animals will avoid the areas during implementation, causing a temporary change in foraging behavior. This would occur on a small portion of the area at any one time and additional areas would be available. No habitat component important to elk will be adversely impacted by this project. Elk population trends are expected to remain static or increase. This alternative would have the beneficial effect by maintaining the mountain brush and sagebrush communities by increasing the age class diversity, restoring the natural condition, and improving the herbaceous vegetative component by removing the pinyon and juniper. Prescribe fire in the seral aspen stands will improve the quality and quantity of the aspen habitat as the conifer encroached aspen stands are treated to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. These habitats would become more resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. These community types will be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire. Disturbance from the treatments would be localized and short in duration at any one time, leaving other areas without disturbance. The disturbance to this species will be minimal and limited to individuals. Population trends for elk are expected to remain static or increase. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to affect the viability of elk. This determination is based on the conclusion that the project does not remove or lessen the quality of any habitat component to the degree that survival or reproductive success for this species is negatively affected.

3.7.12.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Elk may also be disturbed or their patterns disrupted by the various activities described below. Disturbance of elk by the various uses and activities are localized in nature and generally short term. Individual elk may be displaced to adjacent habitats; however, there is rarely a loss of habitat except in the case of wildfire. Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect elk and their habitat. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative

Page 100 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment effects to elk and their habitat from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected. Within the pinyon-juniper and mountain brush/sagebrush areas that are treated (mechanically or with by prescribed fire) grazing would not be permitted for a minimum of 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover. In treated aspen areas, the aspen will need to reach an average height of six feet before grazing could resume. Non-use, or change in distribution, in the sheep and cattle allotments would be required within these areas to allow for establishment of regenerating aspen and understory vegetation. There is the potential for forage competition between livestock and elk for forage species, particularly during late summer when forage species became less available. Livestock have the potential to displace elk from preferred habitats, like riparian areas where elk often calf. Along with displacement to adjacent habitats there are the grazing impacts to meadows and springs. These are important to elk for both foraging and water sources, and as calving habitat. The combination of these actions would impact the quality of habitat for elk. Within treatments areas design criteria would allow the habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Livestock would still have the potential to displace elk and compete for available forage. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease elk habitat in the short term, while benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the brush habitat from the invasion of pinyon and juniper. Larger burns within the lower elevations (winter range) would have more adverse effects. Treatments will reduce the potential for adverse effects by making these areas more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire. In addition these communities will be better able to respond with desirable vegetation and would be more resistant to invasion by noxious and invasive weeds after a wildfire. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for elk could be considered moderate if in one season large acreage of habitat were to burn, to minimal if few acres burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Over the long term, proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of winter and summer range for elk, by improving the diversity in vegetation communities, which in turn will increase the quality of the habitat. Also the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat, and the mountain brush and sagebrush habitats would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for elk would be considered minimal to beneficial. Although there are no known proposals being developed for this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.12.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland

Page 101 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the sagebrush and mountain brush cover types. These brush cover types identified in the current vegetation map currently have pinyon and juniper scattered throughout the area. The expansion of pinyon- juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, the brush species would lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. Aspen stands would continue to decrease in size and vigor as conifer trees (mainly white fir) continued to replace the aspen. As the conifers replace the aspen the quality and quantity of habitat for elk would decrease. There would be the potential to lose the aspen stands entirely. There presently is a lack of age class diversity within the sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Under this alternative the majority of these communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. Under this alternative, elk population trends are expected to remain static. Because of the continued expansion of pinyon and juniper trees into the sagebrush habitat, habitat quality and quantity would be expected to decrease because of the loss of brush species, and grasses and forbs. This would continue to reduce the quality and quantity of elk habitat in the area. Over time, existing aspen/conifer areas that are presently habitat for elk would continue to move toward solid conifer stands, reducing the amount and quality of habitat for elk.

3.7.12.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. Cumulative effects associated with the No Action Alternative would be similar to those disclosed under the Proposed Action Alternative for: Mining and mineral exploration, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, wildfire, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. Livestock Grazing: Under the No Action Alternative no vegetation treatments will occur. Pinyon-juniper stands will continue to expand and increase in densities. Water flows at springs and meadows are likely to continue to decline resulting in a loss of riparian habitats. These conditions will result in increased competition for available forage between elk and livestock and will likely result in an adverse effect on important elk habitats. The combination of the no action alternative and the impacts from livestock grazing would result in impacts on elk populations and their habitats. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: No fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the mountain brush and sagebrush cover type. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As pinyon-juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush type, the sage would lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III.

Page 102 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

In addition, as pinyon-juniper densities increase the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community, decreasing the quality and quantity of habitat for elk. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush and mountain brush communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. No regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would continue to move toward being conifer stands as no treatment would occur to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by elk would be increased as a result of no changes in current management. The communities with the most notable changes related to elk include the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, particularly those being encroached by pinyon and juniper trees. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species.

3.7.13 Species of Concern / Migratory Birds

3.7.13.1 Affected Environment The migratory birds selected for this analysis were derived from a priority species list for pinyon-juniper woodlands, sagebrush, and aspen included in the Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Neel 1999). Priority migratory birds that are pinyon-juniper obligate species are the pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) and gray vireo (Vireo vicinior). Other species that could be affected by the project within the pinyon-juniper habitat include the black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), and juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi). Priority migratory birds that are sagebrush obligate species are the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), and sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). In the aspen habitats, the priority migratory bird is the Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). The sage grouse and Northern goshawk are analyzed as Sensitive Species in the Biological Evaluation which is located in the Project Record. The Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO) initiated the Nevada Bird Count (NBC) program in 2002 to measure bird abundances and densities across the state in thirteen distinct habitat types using standardized methods. Species distributions were determined from Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas and NBC data collected from 1999 to 2007. The NBC’s objectives include monitoring bird population trends, determining bird abundance patterns and monitoring bird populations for habitat implementation projects (GBBO 2005). The abundance measurements calculated average bird sighting per 40 hectares for each primary habitat type (GBBO 2005). Five GBBO Nevada Bird Count transects within similar pinyon-juniper habitats and between 6,400 to 7,400 feet in elevation are located within 17 miles of the project area. The first

Page 103 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment count transect, PJ-279, was conducted on June 26, 2002, July 13, 2005, and June 26, 2007 and is located within the southern edge of the project area. The second count transect is PJ- Timber, which was conducted on June 25, 2007 and is located approximately 6 miles south of the project area in the Schell Creek Range. The third is Transect PJ-270 located about 8 miles north of the project area in the Schell Creek Range and was conducted on June 13, 2004. The last two transects are located about 13 and 17 miles west of the project area in the southern end of the Butte Mountains. Transect PJ-407 was conducted on June 14, 2004 and Transect PJ-135 was conducted on June 8, 2004 and July 14, 2005. Habitat variables for all transects are similar to the North Schell Project and priority birds were identified on all of the transects. The average for these five transects were compared to the average for all of the GBBO transects within pinyon-juniper habitat and has been outlined in greater detail within the specialist report contained in the project record. Based on NBC transects in similar habitats within a 17-mile radius, the following birds are expected to occur within the project area: pinyon jay, black-throated gray warbler, gray flycatcher, juniper titmouse, and gray vireo. Other pinyon-juniper associated bird species may also be present. Individual birds addressed in this document may be present in the project area and the Cumulative Effects Area (CEA). Population estimates used are from the GBBO 2005 and PIF Bird Conservation Plan and they do not take into account habitat quality and quantity for nesting or foraging habitat, but are the best scientific information on these bird species abundance and densities within the pinyon-juniper woodland habitat in Nevada. Although breeding bird data is not available for the higher elevation sagebrush habitat, the following priority species could be present: sage sparrow and sage thrasher. Use of these areas by breeding birds would vary annually depending on snow depths for each year. The following is more detailed information regarding the species being analyzed in this document. Pinyon Jay In Nevada, pinyon jays are sporadically distributed in the pinyon-juniper belt extending from the Humboldt River south into the mountain ranges of the Mohave Desert, and ranging from the Sierra Nevada to the Utah border. Pinyon pine nuts are the pinyon jay’s primary food source with abundant crops thought to stimulate pinyon jay breeding, which is semi-colonial. Since pinyon cone production is highly variable with spotty distribution from year to year, flocks are nomadic, wandering widely in search of abundant pinyon nut crops. Limited breeding bird survey data indicate that the pinyon jay has experienced a population trend decline in the Basin and Range province since 1966 of -7.52% (Sauer, 2008). Based on the five NBC transects in similar habitats, pinyon jays were observed on one out of the five transects, which suggests that pinyon jays may occur within the project area. Pinyon-juniper woodlands occur on 47% of the project area and provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species during pinyon pine nut bearing years, however many of these trees do not produce much of a cone crop due to being a young age. Black-throated Gray Warbler In Nevada, the black-throated gray warbler breeds throughout the state from the Spring Mountains in southern Nevada to the Carson Range in Washoe County, east to Great Basin

Page 104 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

National Park in White Pine County and north again to the Idaho border in Elko County. In most of Nevada, the species appears closely tied to the more arid pinyon-juniper habitats. Black-throated gray warbler breeds in the pinyon-juniper belt across the state with no apparent preference for slope or aspect but prefer fairly dense mature stands of pinyon- juniper. This species is an insectivore, gleaning directly from the dense foliage of pinyon- juniper. Wildfires that consume tree canopies may be detrimental to the species, but controlled burning may not bear a significant negative impact (Neel1999, pg 234). Limited breeding bird survey data indicate that the black-throated gray warbler has experienced a population trend increase in the Basin and Range province since 1966 of 20.41% (Sauer, 2008). The preferred habitat of dense mature stands of pinyon-juniper exists within pockets throughout the project area. Black-throated gray warblers were observed on four out of the five transects for a total of 71 observations, which suggests that black-throated gray warblers should occur within the project area. Gray Vireo This insectivorous bird’s preferred habitat in Nevada is open pinyon-juniper forest, particularly occurring along desert washes with an understory of shrubs such as bitterbrush and cliffrose. Preferred vegetative structure is sparse to open canopy of mature pinyon- juniper woodland. Preferred topography includes rocky canyon slopes and bottoms with moderate to steep slopes. In Nevada, the gray vireo is typically a limited range, low-density species. No breeding bird survey data exist for this species to determine population trends. The portions of the project area with the open pinyon-jumpier stands have an understory of sagebrush preferred by gray vireos. The project area is along the northern range for the gray vireo. Based on the five NBC transects in pinyon-juniper habitats, gray vireos were observed on two out the five transects for seven observations. Juniper titmouse The preferred habitat of dense pinyon foliage with closed canopies, thin understory and ground cover are located in patches within the project area. This bird often nests in cavities in riparian vegetation, so pinyon-juniper habitat near riparian areas is assumed beneficial. Limited breeding bird survey data indicate a slight, non-significant downward trend for this species in the Basin and Range province. Sage Sparrow and Sage Thrasher These species nest usually in big sagebrush habitat, often in open valleys and foothills. The sage sparrow ranges in elevation from 4,500 to 7,500 feet and nests are usually placed on or near the ground inside or next to a dense shrub. Limited BBS survey data indicate a decline between 1966 and 1979, but rebounded between 1980 and 1986 in the Basin and Range province. The sage thrasher is found between from 4,900 to 8,200 feet in elevation, probably lower, and builds its nest either in the branches of a shrub, or on the ground under a shrub, usually sagebrush. Gray Flycatcher The gray flycatcher spend some of their time in pinyon-juniper woodland habitats, although they are found more frequently in sagebrush near riparian areas. The Nevada Partners In Flight Conservation Plan states that if other management objectives for the priority bird

Page 105 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment species already discussed are met, then the habitat needs of the gray flycatcher will be met. Additional breeding bird survey data needs to be collected for this species in pinyon-juniper habitats. Gray flycatchers were observed on five out of the six transects and mountain bluebirds were observed on three of the six transects in proximity of the project area.

3.7.13.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action This alternative has a goal of maintenance of the pinyon-juniper woodland habitat within the project area. Reducing fuel loads and treating the pinyon-juniper woodland in a mosaic pattern will provide opportunities for understory vegetation to increase or become established where it is currently out competed. Pinyon-juniper stands will be retained within the project area to compliment all habitat needs for the priority migratory birds analyzed. Treatments within the mature sagebrush steppe and mountain brush communities will increase age class diversity and improve the herbaceous vegetative component. Treatments in seral aspen communities will increase regeneration of the aspen that currently contain a conifer component and treatments of sagebrush and mountain brush communities near stable aspen will increase regeneration of the aspen along the edges. These treatments will help to maintain both seral and stable aspen stands within the project area. Implementation of this alternative would alter nesting and foraging habitat for priority species regardless of the time of implementation. Implementing prior to or after the breeding bird season would result in no loss of nests or young. Not all species will be equally affected by the proposed action. Some species would be able to respond to increased foraging habitat by opening the canopy or increase in understory vegetative composition and cover. For example, by creating openings in the pinyon-juniper woodland stands, opportunities to promote an increase in understory diversity and habitat for insect prey species would increase foraging opportunities for the gray vireo while maintaining adjacent nesting habitat. The loss of nesting habitat for one species may increase foraging or nesting opportunities for another species. Birds such as the sage sparrow, sage thrasher, gray flycatcher, and Brewer’s sparrow would benefit from the removal of the pinyon and juniper trees invaded into the mountain brush and sagebrush habitat. These birds nest and forage in the sagebrush habitat types. Active burning may occur during the breeding bird season to obtain desired environmental conditions needed for a canopy carried fire and reduce the potential for fire at the ground level. Long-term management objectives for pinyon-juniper woodland health have been measured against short-term loss and/or impacts to priority migratory birds and their habitats. Using prescribed fire to obtain a mosaic burn in which openings averaging 0.25-200 acres in size, with some areas larger than 200 acres will still allow for pinyon pine persistence throughout the project area and allow for understory shrub and herbaceous cover to increase. A variety of opening sizes within the pinyon-juniper woodlands is the objective in order to provide the optimum benefits for wildlife. Leaving pockets of live vegetation among the burned areas will provide a seed source for vegetative recovery and provides edge habitat for wildlife. An objective to conduct a spring prescribe burn in a timely manner (i.e. less than two week) would provide an opportunity for migratory birds to re-nest in the event a nest is lost. Stands of mature pinyon pine would be left for the pinyon jay, black-throated gray warbler, and the

Page 106 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment juniper titmouse, which prefer closed canopies for nesting and foraging. Other priority species are assumed to benefit if the habitat requirements are suitable on the species analyzed. Prescribe fire within the sagebrush and mountain brush habitats would occur during the spring or late fall when environmental conditions are present. Areas targeted for burning would generally be the north and eastern facing slopes. Burning would be accomplished in short (about 12 hour) timeframes, but may occur several times through the spring. Spring burning would have negative short-term effects to nesting birds. It would also have the positive long-term effect of maintain the sagebrush habitats and aspen habitats. If spring burning occurs and areas of high-density active nesting are found these areas will be avoided. Under this alternative treatment of mature sagebrush and mountain brush communities would increase age class diversity, restore the natural condition, and improve the herbaceous vegetative component by the use of prescribed fire. Mechanical treatments will improve the health and diversity of vegetation, restore and improve wildlife habitats, particularly important shrub communities. The reduction in densities of pinyon and juniper trees will maintain the sagebrush and mountain brush communities. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy within the mechanical treatment areas will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the shrubs, grasses and forbs will increase. This will increase the quality and quantity of nesting and foraging habitat for many birds and the remaining trees will provide nesting habitat. Areas of hand cutting would maintain the brush communities that are in the early stages of invasion from pinyon and juniper trees. Regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would be set back to an early seral stage, which would promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. These habitats would become more resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. Potential impacts from the North Schell Project to these species would be minimized through the adherence to the design criteria above. The project is designed to improve habitat conditions by targeting the expansion of the pinyon-juniper woodlands into the sagebrush habitat, with the goal of reducing pinyon-juniper canopy and re-establishing a shrub and herbaceous understory. The mosaic pattern of burning will allow for the persistence of mature dense stands of pinyon-juniper habitat within the project area. The reduction of pinyon-juniper canopy within the mechanical treatment areas will increase sunlight and moisture available to the understory and the shrubs, grasses and forbs will increase. This will increase foraging habitat for many birds and the remaining trees will provide nesting habitat. A mix of treatments will occur across the landscape providing for the different habitat needs of a variety of bird species (areas without trees favor sage thrasher and sage sparrow; larger trees are used by pinyon jays for foraging and nesting). Treatments in seral aspen communities will increase regeneration of the aspen that currently contain a conifer component and treatments of sagebrush and mountain brush communities near stable aspen will increase regeneration of the aspen along the edges. These treatments will help to maintain both seral and stable aspen stands within the project area. Migratory bird population trends are expected to remain static or increase as a result of this alternative. During implementation of the North Schell Project some nests could be lost if the prescribed burning occurs in the spring. This is a short-term loss with long-term gains because of maintaining the sagebrush habitat from further expansion of the pinyon-juniper trees. Treatments done after July 15 will not adversely affect nesting migratory birds or their

Page 107 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

associated habitats. All of the treatments will have a beneficial long-term effect by maintaining the sagebrush/ mountain brush, and aspen communities.

3.7.13.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect habitats for migratory birds. There are presently eight allotments within the project area: five sheep, one cattle, and one common use (sheep and cattle). In addition, there are eleven grazing allotments on the adjacent BLM. Cumulative effects to migratory birds and their habitats from livestock grazing and proposed treatments are expected. Livestock grazing will not be permitted within treated areas (mechanically or by prescribed fire) for a minimum of 2 years after treatment. This will allow the vegetation to recover. In treated aspen areas, the aspen will need to reach an average height of six feet before grazing could resume. Non-use, or change in distribution, in the sheep and cattle allotments would be required within these areas to allow for establishment of regenerating aspen and understory vegetation. The cumulative impacts of these actions on the quality of habitats for migratory birds would be minimal, as the design criteria will allow the habitats to recover before grazing would resume. Wildfire: Wildfire and rehabilitation will continue within the project area. Wildland fires could decrease habitat for migratory birds in the short term, while some benefits could occur in the long term by maintaining the sagebrush and mountain brush habitat from the invasion of pinyon and juniper. Rehabilitation actions would help minimize the infestations of noxious weeds. The cumulative impacts of wildfire on the quality of habitats for migratory birds would be considered moderate if in one season, large acreages of habitat were to burn, to minimal if few acres burn. There would be beneficial impacts from rehabilitation efforts. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: There are currently no treatments being proposed beyond those in the North Schell Restoration Project. Over the long term, the proposed projects (FS and BLM) should result in an improvement to the quality of nesting and summer habitats for migratory birds, by improving the diversity in vegetation communities (which increases age classes) and regeneration of aspen communities, which in turn will increase the quality of the habitat. In addition, the reduced fuel loading would help prevent a wildfire from removing larger acres of habitat, and the sagebrush and mountain brush habitat would be maintained by the reduction in the expanding pinyon and junipers. The cumulative impacts of these actions on the quality of habitat for migratory birds would be considered minimal to beneficial. Although there are no known proposals being developed for private lands in this area vegetation treatments will likely occur on a limited basis on private lands in coordination with the treatments proposed through this analysis.

3.7.13.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Under this alternative, migratory bird population trends are expected to remain static, and some may decrease. With the continued expansion of pinyon and juniper trees into the

Page 108 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

mountain brush and sagebrush habitat, habitat for the sage sparrow and sage thrasher would decrease over time. The quality and quantity of the understory vegetation and age class diversity in these higher elevation sagebrush areas would also decrease, along with their resiliency to disturbances such as wildland fire. Habitat for the Northern goshawk would decrease with the potential loss over time of aspen stands. This would also reduce the quality and quantity of migratory bird habitats. Habitat for species that depend on dense pinyon- juniper habitats, such as the pinyon jays, Black-throated Gray warbler, and juniper titmouse would increase. Populations of gray vireo, which prefer open pinyon-juniper forests, would remain stable.

3.7.13.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Cumulative effects associated with this alternative would be similar to those disclosed under the Proposed Action for: Mining and mineral exploration, water diversions, Special Uses, fuelwood harvest, Noxious Weed Treatments, Developed and Dispersed Recreation, and Private Lands Management/Development. Livestock Grazing and Livestock Developments: Woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the brush cover types, reducing the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. As the densities of pinyon and juniper increases, range conditions would deteriorate and the availability of healthy sagebrush/mountain brush habitats would decrease. The sagebrush and mountain brush habitats would lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. This would increase the cumulative effects from grazing on migratory birds. Prescribed Fire, Fuels and Vegetation Treatments: Woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the brush cover types, reducing the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species. In addition, as the expansion of the pinyon-juniper continues into the brush habitats the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. Under this alternative the majority of the sagebrush and mountain communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. No regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. These communities would continue to move toward being conifer stands only as no treatment would occur to promote aspen regeneration and younger age classes. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities used by migratory birds would increase as a result of no changes in current management, decreasing the quality and quantity of habitat for migratory birds. The communities with the most notable changes related to migratory birds include the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, particularly those being encroached by pinyon and juniper trees, many of the sagebrush and mountain brush communities would remain in an older age class, and no regeneration or restoration of seral aspen communities would occur. Wildfire: With the continued expansion of pinyon-juniper into brush habitats, the potential for large- scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper

Page 109 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community, decreasing the quality and quantity of habitat for those migratory birds that depend on the shrub communities, such as the sage sparrow and sage thrasher.

3.7.14 Cumulative Effects Common to All Wildlife Species

The following cumulative effects associated with the proposed action are similar for all wildlife and fisheries species below. The cumulative effects are being displayed here and apply to all wildlife and fisheries species below unless otherwise noted. Livestock Developments: Maintenance of existing livestock developments will likely occur into the foreseeable future. There are currently no plans for additional new fences or water developments on Forest Service lands within the cumulative effects area. There are also no known plans for new developments on BLM administered lands. Mining and Mineral Exploration: There are no indications that there will be any proposals for exploration or to develop active mine operations within the cumulative effects area in the foreseeable future, therefore there would be no cumulative effects. Water Diversions: The existing water diversions were established years ago and any impacts to species or their habitat would have occurred then. There are no plans or proposals for future water diversions on National Forest System Lands, BLM, or private lands within the cumulative effects area; therefore there would be no cumulative effects from the proposed projects and water diversions. Special Uses: There are minimal Special Use activities within the project area and adjoining BLM (Outfitter Guide permits’ water or ditch easements, and right-of-ways). These activities could cause minimal disturbance to wildlife and fisheries species. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitat for these species would be considered minimal as only a small portion of the habitat would be affected. Fuelwood Harvest: Personal use and commercial fuelwood harvest will increase within the cumulative effects area as treatments are implemented under this proposal and on BLM. Cumulative effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat from fuelwood gathering are expected to be minimal when combined with this project, as fuelwood harvest within this area will be somewhat limited and occur slowly due to transport distances to Ely and other communities.

Page 110 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Noxious Weed Treatments: Noxious weed treatment will continue within the cumulative effects area. The combinations of these actions will result in a beneficial effect on the quality of habitat for various wildlife species. Developed and Dispersed Recreation: Developed and dispersed recreational uses within the cumulative effects area are generally considered light. The cumulative effects area contains no developed recreation sites. There is a concentrated use camp area in Kalamazoo Creek that includes a couple of picnic tables, fire rings and a restroom. No new developed recreation facilities are planned over the next ten years. Recreational uses are expected to remain stable or increase slightly over current levels. An EA for Travel Management for the Ely Ranger District was signed in February 2009. This will reduce the amount of routes and prohibiting motor vehicle use off the designated NFS roads and NFS trails. These road closures and prohibition of motor use off designated routes, along with the proposed treatments from the North Schell Project, would ultimately benefit wildlife species throughout the area by allowing native plant communities to regenerate thereby restoring the connectivity of important habitats and reducing the amount of disturbance to wildlife from motor vehicles. There are no additional plans for the construction of any roads or motorized trails at this time. Recreational use (such as camping near meadows systems or along creeks) may disturb species and/or alter vegetative communities that provide habitats. The combination of these actions would benefit the quality of the habitats by reducing the number of routes within the area. Private Lands Management/Development: The existing developments on private lands were established years ago and any impacts to species habitats would have occurred then. The risk of development on private lands within the cumulative effects area is currently low. There are no known plans to develop or change management on any of these lands, however, future development of some of these private parcels for recreational home sites could occur in the future. The combinations of these actions to the quality of habitats would be considered minimal, unless plans or management changes occur.

3.8 Sensitive Plants

3.8.1 Introduction There are 22 Region 4 Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species with potential and/or occupied habitats on the Ely Ranger District. A review of previous surveys was utilized during this analysis. The following databases were also used during this analysis: • Nevada Natural Heritage Program Occurrence database (NNHP, 2011). • Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). • Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (TESP 2007) database. • Humboldt-Toiyabe Rare Plant database through 2007. The ecological characteristics for the project area were completed to determine the extent of potential habitat and distribution of sensitive plant species in the project area. Of the 22

Page 111 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment sensitive plant species for the Ely Ranger District, there are seventeen species that are known to occur, or have potential habitat, within the North Schell Project Area. Of these seventeen species twelve occur in habitats that would not be affected by the mechanical, hand cutting, or prescribe fire treatments because they occur on talus cliffs, rocky slopes, crevices and bases of limestone cliffs, high-elevation avalanche chutes, high elevation forest on thin, rocky, cold soils, or high elevation alpine scree and talus slopes. These species include: • Upswept moonwort • Dainty moonwort • Slender moonwort • Snake Range Whitlowgrass • Pennell draba • Cave Mountain fleabane • Basin jamesia • Rhizome beardtongue • whitebark pine (Not known to occur on the Ely Ranger District or within the project area) • Marsh’s bluegrass • Nevada primrose • Rock violet. The remaining five species have potential and/or occupied habitats within the project area that are likely to be impacted by the proposed action. The habitat requirements are summarized for Eastwood milkweed, Broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Mount Moriah beardtongue, Nachlinger catchfly, and Currant Summit clover in Table 19. Table 19 - Sensitive plant species with potential or occupied habitat in the project area Common Habitat Description Scientific Name Name Shadescale, mixed shrub and lower PJ zones on low alkaline Asclepias Eastwood clay hills. Open areas on wide variety of basic soils; 4,680 to eastwoodiana milkweed 7,200 ft. Astragalus Broad-pod Open gravelly slopes in PJ habitat on calcareous soils; lentiginosus var. freckled moderate to steep slopes; 5,700 to 9,900 ft. latus milkvetch Penstemon Mount Moriah Sagebrush in upper PJ, mountain mahogany woodlands on moriahensis beardtongue open, gravelly and/or silty carbonate soils; 8,200 to 9,200 ft. Found in open barren areas between clumps of subalpine Silene Nachlinger conifer on ridgeline outcrops, talus, or very rocky limestone nachlingerea catchfly derived soils in dry crevices, cracks in bedrock, or scattered in cobble. Trifolium andinum Currant Summit Crevices or rocky soils of volcanic or limestone rock in PJ var. podocephalum clover belt; 6,900 to 7,000 ft. Although the proposed action may impact individual plants and could impact potential habitat for Broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Nachlinger catchfly, Eastwood milkweed, Mount Moriah beardtongue, and Currant Summit clover, it is not expected to affect the viability of these

Page 112 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment species and their populations would remain stable across their ranges. Complete analysis for all of these species can be found in the Biological Evaluation located in the project file. Botany crews for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest conducted surveys within the North Schell Project area. The Whitman Fuels Project survey was conducted on 1,541 acres in 2007 within mainly pinyon-juniper communities with some mountain big sage community types. No R4 Sensitive plants were found. In 2008 the crew conducted alpine surveys (North Schell Alpine Survey, 2008). Two new populations of Nachlinger catchfly were found. Contracted botanists/biologist with Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition (ENLC) surveyed the North Schell Restoration Project to look for potential habitat for sensitive plant species and conduct surveys when potential habitat was found. A systematic botanical survey within pinyon- juniper woodland, sagebrush, aspen, mountain shrubland, and alpine/sub-alpine habitats within the project area was conducted in June, July, and August of 2009; and July and August of 2010 (ENLC, Plant Survey Report for North Schell Restoration Project 2009 and 2010). Four new populations of Pennell’s draba and two new populations of Broad-pod freckled milkvetch were found within the project area. The TES Plant Survey Field Forms and Element Occurrence Forms are on file at the Ely Ranger District. The District Biologist also made field trips to the area during 2009 and 2010 to access potential habitat for sensitive plant species.

3.8.2 Eastwood Milkweed

3.8.2.1 Affected Environment

Eastwood milkweed can be found in shadscale, mixed-shrub, sagebrush and lower pinyon- juniper zones on low alkaline clay hills between 4,680 and 7,200 feet elevation (Morefield, 2001). When Eastwood milkweed occurs in mixed desert shrub communities, it may occur with saltbrush, greasewood, horsebrush, and/or sagebrush. Eastwood milkweed is found in open areas on a wide variety of basic soils that are generally barren and lacking competition, frequently in small washes or other moisture-accumulating microsites (Morefield, 2001). Eastwood milkweed is a long-lived perennial species that overwinters as a buried root crown.

3.8.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Although there are no known sites of Eastwood milkweed within the project area, potential habitat is present in units proposed for hand cutting. Potential direct impacts within the hand cutting units would be from the crew stepping on the plants if they are present and slash covering the plants. These impacts would be temporary as stepping on the plant would not kill it and the slash would be widely dispersed. The known site of Eastwood milkweed on the Ely Ranger District is subjected to grazing and was impacted by road construction and the plants are persisting. Potential indirect impacts would be from the distribution of noxious weeds. Within the hand cutting units vehicles would stay on existing roads and areas would be accessed on foot. Direct and indirect impacts would be minimal. There are no known plants in the project area, however potential habitat is present. This is a wide ranging species within central Nevada. This project would impact potential habitat at the east edge of the range of the species. The impacts would be temporary. Although this alternative would impact potential habitat of Eastwood milkweed, it is not expected to affect the viability of the species. Populations of Eastwood milkweed would remain stable within its range.

Page 113 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.8.2.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Cumulative impacts will be analyzed for potential habitat within the project area because no populations are known within the project area. Potential cumulative effects to Eastwood milkweed habitats could result from livestock grazing and invasive species. There are three grazing allotments within the project area that have potential habitat for Eastwood milkweed. The allotments are grazed from mid-June to mid-September. Grazing is not expected to increase within the area. Noxious weeds within the area include yellow spine thistle, musk thistle, Canada thistle, bull thistle, hoary cress, Russian knapweed, and spotted knapweed. Noxious weed infestations within the project area generally occur along roadways, near campsites, along riparian zones, and near sites where livestock or people concentrate. Inventory and treatment of weeds is ongoing within the project area. Vehicles will stay on existing roads, reducing the potential for new infestations. Cumulative effects from grazing and invasive species will be minimal. Cumulative effects of the project and other actions in the area are not likely to cause a loss of viability of Eastwood milkweed and populations would remain stable within its range.

3.8.2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative (All Species) Under the No Action alternative current management would continue in the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Therefore no direct or indirect impacts would occur to Eastwood milkweed, Broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Mount Moriah beardtongue, or Currant Summit clover.

3.8.2.5 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative (All Species) Over time woodland expansion within the project area would continue to diminish and fragment the Wyoming and mountain big sage cover type. The sage cover type identified in the current vegetation map currently has pinyon and juniper scattered throughout the area. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity, abundance, and diversity of understory shrub and herbaceous species, including Eastwood milkweed, Broad- pod freckled milkvetch, Mount Moriah beardtongue, or Currant Summit clover. As pinyon- juniper continues to expand into the sagebrush type, the sage would continue to lose vigor and eventually die as the expansion progresses into Phase III. In addition, as the expansion of the pinyon-juniper continues into the sagebrush habitats the potential for large-scale intensive wildfires increases. With the closing of the canopy of the pinyon-juniper woodland, the herbaceous and shrub understory will lose the resilience to respond after wildfire or other disturbances, and the areas are more likely to be invaded by noxious and invasive weeds. This expansion could result in a significant reduction in the shrub and herbaceous vegetative community. There presently is a lack of age class diversity within the sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Under this alternative the majority of these communities would remain in an older age class. No increase in vegetative diversity nor structure and composition would occur. These habitats would continue to become less resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire. The potential cumulative effects related to impacts to vegetative communities would be increased as a result of no changes in current management. The communities with the most

Page 114 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

notable changes include the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, particularly those being encroached by pinyon and juniper trees. The expansion of pinyon-juniper will continue to reduce the productivity of potential habitat for Eastwood milkweed, Broad-pod freckled milkvetch, Mount Moriah beardtongue, or Currant Summit clover.

3.8.3 Broad-pod freckled milkvetch

3.8.3.1 Affected Environment Broad-pod freckled milkvetch occurs in the pinyon-juniper community on gravelly or sandy calcareous soils, generally on moderate to steep slopes from 5,700 to 9,900 feet in elevation. Prior to project-specific surveys, broad-pod freckled milkvetch was known from only one location within the project area (near Aurum by Silver Canyon within the project area in Unit 18). Two new locations were documented during surveys for the project within Units 12 (one plant) and 13 (ten plants).

3.8.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action The population in Unit 13 is located in low sage. Low sage will not be treated under the proposed action; therefore there will be no direct impacts to this population. The populations in Units 12 and 18 are within areas where hand cutting of pinyon and juniper could occur. Before implementation in these areas all known locations of broad-pod freckled milkvetch will be flagged and avoided. No disturbing activities will occur within 25 feet of any population (no parking, vehicle use, piling of materials, etc). There are three known sites of broad-pod freckled milkvetch within the project area and additional potential habitat is present in units proposed for hand cutting. Potential direct impacts to potential habitat within the hand cutting units would be from the crew stepping on the plants and slash covering the plants, if they are present. These impacts would be temporary, as stepping on the plant would not kill it and the slash would be widely dispersed. Potential indirect impacts would be from the distribution of noxious weeds. Within the hand cutting units vehicles would stay on existing roads and areas would be accessed on foot. Direct and indirect impacts would be minimal. All occurrences of broad-pod freckled milkvetch within the project area will be flagged, and direct impacts associated with the project will avoid the flagged areas. The only impacts that might occur to this species would be indirect impacts associated with invasion by non-native plants species, which are expected to be minimal. Although this alternative may impact individual plants and could impact potential habitat, it is not expected to affect the viability of this species and populations of broad-pod freckled milkvetch would remain stable across its range.

3.8.3.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action For occupied sites and sites with potential habitat, cumulative effects to broad-pod freckled milkvetch could result from grazing, recreation activities, and invasive species. Grazing and recreational activities are not expected to increase within the area. All seven grazing allotments within the project area have potential habitat for Broad-pod freckled milkvetch. The allotments are grazed from mid-June to mid-September. Noxious weeds within the area include yellow spine thistle, musk thistle, Canada thistle, bull thistle, hoary cress, Russian

Page 115 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

knapweed, and spotted knapweed. Noxious weed infestations within the project area generally occur along roadways, near campsites, along riparian zones, and near sites where livestock or people concentrate. Inventory and treatment of weeds is ongoing within the project area. Vehicles will stay on existing roads, reducing the potential for new infestations. Cumulative effects from grazing, recreational activities, and invasive species will be minimal. Cumulative effects of the project and other actions in the area are not likely to cause a loss of viability of Broad-pod freckled milkvetch and populations would remain stable within its range.

3.8.4 Mount Moriah beardtongue

3.8.4.1 Affected Environment Mount Moriah beardtongue occurs at 8,200 to 9,200 feet of elevation within sagebrush in upper pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany woodlands and open ponderosa pine communities (Morefield, 2001). It is found on open, gravelly and/or silty carbonate soils in drainages, on gentle slopes, and on road banks or other recovering disturbances with enhanced runoff. There are no known locations of Mount Moriah beardtongue within the project area. There are known locations in the Currant Mountains in the White Pine Range and on Mount Moriah on the Ely Ranger District. Using the predictive computer model for Mount Moriah beardtongue, 12,346 acres of potential habitat was mapped within the North Schell project area. Potential habitats for this plant are present within some of the hand cutting and prescribed burn treatment areas. Rare plant surveys were conducted on about 800 acres of modeled habitat within a proposed prescribed burn unit and no plants were found (ENLC, 2009 and 2010).

3.8.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action There is about 1,500 acres of potential habitat within proposed hand cutting areas. These areas were not surveyed as the hand cutting of small pinyon and juniper trees would only cause minimal impact to plants. Potential direct impacts to potential habitat within the hand cutting units would be from the crew stepping on the plants if they are present. These impacts would be temporary, as stepping on the plant would not kill it and the slash would be widely dispersed. Potential indirect impacts would be from the distribution of noxious weeds. Within the hand cutting units vehicles would stay on existing roads and areas would be accessed on foot. Direct and indirect impacts would be low. There is about 2,000 acres of potential habitat within proposed prescribe burn areas. Phenological differences that affect plant responses to fire include the varying levels of stored carbohydrates in the plant, presence of elevated herbaceous meristems that are more susceptible to fire because of their location, and presence of actively growing tissues that are more sensitive to high temperatures than when dormant or quiescent (Brown, 2000, pg 30). If plants are present, they would occupy the sparsely vegetated openings between the brush species. Heat from a prescribed burn may damage the plants and prevent reproduction for the year. If the burn occurs before significant drying has occurred to the duff layer, few buried plants will be killed (Brown, 2000, pg 32). Any surface fire near the plants is likely to remove the plant to the caudex, and a high intensity fire is likely to kill the entire plant. A fall or winter burn would have a low level of disturbance because if the plants are present

Page 116 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

they would be dormant and would have already set seed. A fall or winter burn will also give many shrub, forb, and grass species a chance to disperse their seeds before the fire, thus increasing the chances for successful post-fire natural regeneration (Zouhar, 2003). The objective of the burn is to create a mosaic of vegetation across the landscape in which openings average 0.25 to 200 acres. Openings at the lower end of this range would provide the optimum benefits by leaving pockets of vegetation around the burned areas to help maintain a nearby seed source. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season within established prescriptions. The intention is to burn areas when the ground fuels are moist, resulting in low severity fires on the ground that won’t cause excessive heating of the soil. A lower intensity fire will provide for favorable post-burn condition for shrub and herbaceous re-establishment. The prescribed fire will burn differently from one treatment area to the next based on various factors including topographic variation and weather conditions. No occurrences of Mount Moriah beardtongue are documented from within the project area; however, potential habitat is present and this project would impact potential habitat for this species. The impacts from the hand cutting and prescribed fire should be short term. Burning while ground fuels are moist will result in a lower severity fire on the ground and the mosaic pattern will provide a seed source for re-establishment of grasses, forbs, and brush. Although this alternative would impact potential habitat, it is not expected to affect the viability of the species. Populations of Mount Moriah beardtongue would remain stable within its range.

3.8.4.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Cumulative impacts will be analyzed for potential habitat within the project area because no populations are known within the project area. Cumulative effects to potential habitat for Mount Moriah beardtongue could result from grazing, recreational activities, and invasive species. There are seven grazing allotments within the project area that have potential habitat for Mount Moriah beardtongue. The allotments are grazed from mid-June to mid-September. The allotments in prescribed fire treatment areas would go into non-use for a minimum of two years following the treatment. Grazing and recreational activities are not expected to increase within the area. Noxious weeds within the area include yellow spine thistle, musk thistle, Canada thistle, bull thistle, hoary cress, Russian knapweed, and spotted knapweed. Noxious weed infestations within the project area generally occur along roadways, near campsites, along riparian zones, and near sites where livestock or people concentrate. Inventory and treatment of weeds is ongoing within the project area. Vehicles will stay on existing roads, reducing the potential for new infestations. Cumulative effects from grazing, recreational activities, and invasive species will be minimal. Cumulative effects of the project and other actions in the area are not likely to cause a loss of viability of Mount Moriah beardtongue and populations would remain stable within its range.

3.8.5 Nachlinger Catchfly

3.8.5.1 Affected Environment Nachlinger catchfly is a perennial herb that flowers in the summer. It is found in generally dry crevices, cracks in bedrock, or scattered in cobble (Holland, 1999). Nachlinger Catchfly

Page 117 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

is found in open, barren areas between clumps of subalpine conifer on ridgeline outcrops, talus, or very rocky limestone derived soils on or at the bases of steep slopes or cliffs (Holland, 1999). It has been recorded from 7,160 to 11,250 feet in elevation (Morefield, 2001). The populations are generally sparse and vary from year to year. There are known locations on the Ely Ranger District in the Schell Creek, White Pine, Grant, and Mount Moriah Ranges. Using the predictive computer model for alpine habitat, 7,743 acres of potential habitat was mapped. Rare plant surveys were conducted on 495 acres of alpine habitat within the project area in 2008 and 2009 (ENLC, 2009 and North Schell Alpine Survey, 2008). Nachlinger catchfly populations were found during the 2008 survey within the project area. Three areas were mapped within one population, two with about 50 plants and one with about 8 plants. In a second population about 20 plants were mapped. These areas and potential habitat within the project area are not within any treatment areas, but proposed prescribe burn areas are adjacent to one population.

3.8.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action No active ignition would occur in the plant habitat, but there is a chance fire could carry, or spot, into habitat for the Nachlinger catchfly. It is not anticipated that the habitats where the Nachlinger catchfly occurs (open, barren areas between clumps of subalpine conifer on ridgeline outcrops, talus, or very rocky limestone derived soils on or at the bases of steep slopes or cliffs) would carry fire. Although it is unlikely that the prescribed fire in the mountain big sage vegetation would carry into Nachlinger catchfly habitat, fire could spot into potential or occupied habitat for this species. Impacts are limited due to the high elevation and rocky nature of the habitat and would be minimal. If fire were to carry into habitat for Nachlinger catchfly the potential for fire spread would be low. Although this alternative may impact individual plants and could impact potential habitat, it is not expected to affect the viability of this species and populations of Nachlinger catchfly would remain stable across its range.

3.8.5.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action For occupied sites and sites with potential habitat, cumulative effects to Nachlinger catchfly could result from grazing, recreation activities, and invasive species. Grazing and recreational activities are not expected to increase within the area. All seven grazing allotments within the project area have modeled habitat for alpine species. The allotments are grazed from mid-June to mid-September. Nachlinger catchfly occurs in habitats that are not grazed by livestock within the project area because they occur on talus cliffs, rocky slopes, crevices and bases of limestone cliffs, or high elevation alpine scree and talus slope. Noxious weeds within the area include yellow spine thistle, musk thistle, Canada thistle, bull thistle, hoary cress, Russian knapweed, and spotted knapweed. Noxious weed infestations within the project area generally occur along roadways, near campsites, along riparian zones, and near sites where livestock or people concentrate. Inventory and treatment of weeds is ongoing within the project area. Vehicles will stay on existing roads, reducing the potential for new infestations. Cumulative effects from grazing, recreational activities, and invasive species will be minimal. Cumulative effects of the project and other actions in the area are not likely to cause a loss of viability of Nachlinger catchfly and populations would remain stable within its range.

Page 118 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.8.6 Currant Summit clover

3.8.6.1 Affected Environment This plant is found in crevices or rocky soils of volcanic or limestone rock in the pinyon- juniper belt at 6,900 to 7,000 feet (Morefield, 2001). The only documented occurrence of Currant Summit clover on the District is on Currant Summit in the White Pine Range. Using the predictive computer model, there are 16,355 acres of potential habitat within the project area. Surveys were conducted on 4,915 acres within or near the proposed mechanical and prescribed burn treatment areas and no plants were found (Whiteman Fuels, 2007 and ENLC, 2009 and 2010).

3.8.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Under the proposed action prescribed fire would be used in Phase I and Phase II pinyon- juniper stands. Within the project area about 2,100 acres of potential habitat occurs within prescribed fire units. There are about 7,385 acres of modeled habitat that occurs within proposed mechanical treatment areas. There is also potential habitat within 850 acres of proposed hand cutting units. Potential habitat within hand cutting areas were not surveyed as the hand cutting of small pinyon and juniper trees would only cause minimal impacts to plants. Although there are no known sites of Currant Summit clover within the project area, potential habitat is present, and implementation of the project could result in direct and indirect impacts to potential habitat. Potential direct impacts within the hand cutting units would be from the crew stepping on the plants if they are present. These impacts would be temporary as stepping on the plant would not kill it and the slash would be widely dispersed. The known site of Currant Summit clover on the Ely Ranger District is subjected to grazing and was impacted by road construction and the plants are persisting. Potential indirect impacts would be from the distribution of noxious weeds. Within the hand cutting units vehicles would stay on existing roads and areas would be accessed on foot. Direct and indirect impacts would be minimal. Impacts within in the mechanical treatment areas would occur from the equipment crushing the plants if they are present, compaction and disturbance of the soil, and the potential increase in the distribution and density of invasive and noxious weeds. If a mastication method is used there would be an increase of organic matter/chips as masticated debris is broadcast away from the machine. Following the proposed treatments, organic matter on the soil surface would decrease in some areas, due to mechanical displacement, while organic matter would increase in other areas due to additions of material. This may result in greater heterogeneity of the forest floor. Patches of organic matter would provide habitat for soil invertebrates and microorganisms. Patches of bare areas would be susceptible to local erosion. Increases in woody materials on the forest floor due to mechanical treatments may cause short term changes in decomposition and carbon and nutrient dynamics in affected areas. Microorganisms that decompose wood would immobilize nitrogen and other nutrients while decaying the woody material. As the wood decomposes, those nutrients would be released and made available to plants and other organisms (Swift 1977). Microclimate changes at the forest floor due to reduced canopy cover can alter rates of decomposition and nutrient turnover in the surface fine organic matter of harvested stands (Erickson 1985).

Page 119 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

A variety of mechanical treatments could be used throughout the area. Mastication areas would leave little slash build up across the unit, although the duff layer would increase in portions of the area. This would vary throughout the area with some areas showing more of an increase than others depending on the density of the trees being removed. No broadcast burning would be used in mastication units. Another mechanical treatment would be cutting trees to be used as commercial firewood or personnel use firewood. This would remove the majority of the wood leaving only the smaller sized branches scattered throughout the units. In areas where not enough material was removed for firewood, jackpot burning may be used. Areas where fire may occur would be in a mosaic pattern across the units as the slash would not be uniform. A third method would be whole tree removal. With this method little slash would be left within the unit, although ground disturbance could increase. Low impact equipment would be used to reduce ground disturbance. Phenological differences that affect plant responses to fire include the varying levels of stored carbohydrates in the plant, presence of elevated herbaceous meristems that are more susceptible to fire because of their location, and presence of actively growing tissues that are more sensitive to high temperatures than when dormant or quiescent (Brown, 2000 pg 30). If plants are present they would occupy the sparsely vegetated openings between the pinyon and juniper trees and sagebrush. It is unlikely that the fire would carry through these areas during a burn, although heat from a crown fire may damage the plants and prevent reproduction for the year. The emphasis would be in burning the crowns of the trees and not the ground vegetation. If the burn occurs before significant drying has occurred to the duff layer, less tree canopy will be killed and consumed and few buried plants will be killed (Brown, 2000 pg 32). Any surface fire near the plants is likely to remove the plant to the caudex and a high intensity fire is likely to kill the entire plant. A fall or winter burn would create a lower level of disturbance because if the plants are present they would be dormant and would have already set seed. A fall or winter burn will also give many shrub, forb, and grass species a chance to disperse their seeds before the fire, thus increasing the chances for successful post-fire natural regeneration (Zouhar, 2003). The desired fire behavior in the pinyon and juniper is a crown fire. The fire would be intense enough to burn the crowns of the tree down the tree along the limbs. Some fire moves down the trunk, killing the tree. This type of fire leaves a snag, which would not be removed. The ground fire will be lower in intensity. The fire is not expected to carry across the ground because of the paucity of vegetation. The intention is to burn areas when the ground fuels are moist, resulting in low severity fires on the ground that won’t cause excessive heating of the soil. Keeping the heat off the forest floor will provide for favorable post-burn condition for shrub and herbaceous re-establishment. The prescribed fire will burn differently from one treatment area to the next based on various factors including topographic variation and weather conditions. Prescribed fire treatments may occur during any season of the year within established prescriptions. The fire objective is to create a mosaic burn across the landscape in which openings average 1/4 to 200 acres in size. Smaller openings are the objective in order to provide the optimum benefits by leaving pockets of vegetation around the burned areas to help maintain a seed source. There are no known plants in the project area; however potential habitat is present within the pinyon-juniper woodlands on the rocky sites within proposed treatment areas. The impacts from any of the treatments to potential habitat would be short term. If plants are present they

Page 120 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

would occur on the more rocky sites within the treatment areas. Hand cutting could occur in these sites, but impacts would be temporary. These areas would be less likely to have mechanical treatments, so slash accumulation and soil disturbance would be minimal. Burning while ground fuels are moist will result in a lower severity fire on the ground. The emphasis of the prescribe fire will be on burning the crowns of the trees, although ground vegetation would also be affected by fire. Although this alternative would impact potential habitat, it is not expected to affect the viability of the species. Populations of Currant Summit clover would remain stable within its range.

3.8.6.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Cumulative impacts will be analyzed for potential habitat within the project area because no populations are known to exist within the project area. Cumulative effects to potential habitat for the Currant Summit clover could result from grazing, recreation activities, and invasive species. There are six grazing allotments within the project area that have potential habitat for Currant Summit clover. The allotments are grazed from mid-June to mid- September. Grazing is not expected to increase within the area. Noxious weeds within the area include yellow spine thistle, musk thistle, Canada thistle, bull thistle, hoary cress, Russian knapweed, and spotted knapweed. Noxious weed infestations within the project area generally occur along roadways, near campsites, along riparian zones, and near sites where livestock or people concentrate. Inventory and treatment of weeds is ongoing within the project area. Vehicles will stay on existing roads, reducing the potential for new infestations. The known site of Currant Summit clover on the Ely Ranger District is subjected to grazing and was impacted by road construction and the plants are persisting. Cumulative effects from grazing, recreational activities, and invasive species will be minimal. Cumulative effects of the project and other actions in the area are not likely to cause a loss of viability of Currant Summit clover and populations would remain stable within its range.

3.9 Livestock Management

3.9.1 Affected Environment The North Schell Restoration project area includes all or portions of seven active grazing allotments (Table 20). The most northern six allotments are entirely contained by the project boundary while only the upper portion of Timber Creek Allotment, north of Kalamazoo Summit road, is included. Three livestock operators are permitted within the project area. The season of use varies on these allotments; however, use generally occurs between June 1 and October 15 of each year. Permitted livestock within the project area include 489 cattle and 4,799 sheep; combined 18,973 head months (HMs). Range allotments within the project area are depicted on the map in Appendix E. Table 20: Current livestock allotments and permitted use within the project area ALLOTMENT ON OFF NUMBER OF HEAD TYPE NAME DATE DATE ANIMALS MONTHS 6/16 10/15 600 ewe/lamb 2,407 Seigel C.U. 6/1 10/10 30 cow/calf 130 Queen Spring C.U. 6/16 10/15 600 ewe/lamb 2,407

Page 121 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

ALLOTMENT ON OFF NUMBER OF HEAD TYPE NAME DATE DATE ANIMALS MONTHS 6/1 10/10 42 cow/calf 182 Ruby Mattier S&G 6/16 10/15 600 ewe/lamb 2,407 Fitzhugh S&G 7/05 9/30 1060 ewe/lamb 3,067 Muncy S&G 6/16 10/15 879 ewe/lamb 3,526 Second Creek S&G 6/26 9/30 1060 ewe/lamb 3,380 6/16 9/30 217 cow/calf 763 **Timber Creek C&H 7/1 10/15 200 cow/calf 704 Permitted Livestock Grazing Totals 5,288 18,973 C.U. = Common use (both sheep and cattle), C&H= Cattle & Horse ** Only the portion north of Kalamazoo Summit road is within the project area

3.9.1.1 Range Condition The higher elevations of Seigel, Queen Spring, Ruby Mattier, Fitzhugh, Muncy, Second Creek, and Timber Creek allotments, are typically in good condition mainly due to accessibility and greater precipitation. Historically, these allotments have been used much lighter by livestock because of the steep terrain and shorter growing season. Wild horses have been observed in the upper portions of Seigel and Queen Springs consistently during summer months. Watering areas and areas within close proximity to water are grazed heaviest. Over the years, sensitive riparian sites have experienced significant conifer encroachment, thus reducing the available forage across the project area for both wildlife and livestock.

3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action According to “Humboldt National Land and Resource Management Plan”, livestock grazing will not be allowed for two years following prescribed fires, plantings, and seeding. In the short term, entire allotments may be rested or livestock rotations may be modified to accommodate this requirement. Resting units and/or allotments following treatments will cause some hardship for permittees because they will not be able to graze the permitted amount of livestock for consecutive years. Additional losses may transpire if frequent site visits are necessary to maintain a temporary structure or aggressively manage livestock away from treated areas. With at least a two years rest from livestock after treatment, it is anticipated that the recovery will enhance the range condition based on increased ground cover and diversity of the recovering plant community. The proposed actions are expected to result in the permittees improved ability to comply with their term grazing permit which will improve rangeland health in the long-term. The proposed action’s positive effect is expected to outweigh the negative inconveniences for the average Forest Land user.

Page 122 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

3.9.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative Permitted livestock would continue to graze on National Forest System lands, making minimal adjustments only when needed during Annual Operating Instructions. Sagebrush communities would continue to be encroached by pinyon-juniper and aspen stands would continue to be affected by fir encroachment, limiting suitable/ capable acreage for livestock grazing across the landscape.

3.10 Roadless Areas

3.10.1 Affected Environment There are four Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA’s) within the project area. They are McCurdy (822 acres), Tehama (7,657 acres), West Schell (16,522 acres) and North Schell (15,594 acres). In 1998, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest began reviewing unroaded areas with new GIS information (Cartographic Feature Files for NFS and Digital Line Graphs for adjoining BLM areas) to determine where there were 5,000 acre blocks of 'natural' landscapes (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 1998.). This inventory was completed in 1999 and, then in 2001, when the Roadless Rule was created, this new inventory became the basis of the Forest’s Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). After identifying these areas as unroaded, the 1999 Inventory evaluated the area’s wilderness suitability. To evaluate the primitive setting of an area, a computer model was utilized to identify the portions of the unroaded areas that met the definition of primitive setting as defined in the Forest Service Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (1986). The McCurdy IRA (822 acres) does not meet the criteria for Roadless Area designation (minimum of 5,000 acres); however it is untracked and contiguous. The remaining three IRA’s within the project area are over 5,000 acres in size and are designated as undeveloped (Tehama and West Schell) or primitive (North Schell). None of these IRA’s was considered for Wilderness Designation during the 2006 Assessment for Potential Wilderness which analyzed the IRA data set and made recommendations (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 2006.). No wilderness areas were designated within the project area under the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (2006) which designated a total of 558,133 acres of wilderness within White Pine County. The project area was evaluated to determine the proposed action’s potential effect on roadless and wilderness characteristics. The roadless and wilderness characteristics are identified below.

3.10.1.1 Roadless • High Quality or undisturbed soil and water • Sources of public drinking water • Diversity of plant and animal communities • Habitat for threatened and endangered or sensitive species • Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation • Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality

Page 123 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

3.10.1.2 Wilderness • Natural integrity • Apparent naturalness • Remoteness • Solitude • Opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation • Special Features • Manageability

3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on Roadless High Quality or Undisturbed Soil, Water, and Air As a whole, the North Schell IRA’s have very high natural integrity, showing little impact by man. Approximately 80 percent of the roadless area is grazed by livestock (all or portions of seven cattle or sheep allotments). The apparent naturalness is extremely high. Past activities have included vegetation treatments such as chainings, prescribed burning, historic logging, historic mining, and the construction of fences and water developments to better manage livestock. Long-term campsites occur in some locations. The area includes 12.4 miles of unclassified and 19.6 miles of classified roads. Total open road density within the project area is approximately 0.26 miles per square mile which is considered low. The proposed action does not include construction of any roads within the IRAs. The treatment areas are on variable terrain (slopes from 3 - 80%). Treatments would occur throughout the year as conditions allow for. Skidding or other activities that would tend to loosen soils will avoid steep slopes. Skidding of materials across drainages will be avoided whenever feasible. Smoke will be produced during project implementation. Smoke impacts to the IRA’s from prescribed burning will be minimal. Emissions from the project have not been estimated however previous wildfires and prescribed burns in the area suggest smoke emissions are short lived with no long term effects to IRA’s and proposed wilderness values. Generally smoke emissions are greatest during and shortly after prescribed fire ignitions. These emissions are carried into the mid atmosphere quickly where dispersion values are high. Once ignition operations stop and the convective energy that carried the smoke into the atmosphere have weakened, smoke will begin to settle into low lying areas. Typically, smoke emissions are noticeable for 1-2 days following ignition. Depending on residual burning and fire reinitiating within the project area, smoke may be noticed for a few days to a few weeks in a given area. No long-term effects to soil, water and air quality are anticipated from this proposal. Sources of Public Drinking Water There are no known public drinking water systems within the project area. No long-term effects are anticipated from this proposal.

Page 124 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities and Habitat for TE Species Specialist reports (biological assessment, biological evaluation, and Wildlife report) address impacts to threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, sensitive and management indicator plant and animal species throughout the project area. Habitat for sensitive species occurs within the project area. No significant impacts to plant or animal diversity or abundance are anticipated from this proposed action. Design criteria were developed to minimize impacts to wildlife species. Individuals may be exposed to temporary disturbances. Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized Classes of Dispersed Recreation Opportunities for primitive recreation are low throughout most of the North Schell IRAs due to the locations of roads and short distances between unbroken lands. Semi-primitive non- motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation are in great abundance. There are several motorized trails in the project area and cross country hiking is allowed. The proposed action would not affect the opportunity for primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized recreation within the IRAs. No change in access would occur as a result of the project. Natural Appearing Landscapes with High Scenic Quality As a whole, the North Schell IRA’s have very high natural integrity, showing little impact by man, though a large portion of the roadless areas are grazed by livestock. The apparent naturalness is extremely high. The high scenic qualities that are found in portions of the project area contribute to a high level of natural appearance, although evidence of roads does exist. Visual impacts from mechanical treatments and prescribed burning could be evident in the long term. Cut stumps would remain in the area for decades, however returning grasses and shrubs would help to hide stumps. Regeneration of vegetation following prescribed burning would be expected to lessen visual impacts steadily over time. Visual impacts on the large scale will trend towards improved naturalness. Overall scenic quality will be impacted in the short-term and slowly improve over the long-term. Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites There are no known traditional cultural properties or sacred sites within these IRA’s. Other Locally Identified Unique Characteristics There are no locally unique characteristics associated with these IRA’s.

3.10.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on Wilderness Characteristics Natural Integrity Natural conditions in the project area are affected by grazing allotments and fire suppression. The lack of fire over the last century has created un-natural fuel build-ups in some locations, especially where conifer encroachment into natural openings is occurring. Vegetation

Page 125 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment treatments should at least partially restore this balance and improve natural integrity. See Vegetation and Range specialist’s reports. Apparent Naturalness During treatment, portions of the project area may appear manipulated to a casual observer. This will be a short-term impact (likely only 3- 5 years). Once treatments have concluded, vegetation reestablishes, and several winters softened the visual impact of treatments, forest visitors will likely not realize they are encountering an area where vegetation treatments have occurred. Treatments within conifer communities would help to restore the natural appearance of the area by re-establishing the historic and natural character of the landscape. No long-term effects are anticipated that would significantly impact this characteristic. Remoteness The project area receives light to moderate use by recreationists. Most vehicle traffic is associated with fuel wood cutters, dispersed campers, OHV users and hunters, between June and October. During the treatment period, the presence of motorized equipment and mechanized transport, including noise from chain saws and helicopters will affect the sense of remoteness for anyone in the immediate vicinity. This effect is short-term in nature and will cease at the completion of treatments. No roads or trails will be constructed and there will be no change in visitor access. Solitude There would be short-term impacts to visitors’ opportunities for solitude within the immediate vicinity of the treatment area. Noise from chainsaws and helicopters will be apparent for the duration of the project. There will be some removal of tree cover, reducing screening within the treatment area, potentially reducing opportunities for solitude where roads or trails are no longer screened from the user. Negative effects will be of short duration or limited in scope. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation Opportunities for primitive recreation exist but are limited due to terrain and accessibility. The few primitive areas available for use are located in steep terrain, are located away from roads and are generally smaller in size. No new roads or trails will be constructed and there will be no change in ROS allocations. The proposed project would have no effect on opportunities for primitive recreation. Special Features There are no known special features (geologic, cultural, etc) within the project area that could be affected by this project. Manageability (as Wilderness) This project would not affect the boundaries of the roadless areas, access to the area, or its consideration for designation as wilderness in the future. Past and ongoing management activities (including active grazing allotments, fuel wood cutting, past timber harvesting, user created OHV routes) that have occurred in the project area may have impacted this areas potential for future wilderness consideration. None of the IRA’s in the project area were recommended or designated in the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and

Page 126 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Development Act (2006) that designated 12 wilderness areas on both BLM and USFS administered lands. There is no wilderness within the project area.

3.10.4 Summary The natural integrity and appearance of the North Schell IRAs as a whole have had little impact from man’s activity. The roadless characteristics within and surrounding the proposed North Schell Restoration project area have however, been altered due to the past and ongoing impacts that exist in the area. These impacts include livestock grazing, fire suppression, fuel wood cutting, and user created roads and trails. Given these conditions and ongoing actions, it is unlikely that these locations would be recommended for future wilderness designation. The North Schell Restoration Project identifies two primary types of treatments, prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, within the North Schell IRA’s. The treatment areas are not within or proximate to an area recommended for wilderness designation by the 2006 Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest Assessment for Potential Wilderness (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 2006.). The lack of fire over the last century has created un-natural fuel build-ups and vegetation patterns in some locations, especially where conifer encroachment into natural openings is occurring. Vegetation treatments should at least partially restore this balance and improve natural integrity. There would be no road construction required to implement the project. As vegetation returns in the short-term, it is unlikely that a casual forest visitor would recognize any management activity in the area. This project would not substantially affect wilderness characteristics of this area. The proposed North Schell Restoration Project would have minimal impacts on the overall integrity of the North Schell IRA’s. There will be short-term impacts associated with prescribed fire and mechanical treatments; however, these impacts will show recovery within a season and in the long-term these impacts will be very hard to distinguish. The potential for an increase in invasive or noxious weeds exists as well. In the short-term, inventory and treatment followed up with monitoring of the treatments will address the impacts associated with weeds. However, the failure to inventory, treat and follow-up with monitoring for effectiveness can turn into a long-term impact associated with increases in the size and occurrences of invasive/noxious weeds within the project area. Un-managed recreation and fuel-wood harvest also present long-term impacts within the project area. It is thought that through adequate enforcement and signage of routes, off-road/trail impacts will lessen over time. The outlined project design features address the potential effects of the proposed management actions. This proposal does not involve road construction and is not within areas recommended for wilderness designation in the 2006 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Assessment for Potential Wilderness (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 2006.).

3.10.5 Cumulative Effects for Roadless and Wilderness Characteristics Activities that may contribute to cumulative effects on the roadless character of these areas include livestock grazing, noxious/invasive weed management, legal and illegal fuel wood cutting, unmanaged recreation, fuels management and wildfire suppression. Noxious/invasive weed infestations occurring on adjacent lands have the potential to impact the natural, untrammeled, habitat for certain species of sensitive plants and animals, soil and

Page 127 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment water resources, the diversity of plant and animal communities, and reference landscapes characteristics associated with wilderness and inventoried roadless areas. Through an aggressive inventory and treatment program it is hoped that noxious/invasive weeds will not gain a strong foothold on the Ely Ranger District or in any of its wilderness or roadless areas. Fuel wood cutters have historically cut roads into unroaded areas. It is inherent in the activity. This type of activity is very difficult to regulate and enforcement is hit and miss at best. This type of activity occurs on lands adjacent to USFS lands and can cross over to IRA’s and wilderness and can impact the natural, untrammeled, habitat for certain species of sensitive plants and animals, soil and water resources and the diversity of plant and animal communities characteristics. The Ely Ranger District Travel Management Plan and current Forest Service fuelwood permits for the Ely Ranger District limit off-road use by vehicles for the harvest of firewood. This plan and permit requirements will minimize potential impacts associated with unauthorized vehicle use. Unmanaged recreation, typically motorized recreation, has seen an increase in use over the past 25 years across the country. This has been especially true in eastern Nevada. Through the 2009 Ely Ranger District Travel Management Decision, motorized recreation has been limited to designated routes and trails. This decision is slowly being implemented on the ground and there is still potential for people to drive off roads and trails and cause great damage to the surrounding vegetation and soils. This type of impact, over an extended time can severely impact the natural, untrammeled, habitat for certain species of sensitive plants and animals, soil and water resources, plant and animal diversity characteristics of inventoried roadless areas and wilderness areas. Vegetation and fuels treatment activities can impact the characteristics of inventoried roadless areas and wilderness areas. Mechanical treatment activities may have a short-term effect on the apparent naturalness of an area, but would not alter the roadless designation or change the overall roadless character. Wildfires have the potential to do catastrophic damage to all resource characteristics in and outside of wilderness and roadless areas. Wildfire suppression has occurred on the USFS administered lands for over a century. Currently policy allows agency administrators to manage wildfires to meet a variety of objectives which includes improving resource conditions and restoring fire to fire dependent ecosystems. Uncharacteristic wildfires can have negative consequences and cause unintentional harm to both roadless areas and wilderness areas.

3.10.6 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative on Roadless and Wilderness Characteristics The No Action Alternative will have no direct or indirect effects upon the roadless and wilderness characteristics identified above. The no action alternative involves no treatments or other associated management actions which would alter those characteristics analyzed above. Because there are no direct or indirect effects on roadless or wilderness characteristics, there would be no cumulative effects as a result of this alternative.

Page 128 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 4: CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES A number of disclosures involving compliance with various applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations are required in NEPA analysis for proposed resource management projects. These disclosures are listed below: American Indian Treaty Rights – The proposed alternatives would not conflict with any treaty provisions. Clean Water Act – The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a federal stature that requires states and tribes to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33U.S.C. 466 et seq., Title I, Section 101). The hydrology analysis discloses the potential effects of the alternatives on water quality. The project does not involve the filling, alteration or modification of any waterway or riparian area. Based on the analysis disclosed in this document, both alternatives would comply with the CWA. This project includes design features to ensure management activities maintain or improve watershed conditions (Chapter 2). The project area contains no 303d listed streams. Clean Air Act – The Proposed Action is in compliance with the Clean Air Act, 1977 as amended. All required permits would be secured to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. Pollutant emissions would be within state and federal standards. Consultation with Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) – Consultation with the Duckwater Tribe, Goshute Tribe and the Ely Shoshone Colony has been ongoing during project analysis (see EA Section 1.9). Effects of Alternatives on Social Groups - The alternatives do not differ with one another in their effects on minorities, Native American Indians, women, or Civil Liberties of any American Citizen. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Endangered Species Act – The project area contains no known populations or potential habitats for any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) - Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed. Register 7629, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low income populations. The proposed alternatives would not result in unequal impacts on any part of the population in White Pine County, Nevada and complies with E.O. 12898.

Page 129 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands – The alternatives will not result in significant adverse impacts on wetlands or floodplains as they relate to protection of human health, safety, and welfare; preventing the loss of property values, and; maintaining natural systems. The goals of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 would be met. All wetlands would be protected through design features which conform to Executive Order 11990. Executive Order 13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act – Both alternatives would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This project may result in an “unintentional take” of individuals during proposed activities; however, the project complies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. This project complies with Executive Order 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under the January 16, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186. Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (E.O. 13443) - On August 16, 2007, President George Bush signed an Executive Order directing appropriate federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. The proposed action will result in improved habitats for big game species such as mule deer and elk. The no action alternative will have a long term adverse impact on big game species and would not work to meet the objectives outlined in this executive order. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) – The 78,000 acre project area includes all or portions of four IRAs. Neither alternative would have lasting effects on the attributes of any of the IRAs (Section 3.10). National Historic Preservation Act – Neither alternative would have any direct or indirect effects on historically significant sites. Previously identified sites would be protected under these alternatives. The State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the cultural resources 106 report and agreed to provisions in a memorandum of understanding regarding how to address cultural resources during project implementation (see project record). Best Available Science – The conclusions summarized in this document are based on a review of the project record that reflects consideration of relevant scientific information and responsible opposing views where raised by internal or external sources and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and/or risk where pertinent to the decision being made. Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) - The Proposed Action is in compliance with the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) as amended. Climate Change - “The Forest Service is responding to climate change through ecological restoration—by restoring the functions and processes characteristic of healthy, resilient ecosystems.” (Thomas L. Tidwell, Chief April 20, 2010). The purpose of this project is to restore and maintain healthy and resilient vegetation communities, wildlife habitats and to reduce fuels and wildfire risks near private lands and structures. The prescribed fire portions of this project will result in short term smoke impacts into the atmosphere, however there will be no lasting effects as a result of these actions. The proposed action and design features are designed

Page 130 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment to restore resilient vegetation communities and ecosystems while minimizing the effects of invasive species. This project will not result in any long-term adverse impacts associated with climate change. Specific actions identified within the proposed action will create more resilient vegetative communities which are viable under changing climatic conditions.

Page 131 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PRIMARY PREPARERS

Name Responsibility Education Years Experience Jose Noriega District Ranger BS Wildlife Management 20 Carol Carlock IDT Leader /Fuels Course work through NWGC, 31 University of Colorado, Washington Institute, National Advanced Fire Resource Institute Julia Richardson Vegetation BS Forestry 23 Kathy Johnson Wildlife BS Wildlife Management 23 Nate Millet Hydrology/Soils BS Environmental Engineering 6 Amanda Kriwox GIS MS Geotechnology 10 BS Geology Amery Sifre Range/Weeds BS Forest and Rangeland 5 Management Caine Daugherty Heritage Resources MS GIS 7 GIS BS Geography Joshua Simpson Roadless Areas BS Forest Recreation Resources 8

Page 132 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES Agee, James K., B. Bahro, M.A. Finney, P.N. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner, J.W. van Wagendonk, and P.C. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuel breaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management 127:55-66 Ahlgren, I.F. and C.E. Ahlgren. 1960. Ecological effects of forest fires. The Botanical Review 26: 483-533 Anderson, S., M. White, and D. Atwood. 1991. Humboldt National Forest sensitive plant field guide. Ogden, Utah: U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Augustine David J. and Samuel J. McNaughton. 1998. Ungulate Effects on the Functional Species Composition of Plant Communities: Herbivore Selectivity and Plant Tolerance. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 1165-1183 Autenrieth, R.E. 1981. Sage Grouse management in Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin Number 9. Wildlife Research Section, Idaho Department of Fish and game, Boise, Idaho. 130 pages + appendices. Barneby, R. C. 1989. Fabales. Pages 1-279 in A. Cronquist, A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, and P. K. Holmgren. Intermountain Flora, Vol. 3B. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 279 pgs. Baughman, Curt. 2010. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Game Biologist, Ely, Nevada. Berg, N.H., K.B. Roby, B.J. mcgurk. 1996. Cumulative watershed effects: applicability of available methodologies to the Sierra Nevada. Pages 39-78 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress, vol. III, Assessments, commissioned reports, and background information. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, CA. Beymer, R.J. and J.M. Klopatek. 1992. Effects of Grazing on Cryptogamic Crust in Pinyon- Juniper Woodlands in Grand Canyon National Park. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 127, No. 1, pp.139-148. Boerner, R.J. 1982. Fire and nutrient cycling in temperate ecosystems. Bioscience 32: 187-192 Bradley, P.V., M.J. O’Farrell, J.A. Williams and J.E. Newark. Editors. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pg. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2011. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-11jun). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Fri, Jun. 17, 2011 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory Carter, Jimmy. “Floodplain Management.” Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977. Carter, Jimmy. “Protection of Wetlands.” Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977. Charlet, D.A. 1996. Atlas of Nevada Conifers: a Phytogeographic Reference. University of Nevada Press. 320 pp.

Page 133 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Chambers, J. C. and J.A. MacMahon. 1994. A day in the life of a seed: Movements and fates of seeds and their implications for natural and managed systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 25, pp. 263-92. Chambers, J. C., Tausch, R. J., Amacher, M. C., Germanoski, D, Fleishman, E, Zamudio, D., 2004. Final Report – A Demonstration Area on Ecosystem Response to Watershed Scale Burns in Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. JFSP Project # 00-2-15, 19 pg. Chambers C, Jeanne, Roundy A. Bruce, Blank R. Robert, Meyer E. Susan and Whittaker A. 2007. What Makes Great Basin Sagebrush Ecosystems Invasible By Bromus Tectorum., Ecological Monographs, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp 117-145. Chambers, J.C. and M. Pellant. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on Northwestern and Intermountain United States Rangelands. Rangelands, Vol. 30, No. 3. pp. 29-33. Clark, Bob. 1994. Soils, water, and watersheds, In National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Fire Effects Guide. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. Coates, Kevin P., and S. D. Schemnitz. 1994. Habitat Use and Behavior of Male Mountain Sheep in Foraging Associations with Wild Horses. Great Basin Naturalist 54(1). 1994. pg. 86-90. Coe, D. And L.H. macdonald. 2001. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Central Sierra Nevada, California. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2001, abstract #H51F-03 Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4): 967-985. Connelly, J.W., and O.D. Markham. 1983. Movements and radionuclide concentrations of Sage Grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:169-177. Couvreur Martine, Bart Chrisianen, Kris Verheyen, Martin Henery. 2004. Large herbivores as mobile links between isolated nature reserves through adhesive seed dispersal. Applied Vegetation Science, Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 229-236. Crawley, M.J. 1983. Herbivory: the dynamics of animal-plant interactions. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H., Reveal, James L., Holmgren, Patricia K. 1994. Asterales. In Intermountain Flora Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, USA. Vol. 5. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 496 pgs. D’Antonio, Carla and Laura A. Meyerson. 2002. Exotic Plant Species as Problems and Solutions in Ecological Restoration: A Synthesis. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 10, No. 4. pp. 703- 713. Davies, K.W., T.J. Svejcar, J.D. Bates. 2009. Interaction of Historical and Non-historical Disturbances Maintains Native Plant Communities. Ecological Applications, Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 1536-1545. Debano, L.F. 1990. Effects of fire on soil properties. Paper presented at the Symposium on Management and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest Soils, Boise, ID. Apr 10-12, 1990 Debano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 333pp.

Page 134 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Debano, L.F. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a review. Journal of Hydrology 231-232: 195-206 Degraaf, Richard M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 688. 625 pg. Deines, L. R. 2007. Germination and seedling establishment of two annual grasses on lichen- dominated biological soil crust. Plant Soil, Vol. 295. pp. 23-35. Delong, Anita K., J.A. Crawford, and D.C. Delong, Jr. 1995. Relationships between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59(1): 1995. Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition. 2009. Plant Survey Report for North Schell Restoration Project Area. 7 pp. Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition. 2010. Flammulated Owl and Three-toed Woodpecker Surveys for the Ely Ranger District’s North Schell Project Area. 11 pg. Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition. 2010a. Plant Survey Report for North Schell Restoration Project. 13 pp. Elliot, W.J. and P.R. Robichaud. 2001. Comparing erosion risks from forest operations to wildfire. In Schiess, P. And Krogstad, F. 2001. Proceedings of A Forest Engineering Odyssey. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington and International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Dec 10-12, 2001, Seattle, WA. Erickson, H.E., R.L. Edmonds, and C.E. Peterson. 1985. Decomposition of logging residues in Douglas-fir, western hemlock, Pacific silver fir, and ponderosa pine ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15: 914-921 Evans A. Raymond and James A. Young. 1970. Plant Litter and Establishment of Alien Weed Species in Rangeland Communities. Weed Science, Vol. 18, No. 6. pp. 697-703. Farrar, D. 2002. Botrychium species in the Spring Mountains, Nevada: A report of work conducted for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Unpublished report to the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest. Submitted Setpember, 3, 2002. Farrar, D. Systematics of Western Moonworts Botrychium subgenus Botrychium. 2005. USFS Moonwort Workshop, Fort Collins, CO. July, 2005. Pgs 98 Ferguson, Brian. 2004. The development of New Aspen Cohorts: How Many Suckers Create an Adequate Condition and the Relationship with Ungulate Impacts? 3pg. Fire Effects Information System, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/cerled/introductory.html Flath, Dennis. 1994. Bunnies by the Bunch. Montana Outdoors. 6 pg. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds.). 2006. Flora of North America: North of Mexico, Vol. 20, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 7: Asteraceae, part 2. Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, New York. 666 pgs. Franklin, M.A. 1999. Field survey of Tunnel Spring beard-tongue (Penstemon concinnus Keck): Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices Beaver, Iron and Millard Counties, Utah. Final Report for

Page 135 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

1996 Challenge Cost Share Project with Utah Department of Natural Resources and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 12 pgs + Appendices. FSM 2080. Forest Service Manual. National Forest Resource Management. 2080 Noxious Weed Management. Washington, DC. November 29, 1995. Gabler, Kate I, John W. Laundré, and Laura T. Heady. 2000. Predicting the Suitability of Habitat in Southeast Idaho for Pygmy Rabbits. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 64, No. 3. (Jul., 2000), pg. 759-764. Gelbard L. Jonathan and Belnap Jayne. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. Conversation Biology, Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 420-432. Gillham, J., Fisk, H, Goetz, W., and Lachowski, H. 2004. Existing vegetation mapping: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. RSAC-65-RPT1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Salt Lake City, UT. 1-110 pg. Gomez, A., R.F. Powers, M.J. Singer, and W.R. Horwath. 2002. Soil compaction effects on growth of young ponderosa pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66: 1334-1343 GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory). 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. Available online at www.gbbo.org/bird_conservation_plan.html Great Basin Bird Observatory. 2005. Landbirds of Nevada and the Habitats They Need: A Resource Manager’s Guide to Conservation Priority Species. Great Basin Bird Observatory Technical Report No. 05-01. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, Nevada. Available at http://www.gbbo.org. Great Basin Bird Observatory. 2002. All Bird Monitoring Data. (www.gbbo.org). Green, J. S. and J.T. Flinders 1980a. Brachylagus idahoensis. American Society of Mammalogy. Mammalian Species No. 125:1-4. Green, J. S. and J. T. Flinders. 1980b. Habitat and Dietary Relationships of the Pygmy Rabbit. Journal of Range Management 33(2), March 1980. 7pg. Grigal, D.F. 2000. Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 138: 167-185 Gruell, G. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities within the Interior West. 1999. USDA RMRS-P-9 pg. 24-28. Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, tech. Editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great grey owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 214 pg (3 Maps). Herron, G. B., C. A. Mortimore, and M. S. Rawlings. 1985. Nevada Raptors: Their Biology and Management. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Biological Bulletin No. 8. 114pg Hoefler, 2003. California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Pygmy Rabbit. Map. Text by G. Hoefler. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.1 computer program. Sacramento, CA. 2 pg.

Page 136 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Holland, R.F. 1999. Current knowledge and conservation status of Silene nachlingerae Tiehm (Caryophyllaceae), Jan’s catchfly, in Nevada [July 1997]. Carson City: Nevada Natural Heritage Program, DRAFT status report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Reno. Holland, R.G. 1998. Current knowledge and conservation status of Viola lithion Holmgran and Holmgran, the rock violet, in Nevada. Carson City: Nevada Natural Heritage Program,, Status Report prepared for State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve, Reno, Nevada. 23 pgs. & appendices. Holmgren, N.H., P.K. Holmgren, A. Cronquist. 2005. Subclass Dilleniidae, pages 457-459. InIntermountain Flora Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, Vol. 2, Part B. New York Botanical Garden Bronx, NY, 488 pgs. Horwath, W.R., T Winsome, A. Gomez-Guerrero, R.F. Powers, and M.J. Singer. 2000. The impact of site preparation on soil organic matter and long-term soil fertility in California forests. In Zabel, A. And G. Sposito (ends). 2000. Soil Quality in the California Environment – Annual Report. M. Theo Kearney Foundation of Soil Science, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Howe, H.F. and Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of Seed Dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology Systematics, Vol. 13. pp. 201-228. Humboldt National Forest Updated MIS Monitoring Report. 2008. 51pg. Humboldt National Forest. 2008b. North Schell Alpine Plant Survey. 2008 Humboldt National Forest. 2007. Whiteman Fuels Plant Survey. 2007 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 2006. Assessment for Potential Wilderness. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Forest Plan Implementation Five Year Monitoring Report 2000-2004. March 2006 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 1998. Inventory of National Forest Undeveloped (roadless) Areas in Nevada. April, 1998. Johnson, J and J. Baggs. 2004. Plant Survey for the Currant Creek Fuels Project Area. Unpublished report prepared by the Supervisor Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. On file at the Ely Ranger District. 9 pgs. Johnson, J. 2006a. TES Plant Element Occurrence Field Form, USDA Forest Service 2005 for Astragalus uncialis. Unpublished date prepared by the Supervisor Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 5 pgs. Johnson, J. 2006b. TES Plant Element Occurrence Field Form, USDA Forest Service 2005 for Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. williamsii. Unpublished date prepared by the Supervisor Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 5 pgs. Johnson-Groh, C.L., and J. M. Lee. 2002a. Phenology and demography of two species of Botrychium (Ophioglossaceae). American Journal of Botany 89(10):1624-1633. Johnson-Groh, C.L., C. Riedel, L. Schoesslet, and K. Skogen. 2002b. Belowground distribution and abundance of Botrychium gametophytes and juvenile sporophytes. American Fern Journal 92(2):80-92.

Page 137 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Kaczmarski, J. 2000. Restoration Implications of Bromus tectorum-Infested Grasslands of the Great Basin. Restoration and Reclamation Review, Vol. 6, No.1. pp. 5-9 and 16. (http://horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/h5015/00papers/kaczmarski.htm.) Klebenow, D.A. 1985. Habitat management for Sage Grouse in Nevada. World Pheasant Association Journal 10:34-46. Larrucea, Eveline S. 2007. Distribution, Behavior, and Habitat Preferences of the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in Nevada and California. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology. University of Nevada, Reno. May, 2007. Lonedale, W. M. 1999. Global Patterns of Plant Invasions and the Concept of Invasibility. Ecology, Vol. 80, No. 5. pp. 1522-1536. Macdonald, L.H. 2000. Evaluating and Managing Cumulative Effects: Process and Constraints. Environmental Management 26: 299-315 Malo, J.E. Jimenez B., Suarez F. 2000. Herbivore Dunging and Endozoochorous Seed Deposition in a Mediterranean Dehesa. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 53, No 3. pp. 322- 328. Marble, R.J., Harper, K.T. 1989. Effect of Timing of Grazing on Soil- Surface Cryptogamic Communities in a Great Basin Low-Shrub Desert: A Preliminary Report. Great Basin Naturalist, Vol. 49, No . 1. pp. 104-107. Mcgurk, B.J. and D.R. Fong. 1995. Equivalent roaded area as a measure of cumulative effect of logging. Environmental Management 19: 609-621 McKinney, T, T.W. Smith, J.C. deVos. 2006. Evaluation of Factors Potentially Influencing a Desert Bighorn Sheep Population. Wildlife Monographs 164: 1-36. Memmott, L.K., V. Anderson, and B.S. Monsen. 1998. Seasonal Grazing Impact on Cryptogamic Crusts in a Cold Desert Ecosystem. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 51, No. 5. pp. 547-550. Menning, K.M., D.C. Erman, K.N. Johnson, and J. Sessions. 1996. Modeling aquatic and riparian systems, assessing cumulative watershed effects, and limiting watershed disturbance. Pages 33-51 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress, addendum. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, CA. Mika, Markus. 2006. Biological Investigation of Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) Distribution and Densities on National Forest Lands in Nevada: Biological Survey Protocol and Results. Department of Biology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. March. Miller, R.F., Tausch, R.J., McArthur, E.D., Johnson, D.D., and Sanderson, S.C. 2008. Age structure and expansion of piňon-juniper woodlands: A regional perspective in the intermountain west. Research Paper RMRS-RP-69. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 1-15. Morefield, J. D. (ed.). 2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Carson City: Nevada Natural Heritage Program, compiled for the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon and Reno, Nevada.

Page 138 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Mozingo and Williams. 1980. Threatened and Endangered Plants of Nevada – An Illustrated Manuel. 272 pgs. Mueggler, W.F. 1985. Vegetation Associations, Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States GTR RM-119. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr119.html N.A.C. 2010. Nevada Administrative Code 555.010. Designation and Categorization of Noxious Weeds. (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/.) NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: Febraury, 2011). Neary, D.G., C.C. Klopatek, L.F. debano, P.F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management 122: 51-71 Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2011. Nevada Natural Heritage Occurrences Acrview Theme. Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Carson City, Nevada 89706-7921. Provided on April, 2011. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 1997. Nevada Elk Species Management Plan. 59 pg. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2004. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California. Sage-Grouse Conservation Team. First Edition Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2006. Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno. 630 p. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2009. Upland and Migratory Game Bird, Rabbit and Furbearing Mammals. 105 pg. Nevada Department of Wildlife 2009-2010 Big Game Status. Compiled and Edited by Mike Cox and Tony Wasley. 114 pg. Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2011. Nevada Natural Heritage Occurrences Acrview Theme. Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Carson City, Nevada 89706-7921. Provided on April, 2011. Neel, Larry A., editor. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. 335 pg. Neel L. 2001. Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy. Governor Kenny Guinn’s Sage Grouse Conservation Planning Team, Carson City, NV. Parks G. C., Wisdom J. M., Kie G. J. 2005. The Influence of Ungulates on Non-native Plant Invasion in Forest and Rangelands: A Review. Appendix D. PNW Causal Paper Ungulates Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. Parendes A. Laurie, Jones A. Julia. 2000. Pole of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic Plant Invasion along Roads and Streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conversation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 64-75. Powers, R.F., Tiarks, A.K., Boyle, J.R., 1998. Assessing soil quality: practicable standards for sustainable productivity in the United States. In: Adams, M.B., Ramakrishna, K., Davidson, E.A. (eds.), The Contribution of Soil Science to the Development of the Implementation of Criteria

Page 139 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management, SSSA Special Publication Number 53. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp.53-80 Powers, R.F. 1999. On the sustainable productivity of planted forests. New Forests 17: 263-306 Powers, R.F., et al. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management 220: 31-50 O’Brien Renee, Curtis M. Johnson, Andrea M. Wilson, and Van C. Elsbernd. 2003. Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-104. Olsen, B.E. 1999. Grazing and Weeds. In R.L. Sheley and J.K. Petroff (eds.). Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. pp. 85-96. Raison, R.J. 1979. Modification of the soil environment by vegetation fires, with particular reference to N transformations: a review. Plant and Soil 51: 73-108 Raison, R.J., P.K. Khanna, and P.V. Woods 1984. Mechanisms of elemental transfer to the atmosphere during vegetation fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15: 132-140 Reid, L. M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report GTR-141, 118 pg. Renne, J. Ian, Tracy F. Benjamin. 2007. Disturbance Persistence in Managed Grasslands: Shifts in Aboveground Community Structure and the Weed Seed Bank. Plant Ecology, Vol. 190. pp. 71-80. Reynolds, Richard T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service GTR RM-217 Roberts, H.B. 2001. Survey of Pygmy Rabbit Distribution, Numbers and Habitat Use in Lemhi and Numbers and Habitat Use in Lemhi and Custer Counties, Idaho. Hadley B. Roberts, Tech. Bull. No. 01-11, Idaho BLM. 25 pg Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD Schmidt W. 1989. Plants Dispersal by Motor Cars. Vegetation, Vol. 80. pp. 147-152. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u35q740210635215/) Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse. The Birds of North America, No. 425, 1999. Schulz t. Terri, Leininger C. Wayne. 1990. Differences in Riparian Vegetation Structure Between Grazed Areas and Exclosures. Journal of Rangeland Management, Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 295-299. Serpe D.M., J.M. Orm, T.Barkes, and R.Roger. 2006. Germination and Seed Water Status of Four Grasses on Moss-dominated Biological Soil Crust from Arid Lands. Plant Ecology, Vol. 185. pp.163-178.

Page 140 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Sheley,R.L., Petroff, J.K (Eds). 1999, Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. Shepperd, Wayne D. 2008. Aspen Ecology and Management: The Foundation for Planning into the Future. Sheppard, Wayne D., Rogers, Paul C., Burton, David; Bartos, Dale L. 2006. Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.122 pg. Shepperd, Wayne D. 2001. Manipulations to Regenerate Aspen Ecosystems, Sustaining Aspen in Western landscapes: Symposium Proceedings, RMRS-P-18. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p018.html Short, Lester L. 1982. Woodpeckers of the World. Museum of Natural History (Greenville, Delaware). Monograph Series No.4. 676 pp. Spahr, R.L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of the Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Swift, M.J. 1977. The roles of fungi and animals in the immobilisation and release of nutrient elements from decomposing branch-wood. Ecological Bulletin 25: 193-202 Tausch, R. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities within the Interior West. 1999. USDA RMRS-P-9 pg. 12-17. Tausch, R.J., T.J. Svejcar, J.W. Burkhardt. 1994. Patterns of Annual Grass Dominance on Anaho Islands: Implications for Great Basin Vegetation Management. In: Monsen, S.B., S.G. Kitchen. 1994. Proceedings—Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. Tausch ,Robin J., West, N.E., Nabi, A.A. 1981. Tree Age and Dominance Patterns in Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Journal of Range Management 34:259-264. Taylor Tim, 1991. Ecology and Productivity of Two Interstate Deer Herds in the Eastern Sierra Nevada. CA Department of Fish and Game. Taylor, A.H. and C.N. Skinner. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 111: 285-301 Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. The Lahontan Audubon Society. 2005 Northern Snake Range Important Bird Area Conservation Plan. 30 pg. The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Conservation Action Planning in the Schell Creek Range: Developing a Watershed Assessment for North Schell. 70 pg. Thieret, J.W. 1993. Pinus. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 16+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 2.

Page 141 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Trunkle, Phil, Fay, Pete. 1999. Transportation of Spotted Knapweed Seeds by Vehicles. Department of Plant and Soil Science, Montana Weed Control Association. Ulmschneider, H. 2004. Surveying for Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). 25 pg. University of California Committee on Cumulative Watershed Effects. 2001. A scientific basis for the prediction of cumulative watershed effects . University of California Wildland Resource Center Report No. 46. Berkeley, CA. 107 pp. [555kb] USDA-Forest Service. 2011. The Intermountain Region Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species List. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Range Suitability/Capability Analysis. Humboldt National Forest Updated MIS Monitoring Report. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 2008. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. (Accessed December 11, 2008). United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670. Threatened and Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Washington, D.C: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service Manual Direction – Chapter 1920. 2006. Interim Directive 1920-2006-1. USDA Forest Service. 1988a. Cumulative Off-site Effects Analysis, Interim Directive No. 1. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. FSH.2509.22, chapter 20. USDA Forest Service, San Francisco, California U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1987. The Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). United States Forest Service, Humboldt National Forest. 306 pp and 11 Appendices. Available Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/projects/forestplan/revision_documents/hfp/humb-fp.shtml U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1983. Forest Service Manuel and Handbook, 2600/2670 USFWS, 1999. Final Rule to Remove the American Peregrine Falcon from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register: Vol. 64, No. 164 Wednesday, August 25, 1999 - Rules and Regulations, page 46452. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 281 pg. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 1998. Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah. Utah Native Plant Society (UNPS). 2003-2008. Utah Rare Plant Guide. Salt lake City, UT: Utah Rare Plant guide Home Page. http://www.utahrareplants.org. Accessed: January 15, 2009. Wagner, Guy D. and James M. Peek. 2006. Bighorn Sheep Diet Selection and Forage Quality in Central Idaho. Northwest Science, Vol. 80, No. 4, pg. 246-258.

Page 142 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Wagner, W.H. and F.S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae. Pages 85-106 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. Wagner, W.H., Jr., and F.S. Wagner. 1994. Another widely disjunct, rare and local North American moonwort (Ophioglossaceae: Botrychium subg. Botrychium). American Fern J. 84(1):5-10. Wasley, Tony 2004. Mule Deer Population Dynamics: Issues and Influences. Biological Bulletin No. 14. Weiss, and Verts. 1984. The Great Basin Naturalist. Volume 44, 1984. Weltzin, F.J., R.T. Belote, and N. Sanders. 2003. Biological Invaders in a Green House World: Will Elevated CO2 Fuel Plant Invasions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 1, No. 3. pp. 146-153. Westmoreland, R. 2006. 2005 HFQLG Soil Monitoring Report. Sierraville Ranger District. Tahoe National Forest. Sierraville, CA, 8pp. Westmoreland, R. 2004. 2004 HFQLG Soil Monitoring Report. Sierraville Ranger District. Tahoe National Forest. Sierraville, CA, 8pp. Westmoreland, R. 1999. Forest Health Pilot Monitoring, Soil Monitoring. Sierraville Ranger District. Tahoe National Forest. Sierraville, CA, 11pp. White, Susan M., J. T. Flinders, and B. Welch. 1982. Preference of Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) for Various Populations of Big Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Journal of Range Management 35(6), November 1982. White Pine County Elk Management Plan 2007. Prepared by the White Pine Elk Management Technical Review Team. Submitted by White Pine County Coordinated Resource Management Steering Committee. Approved by the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act. 2006. Public Law 109-432. December 20, 2006. Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno. 630 pg. Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holt, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.A. Eames. 2000. Source habitat for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad scale trends and management implications. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR- 485, Portland, OR. Young A. James, Evans A. Raymond. 1973. Downey Brome: Intruder in the Plant Succession of Big Sagebrush Communities in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management, Vol.26, No. 6. pp.410-415. Younk, James V., and M. J. Bechard. 1994. Effects of Gold Mining Activity on Northern Goshawks Breeding in Nevada’s Independence and Bull Run Mountains. Raptor Research Center, Boise, Idaho, 1994.

Page 143 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Ziska, L.H., J.B. Reeves III, and B. Blank. 2005. The Impact of Recent Increases in Atmospheric CO2 on Biomass Production and Vegetative Retention of Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): Implications for Fire Disturbance. Global Change Biology, Vol. 11, No. 8. pp. 1325– 1332. Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2009, April 1].

Page 144 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A: TREATMENT ACRES TOTAL UNIT TREATMENT % UNIT VEGETATION TYPE ACRES ACREAGE ACRES TREATED Mountain Big Sage 688 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 9 0 0 01 1495 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 431 302 70 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 246 123 50 Total treatment ac 425 Mountain Big Sage 84 42 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 148 0 0 02 939 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 181 91 50 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 512 256 50 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 16 0 0 Total treatment ac 389 Mountain Big Sage 1220 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 38 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 20 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 52 0 0 03 2229 Aspen 91 0 0 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 381 0 0 Low Sage 198 0 0 Mixed Sage/Bitterbrush 148 0 0 Total treatment ac 0 Mountain Big Sage 1745 873 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 1634 163 10 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 248 198 80 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 1358 815 60 Aspen 416 83 20 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 658 66 10 Low Sage 643 0 0 04 7408 Mixed Sage/Bitterbrush 46 0 0 Bristlecone Pine 20 0 0 Mixed Aspen/Conifer 16 0 0 Mountain Shrub 12 0 0 Riparian Shrub 164 0 0 White Fir 348 0 0 Whitebark/Limber Pine 73 0 0 Total treatment ac 2198 05 3685 Mountain Big Sage 1364 682 50

Page 145 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

TOTAL UNIT TREATMENT % UNIT VEGETATION TYPE ACRES ACREAGE ACRES TREATED Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 25 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 248 124 50 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 387 194 50 Aspen 229 160 70 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 805 242 30 Low Sage 262 0 0 Mixed Aspen/Conifer 24 19 80 White Fir 252 151 60 Total treatment ac 1572 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 378 38 10 Low Sage 9 0 0 Mountain Big Sage 24 0 0 06 1873 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 47 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 973 195 20 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 368 74 20 Total treatment ac 307 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 699 0 0 Low Sage 51 0 0 Mountain Big Sage 12 0 0 07 3635 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 262 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 1148 344 30 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 659 198 30 White Fir 681 0 0 Total treatment ac 542 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 283 0 0 Low Sage 380 0 0 Bristlecone Pine 17 0 0 Mountain Big Sage 849 425 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 21 0 0 08 2198 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 49 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 12 0 0 Aspen 165 66 40 White Fir 292 234 80 Whitebark/Limber Pine 70 0 0 Total treatment ac 725 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 168 0 0 Low Sage 172 0 0 09 2222 Bristlecone Pine 13 0 0 Mountain Big Sage 1535 921 60

Page 146 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

TOTAL UNIT TREATMENT % UNIT VEGETATION TYPE ACRES ACREAGE ACRES TREATED Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 7 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 82 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 15 0 0 Aspen 92 37 40 White Fir 27 0 0 Whitebark/Limber Pine 32 0 0 Total treatment ac 958 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 140 0 0 Low Sage 123 0 0 Bristlecone Pine 34 0 0 Mountain Big Sage 668 334 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 701 140 20 10 2849 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 134 107 80 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 648 389 60 Aspen 140 28 20 White Fir 126 0 0 Whitebark/Limber Pine 23 0 0 Mixed Sage/Bitterbrush 19 0 0 Total treatment ac 998 Mountain Big Sage 1032 516 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 270 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 1014 304 30 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 1164 349 30 11 4455 Aspen 10 0 0 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 526 53 10 Low Sage 184 0 0 White Fir 106 0 0 Total treatment ac 1222 Mountain Big Sage 56 28 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 184 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 822 164 20 12 3920 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 1202 240 20 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 1156 0 0 White Fir 407 0 0 Total treatment ac 432 Mountain Big Sage 1857 929 50 Aspen 30 0 0 13 2858 Low Sage 400 0 0 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 317 0 0

Page 147 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

TOTAL UNIT TREATMENT % UNIT VEGETATION TYPE ACRES ACREAGE ACRES TREATED White Fir 60 0 0 Whitebark/Limber Pine 101 0 0 Total treatment ac 929 Mountain Big Sage 1024 512 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 1142 457 40 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 365 292 80 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 878 702 80 Aspen 146 88 60 14 4807 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 524 52 10 Low Sage 196 0 0 White Fir 198 119 60 Mixed Sage/Bitterbrush 42 0 0 Riparian Aspen 27 14 50 Total treatment ac 2236 Mountain Big Sage 531 212 40 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 1052 316 30 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 974 487 50 15 4671 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 4596 1379 30 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 167 50 30 Low Sage 110 0 0 White Fir 43 0 0 Total treatment ac 2444 Mountain Big Sage 922 461 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 169 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 236 47 20 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 512 102 20 16 2532 Aspen 15 0 0 Mixed Sage/Bitterbrush 15 0 0 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 260 26 10 Low Sage 215 20 0 White Fir 102 20 20 Total treatment ac 676 Mountain Big Sage 854 427 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 1258 377 30 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 857 429 50 17 6703 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 2167 1084 50 Aspen 20 0 0 Mixed Sage/Bitterbrush 26 0 0 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 541 0 0

Page 148 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

TOTAL UNIT TREATMENT % UNIT VEGETATION TYPE ACRES ACREAGE ACRES TREATED Low Sage 373 0 0 White Fir 359 0 0 Whitebark/Limber Pine 91 0 0 Total treatment ac 2317 Mountain Big Sage 39 20 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 7 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 265 80 30 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 164 49 30 18 1113 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 150 0 0 Low Sage 23 0 0 White Fir 357 36 10 Whitebark/Limber Pine 41 0 0 Total treatment ac 185 Mountain Big Sage 1848 924 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 537 107 20 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 591 591 100 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 2537 1268 50 Aspen 33 0 0 19 9044 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 1054 211 20 Low Sage 1366 0 0 White Fir 570 0 0 Whitebark/Limber Pine 44 0 0 Wyoming Sage 309 0 0 Total treatment ac 3101 Mountain Big Sage 157 79 50 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 891 267 30 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 242 121 50 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 1296 778 60 20 3072 Aspen 21 0 0 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 228 68 30 Low Sage 93 0 0 White Fir 56 0 0 Total treatment ac 1313 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 36 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 148 118 80 21 405 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 205 164 80 Wyoming Sage 16 0 0 Total treatment ac 282 22 3455 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 170 17 10

Page 149 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

TOTAL UNIT TREATMENT % UNIT VEGETATION TYPE ACRES ACREAGE ACRES TREATED Low Sage 4 0 0 Mountain Big Sage 19 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - High Canopy 393 0 0 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 1783 535 30 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 915 275 30 White Fir 38 0 0 Wyoming Sage 51 0 0 Total treatment ac 827 Aspen 26 0 0 Curleaf Mountain Mahogany 480 96 20 Low Sage 86 0 0 Mountain Big Sage 283 141 50 23 1426 Pinyon/Juniper - Low Canopy 38 38 100 Pinyon/Juniper - Medium Canopy 8 8 100 White Fir 373 0 0 Whitebark/Limber Pine 31 0 0 Wyoming Sage 61 0 0 Total treatment ac 283

Total acres of treatment 24361

Page 150 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX B: VEGETATION MAP

Page 151 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Page 152 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX C: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AREA

Page 153 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX D: ROADLESS AREAS

Page 154 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX E: LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS

Page 155 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX F: SOIL GUIDELINES

Soil Protection Measures To control the surface erosion, Region 4 Soil Quality Analysis Standards (Intermountain Region, 2003) recommend the minimum effective ground cover, following the cessation of disturbance in an activity area, should be sufficient to prevent detrimental erosion. Conduct ground based harvest operations only when the upper 8” of the soil is essentially dry, or the ground is frozen to a depth of 5”, or snow depth is at least 18” or is compacted by equipment to 8”. For this measure, soil is defined as “dry” when no portion of the top 8” can be molded by hand compression and hold that shape when the hand is tapped. Restrict skidding equipment to designated skid trails, unless, through consultation with the District’s physical scientist, it is determined that departure from skid trails would not likely impair the soil. Generally use skid trail spacing averaging 120’, center to center, when trails are parallel and generally perpendicular to the stream. Reusing existing skid trails, with spacing closer than prescribed, is acceptable. Areas with compacted soil will be subsoiled using a subsoiling/slash placement implement mounted on an excavator, displaced soil will be leveled, and slash scattered. Where specified by the District’s physical scientist, subsoil skid trails, landings, and non-system roads within the project area through the full depth of compaction to restore soil porosity. Selected landings and terminating skid trails would be subsoiled with a winged subsoiler or other equipment capable of lifting and fracturing compacted soil without mixing the soil horizons to a depth of at least 24”. Constructed skid trails would be subsoiled to a minimum depth of 24“, water-barred, and blocked. All primary skid trails, experiencing three or more passes with equipment, would be subsoiled with a winged subsoiler to a minimum depth of 20”. The subsoiler would be lifted where substantial root and bole damage to larger trees would occur from subsoiling. Skids with slope over 25% may not be subsoiled, but would be frequently waterbarred. Areas within 50’ of ephemeral draws, swales, connected drainages, and meadow edges would not be subsoiled. Subsoiling would not occur on shallow soils where the displacement of rocks disrupts soil horizons or where there are concerns about the spread of root disease, or damage to tree roots. Block vehicle access to temporary roads and install water-bars prior to subsoiling them. Allow low ground pressure (under 8.0 psi) equipment to travel off of designated skid trails to bring logs to trails. Allow low ground pressure (under 8.0 psi) excavators to work on slopes up to 45% to pile excess fuels.

Soil Quality Standards 1. Soil Quality Standard. Soil resource management must be consistent with the Forest Service goal of maintaining or improving long-term soil productivity (NFMA) and soil hydrologic function. 2. Soil Quality Guidelines. Soil quality guidelines provide for the maintenance of soil properties that affect soil productivity and hydrologic function. Management activities can damage soils by compaction, puddling, displacement, severe burning, organic matter loss, accelerated surface

Page 156 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

erosion, or mass movement. Soil damage is detrimental when it adversely affects hydrologic function or results in long-term site productivity losses. Soil Quality Guidelines set the limits of disturbance, or thresholds, beyond which there will be long-term losses in inherent soil productivity or hydrologic function. Detectable losses of soil productivity and soil hydrologic function will occur if disturbances exceed the guidelines. The guidelines represent the upper limit of allowable disturbances. The management goal should be to cause as little disturbance as possible. The effects of management practices on compaction, puddling, organic matter loss, erosion, and displacement may be cumulative over time. Existing, predicted, and cumulative levels of soil disturbance are used together to determine that guidelines are being met. Guidelines are assessed by Activity Area, which is specifically described for each management activity. Soil properties that are easy to quantify may be used as surrogates to determine effects on soil fertility and structure. These properties include organic matter (both within and on the soil), soil porosity, and soil strength. These soil properties are maintained by the application of guidelines for soil displacement, soil compaction, soil puddling, severely burned soils, ground cover, and aboveground organic matter. Ground cover is a guideline because it protects soil from accelerated erosion. Displacement of humus-rich surface soil is a substitute for soil organic matter content. The guidelines used as indicators of soil quality and as measures of conformance to soil quality standards are given below. a. Detrimental Soil Disturbance. No more than 15 percent of an activity area should have detrimentally disturbed soil after the completion of all management activities. In other words, at least 85 percent of an activity area should be in a non-detrimentally disturbed condition. Some examples of management options limiting the effects of soil disturbance and mitigation measures are listed in exhibit 03. (1) Detrimental Soil Displacement. Detrimental soil displacement includes areas where 1 meter by 1 meter or larger exhibits detrimentally displaced soil as described below: (a) The loss of either 5 cm or ½ of humus enriched top soil (A horizon), whichever is less, or (b) The exceeding of the soil loss tolerance value for the specific soil type. (2) Detrimental Soil Compaction. Soil Compaction is generally evaluated from 5 to 30centimeters below the mineral soil surface. Specific depths for measurement are dependent upon soil type and management activities. Detrimental Soil Compaction is increased soil density (weight per unit volume) and strength that restricts root growth, reduces soil aeration and inhibits water movement. Measurements of potential detrimental soil compaction may be qualitative or quantitative. The following table provides a set of indicators that can be used to measure detrimental compaction. The methods to measure the indicator, measurement standard, and reliability of the indicator are included in the table below. Any of the indicators in Table Compaction 1 or other appropriate indicators identified for the activity area may be used to determine detrimental soil compaction. Document reasons for selecting an indicator(s) for measuring detrimental soil compaction.

Page 157 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 21. Indicators and Methods for Measuring Detrimental Soil Compaction

Indicator Measure Measurement Standard Reliability Soil Calibrated ocular Evidence of change to platy Moderate – can be described but structure examination of structure or lack of structure not quantified - observations change soil layers (massive) from granular, should be calibrated with bulk blocky or sub-angular blocky density readings structure Soil strength Calibrated shovel Shovel penetration is difficult Moderate – difficult to quantify penetration relative to pre-disturbance except indirectly by calibration resistance levels with bulk density and or penetrometer readings; can be combined easily with ocular exam for induced platy structure Soil strength Calibrated A reading increase over pre- High – consistent quantitative penetrometer disturbance levels that measurements in relatively rock readings correlates to the measurement free soils standards for soil structure change, shovel penetration resistance and or bulk density increase. This value must be adjusted for soil moisture conditions at the time of sampling. Bulk density Soil samples and Significant change in the High – consistent quantitative lab analysis– distribution of Bulk Density of measurements; can also be sampling methods the activity area soils from correlated with soil strength vary by soil undisturbed or similar characteristics undisturbed soil types. Bulk density Soil samples – Threshold values by soil High – consistent quantitative sampling methods texture are used to determine measurements; can also be vary by soil Detrimental soil disturbance. correlated with soil strength characteristics Threshold values are those where significant root limiting, and infiltration reduction conditions exists. Threshold values are shown in Table Compaction 2

Page 158 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 22. Threshold Bulk Density Values by Texture (USDA NRCS, Soil Quality Information, Compaction 1996) Threshold Root Restricting Soil Texture Bulk Density (g/cc) Coarse, medium, and fine sand and loamy sands other than loamy 1.80 very fine sand Very fine sand, loamy very fine sand 1.77 Sandy loams 1.75 Loam, sandy clay loam 1.70 Clay loam 1.65 Sandy clay 1.60 Silt, silt loam 1.55 Silty clay loam 1.50 Silty clay 1.45 Clay 1.40

(3) Detrimental Soil Puddling. Detrimental Puddling is generally evaluated at the mineral soil surface. Visual indicators of detrimental puddling include clearly identifiable ruts with berms in mineral soil, or in an Oa horizon of an organic soil. Detrimental puddling may occur in conjunction with detrimental compaction. The guidelines for soil compaction (item (2) above) are to be used when this occurs. Detrimentally puddled soils are not always detrimentally compacted. Infiltration and permeability are affected by detrimental soil puddling. Puddling can also alter local groundwater hydrology and wetland function, and provide conduits for runoff. Forests are encouraged to develop infiltration and/or permeability guidelines that relate to detrimental puddling. (4) Severely Burned Soil (sec. 2.05). The severely burned soil guideline applies to prescribed fire and natural fires that are managed for resource benefits. Severely burned soils are identified by ratings of fire severity and the effects to the soil. A severely burned soil is generally soil that is within a High Fire Severity burn as defined by the Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Program (FSH 2509.13) and Debano et. Al. 1998. Develop a high fire severity rating for each fire activity area as local soils and vegetation types respond differently to the effects of fire. An example of a high fire severity rating is provided as exhibit 04. Soil humus losses, structural changes, hydrophobic characteristics and sterilization are potential effects of severely burned soil. b. Effective Ground Cover. The minimum effective ground cover, following the cessation of disturbance in an activity area, should be sufficient to prevent detrimental erosion. Detrimental erosion includes erosion rates that cause long-term productivity losses from an activity area or soil losses that are beyond those acceptable for the activity area. Minimum amounts of ground cover necessary to protect a soil from erosion are a function of soil properties, slope gradient and length, and erosivity (precipitation factor) and must be determined locally. Rock fragments, litter, and canopy might be treated independently, depending on the model utilized to estimate erosion hazard ratings. All Forests and Grasslands should establish local minimum effective ground cover guidelines to assure that detrimental erosion will not occur.

Page 159 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

c. Above-ground Organic Matter. Some litter or large woody debris may be required to retain nutrients and microorganisms necessary to supply and cycle nutrients needed to maintain site productivity on forest and rangelands. The aboveground organic matter also provides for on-site moisture retention. (1) Litter. Forests and Grasslands must develop local guidelines for litter retention based on factors such as soil and vegetation types. (2) Coarse Woody Debris. The minimum amount of large woody debris required to maintain nutrient and moisture supplies adequate to sustain site productivity varies by ecological type. Coarse Woody Debris guidelines apply to ecological types that are capable of producing forested and woodland ecosystems. Guidelines for these minimum amounts are ascertained through research studies or developed by forests based upon local factors such as soil potential and vegetation types. Studies that are available to assist in determining minimum amount of Coarse Woody Debris include A.E. Harvey et al. 1987 and Russ Graham 1994. 3. Application of Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines. Use soil quality standards and guidelines during project planning to guide the selection and design of management activities. Plans for project activities in areas that have already been impacted by previous management should consider cumulative effects to anticipate soil damage. Plans for projects where activities are expected to cause damages that do not meet soil quality standards or guidelines must include provisions for mitigation of the damage.

Table 23: Options for Meeting Soil Quality Standards

Soil Property or Avoid or Reduce Effects Mitigate Effects Condition Soil Limit ground operations, Redistribute humus- Displacement Use aerial equipment, enriched soil Restrict type of equipment, Train equipment operators Soil Compaction Operate over deep snow or frozen ground, Avoid Subsoiling through operations on wet soils near field capacity, depth of compaction Operate over slash, Limit amount of traffic off of dedicated roads and trails, Restrict size and type of equipment, Restrict vehicle traffic to dedicated roads and trails, Use aerial equipment

Soil Puddling Avoid operations on soils Surface tillage with moisture above field capacity Ground Cover Limit cover removal Redistribute cover Mulch Plant Seed Above-ground Limit organic matter removal, Redistribute organic Organic Matter Retain large woody debris Import coarse woody matter debris Mulch

Page 160 of 161 North Schell Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX G: TREATMENT UNITS

Page 161 of 161