Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger District Combined

Home , Clover Valley (Nevada), Copper Basin (Nevada), East Humboldt Range, Independence Mountains, Jarbidge Mountains, Jarbidge Wilderness

Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1. Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, cultural, social, and economic environments that are affected by the alternatives and the effects on that environment that would result from implementation of any of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives presented in chapter 2. 3.1.1. Analysis Process Most of the data used in the following analysis are from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest corporate GIS layers. There is a certain amount of error in the location and alignments included in this GIS data. For example, the road layer overlying the stream layer may show more stream crossings than actually exist on the ground because of the various sources from which the different layers were obtained. Some perennial streams may show up on the map as being intermittent. This may also create some inaccuracies as to the exact location and extent of riparian zones. The Forest is constantly working to improve map accuracies and the corporate GIS layers. For the purposes of this analysis, the best available data was used. The data in the tables below and in the project record depict with a reasonable amount of accuracy what would be occurring on the ground for each alternative, within the limitations described above. The changes between alternatives remain relative to each other. 3.1.2. Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis area is described under each resource, but in most cases includes the entire area of the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts including private and other public lands that lie within the district boundaries. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the Affected Environment (existing condition) and Environmental Consequences section under each resource. The CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

37 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.1.3. Recent, Current, and Planned Activities to be Considered for the Cumulative Effects Analysis To avoid repetition in individual resource discussions, potential projects or activities considered for the cumulative effects analysis are detailed here and referenced, as appropriate, in the individual resource effects analysis. Road Maintenance: Every year roads on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are selected and maintained based on concern for public safety, environmental impacts, and volume of use. Forest-wide, about 75 percent of current National Forest System (NFS) roads are level 2 roads, which means they are suitable for high-clearance vehicles. While road maintenance budgets vary yearly, the 2009 targets for the Forest are illustrative. In 2009, the Forest planned for 10 miles of road decommissioning; 4 miles of improvements and 83 miles of maintenance for level 2 maintenance roads; and 4 miles of improvement and 496 miles of maintenance for higher maintenance level roads (passenger vehicles). The Forest has substantially more high-clearance vehicle roads than roads designed for passenger vehicles. The Forest has no plans at this time to change the overall character of the existing road system, which is a low-density system of mostly more primitive, lower maintenance level roads. The Forest concentrates both maintenance and improvements on the small majority of higher maintenance level, passenger vehicle roads. All roads are evaluated to ensure they are not causing unacceptable environmental effects. Problem areas are prioritized and best management practices are implemented to prevent or minimize adverse road-related resource impacts. Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing is an ongoing activity across the three ranger districts. Permittees manage livestock within the limits of the term grazing permits and allotment management plans. Permittees may travel on NFS roads and cross-country to meet their obligations under the permits. These actions are expected to continue. Mineral Exploration, Mining, and Reclamation: The majority of locatable mineral exploration and development is expected on the Mountain City Ranger District with limited activity on the Jarbidge and Ruby Mountains Ranger Districts. Mining, exploration, and reclamation operations are expected to continue at the Jerritt Canyon Mine. Exploration activities are expected at other smaller properties on the three districts. Reclamation activities are ongoing at the Big Springs Mine and Wood Gulch Mine on the Mountain City Ranger District. During an average year there may be up to six small exploration projects ongoing or in reclamation. Temporary roads may be constructed as a part of exploration and mining operations. Fuels Projects/Wildfire: Three fuels reduction projects have been proposed for the districts: North Fork on the Mountain City Ranger District, and Warm Springs and Overland on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Wildfire can and has occurred on these districts. The effects of fire are dependent on many factors including fuel type and continuity, topography, fuel moisture, temperature, humidity, and wind speed/direction. Roads and trails, as well as natural fuel breaks, are at times used to control fire spread if they are strategic to the suppression effort. Roads can also exacerbate wildfire occurrence and behavior due to the vegetation type conversions they contribute to with the introduction and spread of certain weed species. 3.1.4. Key Features of the Alternatives The system used to determine road and trail miles is based on geographic information system (GIS) data. To provide a realistic expression of the transportation system, without overstating its precision, acreages and miles have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Conversely, some of the resource analyses expressed mileages to a tenth of a mile. These numbers are rounded to

38 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement the nearest mile, unless detailed figures better display comparison among the alternatives. For example, road densities are displayed as calculated. 3.1.5. Overall Approach to Effects Analysis The following analysis framework is established for this project. • While roads do cause effects to the environment, this travel management project does not propose any new road construction, but rather analyzes alternatives to adding existing unauthorized roads and trails to the current forest transportation system (FTS). • This analysis will not compare the action alternatives to a pristine, untouched environment but rather to Alternative 1 (No Action), which includes the existing NFS roads, unauthorized roads and trails, and the cross-country motorized travel currently allowed on much of the project area. • The effects of the proposed action and alternatives presented in this chapter will include discussion of the overall effects of the 969 miles of unauthorized roads and trails proposed for addition to the FTS. These roads and motorized trails already exist on the ground, but are not currently part of the FTS; no previous environmental analysis been completed on these routes. • This analysis will also discuss social, economic, and environmental effects of some specific roads and motorized trails. Specific roads and motorized trails that may cause effects are discussed individually so the public and the Forest Service can consider any trade-offs associated with the addition of these routes. 3.1.6. General Assumptions for Resource Effects Analyses Regardless of the alternative selected (excluding no action), violations involving travel off designated roads and motorized trails will most likely occur during the first few years. The number of violations should decline as users understand and comply with the restrictions. Publication of the motor vehicle use maps, combined with signage, user education programs, and enforcement will reduce the number of violations. The analysis of effects includes all NFS roads and trails and all unauthorized routes on NFS lands regardless of access. This would allow decisions to be made regarding designation of these roads and trails as access becomes available. Cross-Country Travel: Some areas on the districts have a history of repeated cross-country travel due to terrain and lack of natural barriers. Implementation of additional mitigation measures, such as education, enforcement, and engineering efforts should reduce cross-country travel in these areas. It is assumed that unauthorized roads and trails not designated for use would naturally de-compact and revegetate over time. The degree to which this would happen will depend on the soil and vegetation types and other site-specific conditions. Overtime the overall condition of wildlife habitat, watersheds, sensitive plant habitats, sediment delivery, or vegetation would improve. Attempting to quantify effects associated with potential future cross-country travel is speculative at best because it is impossible to predict exactly where, when, or how such use would occur except as expressed in generalities. For example, a statement such as “off-road use is more likely to occur in flatter, less vegetated areas than in steeper, heavily vegetated areas” is intuitively true, but is still not especially helpful in predicting the exact location and timing of off-road use. It is understood that under Alternative 1 some areas are more and some are less vulnerable to cross-country travel due to terrain, vegetation, and other factors.

39 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives that allow cross-country motorized travel, and the Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR) option would likely lead to development of more motorized trails. The magnitude of the expansion of motorized trails is dependent on the size of the area where cross-country use is allowed and any expansion would likely occur over time. How, where, and when expansion might occur is not predictable in most situations. Miles of motorized trails by alternative and acres available for cross-country travel are displayed in table 12.

Table 12. Miles of Roads and Motorized Trails by Alternative and Acres Available for Cross-country Travel Total NFS and Unauthorized Unauthorized Motorized NFS Roads and Roads and Roads and Cross- Alternative Motorized Motorized Trails Motorized Trails countryTravel Trails1 (miles) Available for Available for Public (acres) Public Use (miles) Use (miles) Alt. 1: No Action 1,020 1,151 2,171 960,000 674,357 Alt. 2: Proposed Action 1,073 969 2,042 MGBR* Alt. 3: Current System 1,021 0 1,021 0 629,782 Alt. 4: Visitor Map 331 1,236 1,567 MBGR Alt. 5: Reduced Resource 1,015 465 1,480 0 Impacts *Motorized Big Game Retrieval Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR) Option: Between the DEIS and FEIS a MBGR option was added to the analysis to address public comments regarding such an option. This option is being applied to the Alternative 2. Resource specialists will analyze Alternative 2 as if there was no MBGR aspect. Then they will describe how those effects would change if MBGR was authorized at three levels. These include MBGR for mule deer and elk, (average 1,180 trips annually), mule deer only (average 1,040 trips annually), and elk only (average 140 trips annually). By following this method, the deciding officials could determine whether to select an alternative with or without MBGR and still have an understanding of the potential effects of that decision. The MBGR option is described in chapter 2. According to NDOW records, approximately 1,840 mule deer and elk are harvested annually from the hunting units which include NFS lands. Using past hunting history regarding the number of hunting permits requested/issued and successfully filled, the district determined that, on average, approximately 1,180 hunters may use an ATV or UTV to retrieve legally taken mule deer or elk while hunting on NFS lands. This estimate is based on the assumptions that approximately 80 percent of the average number of successful hunters who have access to an ATV/UTV will opt for the use of that vehicle to retrieve their animal. Where it is appropriate in the analysis, the resource specialists will use the estimate of trips as described above. Where the number of trips does not matter but an estimate of the area that could be potentially affected by MBGR is the issue, the interdisciplinary team used GIS to determine the number of acres within 0.50 mile of either side of a designated road or trail by alternative. Table 13 displays the number of acres within 0.5 mile by district and by alternative.

1. Within the FTS mileage, 32 miles are closed and have been for several years.

40 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 13. Number of Acres Available for MBGR by District and Alternative (excluding acres within the 0.50 mile buffer that fall within designated wilderness areas). Ruby Alternative Mountain City Jarbidge Total Mountains Alt. 1: No Action (No 0.5 mile buffer) 510,337 309,222 140,581 960,140 Alt. 2: Proposed Action 368,667 187,979 117,712 674,357 Alt. 3: Current System 0 0 0 0 Alt. 4: Visitor Map 350,515 171,807 107,460 629,782 Alt. 5: Reduced Resource Impacts 0 0 0 0 Acres Available on Districts Outside 510,337 309,222 140,581 960,140 Wilderness Parking and Dispersed Recreation Sites: The use of dispersed recreation sites located along designated roads or motorized trails or at the termination of a designated road or motorized trail is considered to be part of the reasonable use of that route. Analysis of the effects of the alternative includes the continued use of the roads and motorized trails and the associated uses of parking areas and dispersed sites associated with the route. 3.1.7. Resource Analysis Each resource specialist assessed every unauthorized route proposed for addition to the FTS in the proposed action at a level sufficient to support their effects analysis and identify any necessary site-specific mitigation. Most resource sections in this chapter provide a summary of the project-specific reports, assessments, and other documents prepared by Forest Service resource specialists. These reports are part of the project record on file at the Mountain City Ranger District office in Elko, Nevada, and are available on request. The following reports, assessments, and other documents are incorporated by reference: • Recreation: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Analysis • Roadless and Special Areas: Inventoried Roadless Areas Report • Transportation: Transportation Analysis Process, Humboldt Toiyabe Roads Analysis Report (RAP) • Water and Soil: Water and Soil Resources Specialist Report • Wildlife: Wildlife Specialist Report, Fisheries Specialist Report • Cultural: Cultural Resource Management Report • Vegetation: Botany Specialist Report, Weeds Specialist Report • Minerals: Minerals Specialist Report 3.1.8. Information on Other Resource Issues The alternatives considered in detail do not affect the following resources. A brief summary on why they are not discussed further in chapter 3 is provided based on input received during scoping. Mineral Exploration, Mining, and Reclamation: The alternatives considered in detail do not affect mineral exploration, mining, and reclamation since reasonable access is a right under the mining laws. The prohibitions in 36 CFR 261.13 and the designations for motor vehicle use shown on the motor vehicle use map do not preclude use of motorized vehicles where reasonable

41 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and necessary to conduct mineral exploration or operations pursuant to regulations at (36 CFR 228). If the proposed motorized use is likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the operator would be required to file a locatable mineral plan of operations with the district ranger pursuant to 36 CFR 228.4. Predator and Pest Control: The alternatives considered in detail do not affect the ability of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, NDOW, the Forest Service, or others to carry out inspection and control of predators or pests on NFS lands. These activities are generally conducted in coordination with federal or state agencies, and travel on NFS roads or trails or cross-country could be authorized following the exemptions found at 36 CFR 212.51. The decision resulting from this analysis would not affect the ability of responsible agencies to control predators or treat pests. Private Property: For the purpose of estimating environmental effects, this analysis assumes that private roads would not be available for public motorized use. The alternatives considered in detail do not affect private roads or use on private property. Range: The alternatives considered in detail do not affect grazing permittees since the proposed prohibitions and restrictions include exceptions as allowed by permit or other authorization. The rare plant, soils, water, and wildlife sections disclose any localized effects on specific vegetation components of the range resource. Research Natural Areas: There are four research natural areas (RNAs) on the Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. These include Hole in the Mountain, Pearl Peak, and Seitz Canyon RNAs on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District and the Fall Creek RNA on the Jarbidge Ranger District. There are no NFS roads or unauthorized roads and trails within the boundaries of these RNAs and the proposed action or alternatives would have no effect on the management or condition of these areas. Wilderness: The Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts manage the East Humboldt, Ruby Mountain, and Jarbidge Wilderness areas. All actions proposed comply with wilderness designations, the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989. The alternatives considered in detail do not affect wilderness areas where motorized activity is prohibited under all alternatives per the Wilderness Act. 3.2. Recreation

3.2.1. Introduction This travel management project proposes to designate NFS roads and NFS trails for motor vehicle use to meet recreation, access, and management objectives, while limiting environmental effects and ensuring a sustainable transportation system across the districts. 3.2.1.1. Analysis Methodology Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is used to evaluate potential recreation opportunities based on biological, physical, social, and managerial considerations (Stankey et al. 1986). It is used by the Forest Service to classify settings and types of recreation opportunity. There are six classes of ROS: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), rural, and urban. For the project, ROS was determined using a set of criteria that uses the distance from roads or motorized trails and development to help determine the type of recreation opportunity that could be expect in any given location across the project area.

42 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Semi-primitive motorized areas are those areas between SPNM and RN ROS that are some distance from road or motorized trail but where a vehicle traveling on nearby roads and motorized trails can be seen and heard. Roaded natural is a buffered area along all roads and motorized trails where the road density is such that within a certain distance of traveling off a road another road would be encountered. The road and motorized trail buffers in these areas overlap and create a contiguous area where the sights and sounds of motor vehicles can be predominant. Semi-primitive Non-motorized ROS: Semi-primitive non-motorized ROS will form a key part of this analysis as it corresponds to areas where there are no NFS roads or NFS trails, no unauthorized routes, and non-motorized recreation is predominant. These areas provide visitors with a high probability of getting away from the sights and sounds of other people, an opportunity to be independent, and a chance to enjoy nature and practice outdoor skills. These areas are typically 0.5 to 3 miles away from motorized roads or trails. Semi-primitive Motorized ROS: Semi-primitive motorized ROS will form another key part of this analysis as it corresponds to areas where there are existing roads and motorized trails and recreation dependent on motorized use occurs with some regularity. This ROS setting still provides some opportunities for solitude but a visitor is more likely to encounter the sights and sounds of others, including some motorized vehicles. 3.2.1.2. Effects Indicators The environmental effects to recreation are evaluated by: • Miles of NFS and unauthorized roads and trails available for motorized travel. • Changes in ROS class. 3.2.2. Affected Environment Ruby Mountains Ranger District Ruby Mountains: The steep and rugged Ruby Mountains, southwest of the East Humboldt Mountains, contain a variety of wildlife including mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, and the exotic Himalayan snowcock. High in the Rubies one may find ancient, gnarled bristlecone pines, with the northern end of the mountains vigorously scoured by alpine glaciers. Ruby Dome, the highest peak in the Rubies, rises to an elevation of 11,387 feet. Lamoille Canyon, in the heart of the Rubies, is known as “Nevada’s Yosemite” because of the hanging valleys, towering peaks, and year-round snowfields above it. Thomas Canyon Campground is located in Lamoille Canyon, as are Powerhouse, Terraces, and Road’s End day use/picnic areas, all places to enjoy the spectacular scenery. The Road’s End area is the northern starting point for the popular Ruby Crest National Recreation Trail. There are races up Lamoille Canyon every year for cyclists and runners who like a physical challenge. In the winter, nordic and alpine skiers, ice climbers, and snowmobilers travel the road and side canyons. In the summer, backpackers, hikers, rock climbers, cyclists, campers, and other recreationists stop at many beautiful trails and lookouts along the 12 mile paved road that winds up the canyon. Travelling south along the east and west sides of the Rubies there are trailheads, amazing views, the South Ruby Campground (as well as many dispersed campsites), and the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. There is also a helicopter skiing operation in the Rubies for those who wish to access the high mountain powder. East Humboldt Mountains: The East Humboldt Mountains are part of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Angel Lake is the only lake in the area accessible by paved road. There is a day use area with vault toilets, and picnic sites. Many people fish from the shoreline while others

43 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement swim or paddle the lake in small, non-motorized boats, float tubes, and kayaks. The 26 site paved campground has drinking water and vault toilets. At 11,127 feet, the Hole in the Mountain can be seen from the valley, while Hole in the Mountain Peak rises to 11,306 feet. The ridge where these landmarks are found is accessible to experienced hikers through Lizzie’s Basin, a steep hike through rugged terrain. Several trails access the Boulders (accessible from Secret Pass) for those hoping to have a more remote and adventurous backpacking or horse packing experience. Every September, walkers, runners, and mountain and road bikers are tested on the 13-mile hill climb to Angel Lake during the Race to the Angel. Several outfitters offer guide services on the district, and many people hunt for a variety of game such as mule deer, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats. Jarbidge Ranger District: The Jarbidge Ranger District is a unique, remote, and spectacular destination for visitors who enjoy a variety of scenery from high mountain peaks (10,000 feet) to conifer forests to rolling wildflower and sagebrush foothills. The district is dominated by the nearly 110,000 acre Jarbidge Wilderness, which provides a true wilderness experience to those seeking solitude. There are many trails suitable for horseback riding and hiking. Some may choose to do day trips from areas such as Slide Creek, a small, no fee campground with vault toilets, tables, and fire rings at the Slide Creek trailhead. Others may wish to enter the wilderness from the more remote Mary’s River area where there are trails for hikers and equestrians. Across the Jarbidge Ranger District, many roads and trails are accessible to motorized vehicles for traveling outside the wilderness. Wildlife is abundant across the Jarbidge Ranger District including sage grouse, elk, deer, and many species of smaller migratory birds. Many visitors travel to the Jarbidge area to visit the town of Jarbidge, a historic mining town that is also an entrance point to the wilderness at the Pine Creek trailhead. The Pine Creek Campground is south of town and at the Sawmill Campground, horses are welcome. Photographers enjoy July wildflowers at Bear Creek and Coon Creek Summits. Mountain City Ranger District: The Mountain City Ranger District encompasses approximately 500,000 acres in northeastern Nevada. The northern edge of the district borders Idaho and the rest of the district is surrounded by private, state, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in Nevada. Vegetation communities include sagebrush, aspen, mountain mahogany, and conifers at higher altitudes. Elevations range from 5,000 feet in the Bruneau River Canyon to 9,110 feet at the top of Pennsylvania Hill, where alpine vegetation and terrain are found. There are many recreational opportunities in this area, including the 45-mile all-terrain (ATV) trail initiated and maintained by members of Elko County communities. There are several campgrounds including Big Bend, Wildhorse Crossing, and Jack Creek, as well as many dispersed campsites that accommodate tents or small camp trailers. The Owyhee River flows through the middle of the district and is popular with anglers. Many hunters enjoy the fall and early winter season due to antelope, mule deer, and elk populations on the district. Mountain bikers find that many roads are excellent for riding. While there are few maintained trails specifically for hiking or horses, there are endless possibilities for those who wish to explore places like the Independence Range, Merritt Mountain, Skyline Ridge, or Sunflower Flat. Similar to the Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts, the Mountain City District is rich with Native American, mining, and ranching history. Photographers enjoy stunning wildflower displays at Copper Basin, Sunflower Flat, and secluded high mountain meadows across the district. Many aspen groves provide shade for a picnic stop next to a quiet back road or high up on a mountainside.

44 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visitor Use: The population of Nevada is expected to increase by almost 900,000 people from 2008 to 2021 (Nevada State Demographer 2008). An increase in the population of the northeastern Nevada counties is also expected to increase as shown in table 14.

Table 14. Population by State and County. Year Elko County White Pine County State Of Nevada 2000 (actual) 45,219 9,181 1,998,257 2008 (actual) 50,561 9,694 2,789,884 2021 (projection) 57,918 11,100 3,675,890 Along with the national, state, and regional population growth, there continues to be an increasing demand for outdoor recreation. Recent studies have shown that interest in both motorized and non-motorized recreational activities on public lands in the West continue to increase. One such study, the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, documented participation in several nature-based activities across the state of Nevada. Table 15 displays the top ten most popular nature-based activities. While the study did not identify where the activities took place, the assumption can be made, with the exception of a visit to a farm or agricultural setting, many trips took place on NFS lands across the state.

Table 15. Number of Participants by Activity in 2009 Activity Number of Participants Day hiking 830,000 Visiting a wilderness or primitive area 810,000 Developed camping 633,000 Driving off-road 513,000 Visit a farm or agricultural setting 507,000 Primitive camping 479,000 Mountain biking 339,000 Backpacking 277,000 Mountain climbing 255,000 Hunting (any type) 164,000 The Forest Service conducts visitor use monitoring on national forests across the nation under the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program. This program provides reliable information about visitors to the national forests. On the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, this monitoring was last conducted in fiscal year 2006. In 2006, it was estimated that approximately 1.6 million visits were made to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and of these visits, approximately 745,000 were for recreational purposes. Table 16 lists participation in motorized and non-motorized activities. The visits by activity indicate the most popular non-motorized use is hiking/walking, while the most popular motorized use is OHV activities. While this information is for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest as a whole, it can be assumed that the overall trends are also representative of the activities that occur within the project area. The NVUM survey also collected data on how far visitors travel to reach the Forest. Approximately 75 percent of visitors were local residents who traveled less than 50 miles to visit the Forest. Approximately 5 percent of visitors traveled between 51 and 100 miles. The remaining 20 percent traveled more than 100 miles to visit the Forest. Information gathered from public meetings, contacts, and observation suggests that residents of surrounding communities including Carlin, Elko, Jackpot, Wells, and Wendover make up a large portion of visitors to the three districts. Within the region, the Forest also receives visitors from surrounding cities

45 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement including Boise, Las Vegas, Reno, Salt Lake City, and Twin Falls who come to enjoy a less restricted recreation experience.

Table 16. Number of Visits by Activity

Use (National Forest Visits2) Activity Non-local Day Non-local Local Day Local Use Overnight Use Overnight Non-Primary Non-Motorized Backpacking 0 3,094 0 4,735 315 Bicycling 1,322 2,564 12,143 946 771 Hiking/Walking 19,011 36,885 174,661 13,610 11,090 Horseback Riding 1,424 2,764 13,086 1,020 831 Other Non-motorized 507 983 4,657 363 296 Non-Motorized Total 22,264 46,290 204,547 20,674 13,303 Motorized Driving for Pleasure 1,126 1,364 15,545 537 1,806 Off-highway Vehicle Use 3,352 5,888 15,360 4,480 985 Other Motorized Activity 838 1,472 3,840 1,120 246 Motorized Total 5,316 8,724 34,745 6,137 3,037 Motorized Recreation: Currently motorized recreation is dispersed across the districts and on neighboring lands. This use is not concentrated except in a few heavily used dispersed camping areas such as Harrison Pass and the surrounding terrain near Jarbidge. Approximately 2,171 miles of existing roads and motorized trails (NFS and unauthorized) on the districts are available for motorized use. The Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts are currently open to motorized cross-country travel with exception of the wilderness areas and the Jarbidge municipal watershed. Of these routes, approximately 1,020 miles are NFS roads and trails and about 1,151 miles are unauthorized routes that vary in length and width. A typical road is a two-track approximately 6 8 feet in width with a strip of vegetation down the center. These roads and motorized trails lead to dispersed campsites, ridgelines, range improvements, and old mineral exploration and mining sites. From a recreation perspective, these two-track roads and motorized trails provide access for hunters, anglers, hikers, campers, or for exploring. Many of the routes currently available for motorized use provide quality recreation opportunities. However, some of these routes are redundant and do not provide additional recreation opportunities. Existing NFS roads and trails provide many quality loop opportunities of varying degrees of difficulty, and diverse opportunities for scenic four-wheel drive experiences. Many of the routes provide an exceptional experience for forest visitors because of the access they provide to remote areas and scenic vistas. Many spurs routes access dispersed campsites used by campers over the years. These sites are used as staging areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation as well as camping, picnicking, and other day use and overnight opportunities. Visitors use dispersed camping areas throughout the project area. Jarbidge Ranger District, Wildhorse Reservoir, the south end of the Ruby Mountains, and surrounding areas are heavily used for dispersed camping, primarily in the summer and fall. In the Wildhorse Reservoir area, this use is spread-out with minimal visual and resource impacts. In other areas, particularly the Jarbidge and Ruby Mountains, this use is often concentrated along primary NFS roads.

2 National Forest Visits - the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits.

46 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Developed campgrounds are generally full on weekends and holidays through the summer season, with sites available on weekdays and in the late spring and early fall periods. Motorized Recreation by Geographical Area: Copper Mountains, Hicks Mountain, McAfee, Pennsylvania Hill, Wildhorse: In the west portion of the districts, including the Independence and Bull Run Mountains, many motorized trails with varying degrees of difficulty are found. Most of these motorized trails provide a remote experience, with existing NFS roads providing abundant opportunities for remote loop trips. Unauthorized routes provide additional opportunities, although some of these routes are redundant, degrading the visual and scenic qualities of the non-motorized and motorized recreation experience. Most of the unauthorized routes were created by legal motorized cross- country travel for recreation purposes such as dispersed camping and hunting. Some of these motorized trails are remnants of past mining and ranching activities. A number of motorized trails are located in washes and may be contributing to erosion, resulting in some visual and resource impacts. Ruby Mountains: Motorized recreationists use many of the roads and motorized trails in the Ruby Mountains and often stage in dispersed camping areas. These routes provide scenic and primitive riding opportunities. Many of the motorized trails follow stream courses up mountain canyons, which dead-end at the wilderness boundary. Loop opportunities within the Ruby Mountains are practically non-existent because of private inholdings and the wilderness boundary that runs from north to south along this range. Cross-country travel is occurring on high ground that is visible from the valley floor causing some scarring of the landscape and degrading the scenic qualities of the area. Motorcycle Use: Motorcycles use many of the motorized trails in the project area, but no motorized single-track (motorcycle) trails have been designated within the project area. Motorcycle enthusiasts also use NFS roads and unauthorized routes in the project area. These routes are also used by equestrians, hikers, and mountain bikers. Non-motorized Recreation Wilderness: The East Humboldt, Jarbidge, and Ruby Mountains wilderness areas provide approximately 240,000 acres of scenic non-motorized recreation in semi-primitive and primitive settings (table 17). Lakes, streams, and trails in the wilderness areas receive heavy visitation in the summer. These areas provide unique scenic qualities including granite peaks and mountain lakes with a well-maintained trail system open to hikers and horses.

Table 17. Wilderness Areas on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Wilderness Area Acreage East Humboldt Wilderness 36,710 Ruby Mountains Wilderness 93,131 Jarbidge Wilderness 110,767 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized: The project area provides remote recreation opportunities in the roughly 499,434 acres of SPNM areas currently mapped across the districts. Cross-country travel and route proliferation is diminishing the SPNM recreation experience in some areas where motorized use is not restricted to designated roads such as the southern Ruby Mountains and portions of the Jarbidge Range. In these areas, motorized use has caused ruts and resource damage in many areas surrounding the wilderness. Some hiking and equestrian trails are located in these areas. These trails are increasingly being used by ATVs and motorcycles.

47 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Mountain Biking: Mountain biking opportunities exist on trails outside of the wilderness, although quality loop or single-track opportunities are limited. Mountain bikers use the same roads and trails as motorized users. Contact with these recreationists by district personnel indicate there are seldom conflicts between these user groups. 3.2.3. Environmental Consequences The quality of the non-motorized recreation experience is diminished with the increase of motorized cross-country travel and higher road densities. Gucinski and others (2001) observed that the presence of roads could have conflicting effects on recreation. While roads can provide staging areas to remote areas and wilderness, they can also diminish opportunities for solitude, primitive recreation, and perceptions of wilderness. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: In this analysis, the ROS criteria were applied to each of the alternatives and the acres available under each ROS category were calculated (table 18). Changes occur most dramatically in SPNM, SPM, and RN ROS. The inclusion or omission of a single road or motorized trail can result in several hundred or several thousand acres shifting from one ROS class to another. Looking at these changes across the alternatives allows a means of comparing the area available for both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Table 18 displays the potential change in acreage of the ROS classes based on the five alternatives.

Table 18. Modeled Change in ROS Class by Alternative (acres)

Alternative Primitive SPNM SPM RN Alternative 1: No Action 63,341 458,780 411,704 255,105 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 129,410 470,335 330,032 266,161 Alternative 2: Proposed Action with 96,405 24,390 817,369 256,843 MBGR Alternative 3: Current System 161,049 568,668 219,240 250,702 Alternative 4: Visitor Map Outside of the Hunting Season 132,729 510,001 303,333 252,519 During the Hunting Season 99,664 27,858 825,676 243,957 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts 148,010 524,935 263,997 261,438 3.2.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Motorized Recreation: Alternative 1 would allow for the most motorized recreation opportunities based on miles of open roads and motorized trails and continued cross-country travel outside of wilderness areas. Under this alternative, 2,171 miles of NFS roads and trails and unauthorized routes would remain open to motorized travel with 666,809 acres of the project area in SPM and RN ROS. This alternative would retain many loop opportunities on both NFS roads and trails and unauthorized routes throughout the area. The existing restriction of motorized travel within the Bear Creek municipal watershed would remain in effect in this alternative, limiting motorized traffic to NFS roads 58277 and 58748. All of the existing roads and motorized trails outside the wilderness areas would remain available for use. Motorized recreationists would be able to travel cross-country and visit other areas. In the short term, motorized exploration of more remote areas may offer a satisfying experience. However, over time the quality of this motorized experience would be diminished as cross- country motorized travel begins to degrade the scenery and natural appearance of the landscape.

48 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Potential impacts from cross-country motorized travel would include route proliferation; visible physical damage, such as erosion; hill climbs; and the associated sights, sounds, and impacts to other resources that may degrade the experience of exploring NFS lands. Non-Motorized Recreation: Alternative 1, which would allow many redundant routes to remain open and cross-country travel to continue, would likely lead to route proliferation into primitive and semi-primitive areas and impact non-motorized recreation opportunities. In essence, the SPNM area outside of designated wilderness would be open to motor vehicle use under this alternative. While terrain would prevent access into some areas, the density of unauthorized routes could increase as more routes are created across previously unroaded areas. This alternative would have the greatest impact on the non-motorized recreation experience because the creation of new unauthorized routes could eventually allow motorized access to currently unroaded areas. The non-motorized recreation experience for hunters who access, scout, stalk, and retrieve game by foot or horse would be affected by other hunters using motorized vehicles. These hunters often travel cross-country to scout for game, access favorite hunting areas, drive or chase game for a better shot, or to retrieve game. In addition, the noise created by motorized vehicles would increase stress and displace game animals from the immediate area. 3.2.3.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Motorized Recreation: Alternative 2 would provide 2,042 miles of NFS roads and NFS trails for the utilization, administration, and protection of NFS lands on the three districts. These changes would alter the modeled ROS acreages, reducing SPM and RN from 666,809 acres in Alternative 1 to approximately 596,193 acres. There would be 129 fewer miles available for use under Alternative 2. This alternative would retain most of the roads and motorized trails that provide quality recreation opportunities as part of the FTS. The current NFS roads and trails and unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the FTS under this alternative would provide scenic driving, dispersed camping, and motorized trail opportunities. Alternative 2 would preserve scenic and resource qualities, likely improving the overall scenic quality of both motorized and non-motorized recreation. Dispersed camping would be allowed in any of the pre-existing dispersed campsites adjacent to, or at the terminal end of the 2,042 miles of designated roads and motorized trails on the districts. In addition, visitors could pull off the road and set up camp along approximately 1.0 mile of the Maggie Summit Road (56729) or 6.0 miles of the Charleston/Jarbidge Road (56748) in two separate locations. Additionally, short spurs to numerous dispersed campsites would be added to the FTS throughout the project area. Those seeking an undefined, non-motorized recreation experience would be able to find these experiences elsewhere within the project area. The locations of spurs to specific dispersed campsites would allow adequate dispersed camping across and adjacent to many of the NFS roads and trails and motorized routes proposed for addition to the FTS, while damage to natural resources is reduced. Signs, educational opportunities, and user information would provide visitors with guidance on parking and use of these areas. These design features would protect or improve visual qualities in the area. With the MBGR option, motorized trails in IRAs, as well as cross-country travel up to 0.5 miles off designated roads and trails would be allowed during the elk and/or mule deer hunting season for the retrieval of a legally taken animal. In all approximately 674,357 acres would be accessible within the 0.5 mile buffer and could include an estimated 140 trips for elk only MBGR and up to 1,180 trips for both elk and deer MBGR. For hunters using motorized vehicles this option could expedite the retrieval of their mule deer or elk. With the MBGR option, SPM and RN would increase to 1,074,212 acres.

49 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-motorized Recreation: This alternative would include 470,335 acres of modeled SPNM, which is 11,555 acres more than in Alternative 1. It would also include 129,410 acres of primitive ROS doubling the primitive ROS setting of the Alternative 1. As previously mentioned, SPNM ROS does not contain motorized trails. This alternative would preserve a wide variety of non-motorized recreation opportunities across the area. Some non-motorized recreationists seek quiet experiences for camping, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and other non-motorized uses. Across all three districts, these opportunities abound. Access to dispersed campsites scattered across the three mountain ranges are readily accessible for these activities. The remote location of the districts leads to solitary experiences during the spring and summer. During hunting season, it is likely that motorized recreation would dominate in many parts of the district. Without the MBGR option, the prohibition on cross-country motorized use would reduce some impacts to non-motorized recreation users because hunters would no longer be permitted to use OHVs to travel off designated roads and motorized trails in pursuit of small and big game animals. Outside the wilderness areas, there are fewer non-motorized trails. However, non-motorized cross-country travel would be permitted and opportunities would be available for those wishing a primitive or SPNM experience to hike along game trails into several large IRAs. No roads or motorized trails would be designated in the Jarbidge, Ruby Mountain, or East Humboldt wilderness areas, which are managed for primitive recreation opportunities and closed to motorized activity by law. Few motorized trails that approach the boundaries of these wilderness areas are proposed for designation. Motorized trail U58205, along the Palomino Bench in the Jarbidge area, would be closed at the wilderness boundary. Generally, prohibiting cross-country motorized travel would benefit visitors looking for quiet recreation opportunities, whether camping along roads or trails or traveling in the backcountry. Under the MBGR option, the SPNM area would be reduced from 470,335 acres available under Alternative 2 without MBGR to 24,390 acres. Areas meeting primitive characteristics would be reduced by approximately 30,000 acres (table 18). During this period elk and mule deer hunters may drive up to 0.5 miles of a designated road or trail to retrieve and load their legally taken elk or mule deer. Hunters, or other forest visitors, seeking a non-motorized recreation experience would have fewer options and SPNM opportunities would be reduced by 99.5 percent. During the hunting season, SPNM opportunities would all but disappear. The MBGR option would also impact areas with primitive characteristics. During the hunting season, primitive areas would decrease in size by approximately 26 percent. The MBGR option would also result in the erosion of SPNM characteristics over time. This would result from the continued use of unauthorized routes located within the 0.5 mile buffer and cross-country travel that could result in a seasonally used network of unauthorized routes associated with MBGR. The degree of potential impact depends largely on the number of trips being taken to retrieve downed big game animals. If the MBGR option was only authorized for elk (140 trips estimated annually), the impact would be less than if authorized for both elk and mule deer (1,180 trips estimated annually). In both cases the area categorized as SPNM would decrease in size over time as disturbance from motor vehicle use gets nearer the SPNM boundary. While the maps and models produced based on the location and distribution of designated roads and trails would not change, on the ground physical attributes and the condition of SPNM character could be eroded. 3.2.3.3. Alternative 3: Current System Motorized Recreation: This alternative would reduce motorized recreation opportunities on the project area by eliminating cross-country travel and only allowing motorized travel on about 1,021 miles of NFS roads and trails. This alternative would provide adequate loop opportunities

50 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement for full-size vehicles. Some trail-like opportunities would be available, but the unauthorized routes currently used for motorized recreation would not be available for motorized travel. The SPM and RN opportunity would be reduced from 666,809 acres in Alternative 1 to 469,942 acres with Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would limit dispersed motorized camping and would not meet the demand for this recreation use. Dispersed camping would continue to be allowed at the dispersed campsites located along the designated routes and at terminal facilities at the end of roads and trails (figure 1). Many heavily used camping spurs would no longer be open for motorized access because they are accessed by routes that would not be designated under this alternative. These sites could still be used but motor vehicles would not be allowed to drive into the sites. Alternative 3 would maintain a variety of motorized opportunities, but would limit dispersed camping opportunities and some OHV trail opportunities in areas like the central and northern portions of the Mountain City Ranger District, the southern portions of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, and the northern portion of the Jarbidge Ranger District. Non-motorized Recreation: This alternative would preserve and improve primitive and SPNM recreation opportunities by limiting motor vehicles to about 1,021 miles of NFS roads and trails and restricting motorized travel to designated roads throughout the project area. This alternative would provide 568,668 acres of modeled SPNM ROS and 161,049 acres of primitive setting, the most of any alternative. In some areas access may be more difficult, which would improve the primitive experience for some recreationists and reduce the opportunity for others. This alternative would not provide access to many existing dispersed campsites and could result in competition for the available sites. It could also result in conflicts between campers looking for quiet camping areas and those engaged in motorized recreation. 3.2.3.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Motorized Recreation: For motorized recreationists who routinely drive cross-country to explore untracked areas, Alternative 4 would reduce those opportunities by eliminating cross- country travel. However, motorized travel would be available on about 1,567 miles of NFS roads and motorized trails. This alternative would provide loop opportunities for full size vehicles and trail opportunities would be available. This alternative would limit dispersed motorized camping to those existing sites located along designated roads and trails; some sites would not be accessible under this alternative. A few camping spurs would remain open and parking would be allowed one vehicle length off a NFS road or NFS trail, but many heavily used camping spurs would no longer be available for motorized access. Under Alternative 4, the SPM and RN opportunities would be reduced from the 666,809 acres available in Alternative 1 to 555,852 acres. The shift in ROS seems small (110,957 acres) but the primary change is in the amount of SPM. The SPM areas would decrease 108,371 acres, while RN would decrease only 2,586 acres. This shift suggests a more open road system. There would be fewer roads and motorized trails; those available for use would be spread-out and many of the connector roads and motorized trails pioneered over previous decades would not be included in the FTS. During elk hunting season, this shift would be less apparent given that hunters who have legally shot an elk could drive up to 0.5 mile off designated roads and motorized trails to retrieve their elk. During the hunting season, the allowance for game retrieval would expand the SPM area up to 0.5 mile from all designated roads and motorized trails within elk hunting units and into area categorized as SPNM. Elk hunters retrieving their animals would be able to travel cross-country into approximately into 27,858 acres of area categorized as SPNM. Under this alternative, there are approximately 1,231 miles proposed for designation as NFS trails. These motorized trails were identified on the Forest visitor maps as “jeep” trails or motor

51 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement trails and were characterized in this alternative as the map depicted them. If selected, this alternative would have the most designated trails of any of the action alternatives. The majority of these trails, approximately 194 miles, would be open for all vehicle types; approximately 38 miles would be open to ATV only. This alternative would also include access to dispersed campsites along those designated roads and trails. However, some currently available dispersed campsites would not be accessible because the short spurs accessing them were not indicated on the Forest Visitor Map. Non-motorized Recreation: This alternative would preserve and improve primitive and semi- primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities by limiting motor vehicles to about 1,567 miles of NFS roads and trails and restricting motorized travel to designated roads and trails throughout the districts. In some areas, access to primitive recreation opportunities may be more difficult, which would improve the primitive experience for some recreationists and reduce the opportunity for others. This alternative continues to provide access to many spurs to dispersed campsites. However, in some locations, there could be competition for the available sites and possible conflicts between campers looking for quiet camping areas and those engaged in motorized recreation. This alternative would provide 510,001 acres of modeled SPNM (table 18). There would be large areas, mostly outside designated wilderness, available for non-motorized recreation activities and experiences. During elk hunting seasons, motor vehicle use would be allowed up to 0.5 mile from all designated roads and motorized trails to retrieve a legally taken elk. The average number of trips per year is calculated to be approximately 140. With MBGR, the SPNM acres would be reduced to approximately 27,858 acres during the elk hunting season (table 18). During the elk hunting season use of motorized vehicles to retrieve legally taken elk could result in the disturbance of hunters in the SPNM areas. This effect would likely send those hunters seeking a non-motorized experience deeper into the primitive areas and result in an expansion of the SPM to approximately 825,676 acres; nearly 86 percent of the NFS on the district outside designated wilderness (table 18). 3.2.3.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Motorized Recreation: Alternative 5 would reduce motorized recreation opportunities on the districts by eliminating cross-country travel and allowing motorized travel on 1,480 miles of NFS roads and trails. This alternative would provide some loop opportunities for full size vehicles. Maintaining loop opportunities was not considered when there was a high-risk resource impact associated with a road or motorized trail (USDA FS 2009a). As a result, several loop opportunities would not be available and motorized recreation opportunities would be reduced when compared to Alternative 1 or 2. Some trail-like opportunities would be available, but many unauthorized roads and trails currently used for motorized recreation would not be added to the FTS. Under this alternative, there would be approximately 441 miles proposed for designation as NFS trails. These motorized trails would provide recreation opportunities across the three districts by allowing access into popular areas. This alternative would also limit some use because of past and potential resource impacts. Access to many dispersed campsites scattered across the three districts would continue. The SPM or RN areas would be reduced from the 666,809 acres available in Alternative 1 to 525,435 acres. A reduction of 141,374 acres of SPM and RN is small when compared to the miles of roads and motorized trails available in Alternative 1 (2,171 miles) as compared to Alternative 5 (1,480 miles). This reduction in acres of SPM and RN is the result of the types of roads and motorized

52 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement trails not included in Alternative 5. Motorized trails within IRAs and redundant connector roads or motorized trails between NFS roads and trails would not be designated under this alternative. Non-motorized Recreation: Alternative 5 would preserve and improve primitive and SPNM recreation opportunities by limiting vehicles to 1,480 miles of NFS roads and motorized trails and restricting motorized travel to the designated FTS. In some areas, access may be more difficult, which would improve the primitive experience for some recreationists and reduce the opportunity for others. This alternative would continue to provide access via many spurs to dispersed campsites. This alternative would provide 524,935 acres of modeled SPNM (table 18). There would be large areas, mostly outside designated wilderness and between 0.3 miles and 5 miles from open roads and motorized trails, available for non-motorized recreation activities and opportunities. 3.2.4. Cumulative Effects Refer to section 3.1.3 in this chapter for projects which may contribute to cumulative effects. Any project that would add roads or motorized trails in SPNM ROS or reduce non-motorized recreation opportunity would potentially have cumulative effects to non-motorized recreation. Any project that would close roads or trails to motor vehicles or reduce SPM ROS could have cumulative impacts to motorized recreation. There are a number of reasonably foreseeable projects that, when implemented, may have impacts on recreation when combined with this action. These projects include: Livestock Grazing: The Jarbidge Ranger District is completing the Jarbidge Ranger District Rangeland Management EIS to reauthorize grazing on 26 allotments. In the near future, a similar EIS will analyze the allotments on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Continued livestock management, either under existing or revised practices, when combined with the actions included in this rule would not result in a change in motor vehicle access. Livestock permittees would continue to use motor vehicles to manage their livestock and carry out activities required under their permit. Non-motorized recreationists may encounter a permittee on occasion but this action would neither increase nor decrease the number or frequency of those encounters. Overall there would be little change to the type or quality of the recreation opportunities on the three ranger districts when combined with livestock grazing activities currently permitted or those that may be permitted in the future. Mineral Exploration, Mining, and Reclamation: Temporary roads may be constructed as a part of exploration and mining operations. Mineral exploration and mining activities may have a short-term impact on recreation within the immediate area of the exploration work. Beyond the sights or sounds of this activity, there would be no cumulative effects to recreation. Fuels Projects/Wildfire: There may be short-term impacts to recreation during and following a fuels treatment. Should wildfire strike, visual impacts such as a blackened landscape would be noticeable for a couple of years until vegetation returns. Cumulative impacts to the tread of road and trail would be minimal. Over Snow Recreation: Under Alternative 4 or Alternative 2 with the MBGR option, cumulative effects could result from over snow use. Motorized big game retrieval would begin at the beginning of the elk or mule deer hunting season and extend to the close of that season. Typically the roads are closed to motor vehicle traffic because of weather and snow conditions before the end of the hunting seasons. Once snow depth accumulates areas on the districts outside designated wilderness open up to oversnow machine use. Since there are no managed oversnow areas on the districts, oversnow machines are permitted to travel everywhere. As a result, during the winter, with the exception of designated wilderness areas, the entire area of the

53 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement districts would be considered SPM. Motorized big game retrieval would extend that change in SPM ROS in some places by three or four months in the late summer and fall. 3.3. Inventoried Roadless Areas

3.3.1. Background Since 1970, the Forest Service has inventoried and studied roadless areas greater than 5,000 acres; roadless lands, regardless of size, adjacent to existing wilderness; and roadless lands, regardless of size adjacent to roadless lands on adjoining federal land greater than 5,000 acres. These areas are referred to as inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was signed in 2001. This final rule prohibits road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest in IRAs because these activities have the greatest likelihood of altering and fragmenting landscapes, resulting in immediate, long term loss of roadless area values and characteristics. Prior to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 58 inventoried roadless areas were identified on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. Combined, these roadless areas occupy approximately 421,000 acres of the project area. These roadless areas were included in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Ten lawsuits were filed challenging the rule; since 2008 the rule has been enjoined by the Tenth Circuit Court. Regardless of the status of the rule, the Forest is required to consider the effects of proposed action on the attributes of IRAs. In May 2006, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest assessed and inventoried lands that have potential for wilderness designation. This inventory was prepared for inclusion in the revision of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as per Forest Service manual direction (USDA FS 2006). As a result of that inventory, the Forest identified 36 IRAs in the project area (approximately 132,900 acres) which have wilderness potential. For comparison, the Mountain City, Ruby Mountain, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts contain about 1.2 million acres with approximately 240,000 acres of designated wilderness. As part of this analysis, the 2006 study will be used to identify which IRAs have wilderness attributes and how designation of a proposed motorized trail may or may not affect those attributes. The IRAs containing motorized trails proposed for addition to the FTS (and the miles of trails proposed for designation) are displayed by alternative in table 20. A roadless area assessment (2011) was completed for this project and is included in the project record. This document describes each IRA with existing NFS roads or unauthorized motorized trails proposed for designation, the effect of designation of the unauthorized motorized trails on roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes, and the reason for designating these trails. This project does not propose to designate any unauthorized motorized trails as NFS roads within the IRAs, but it recognizes that some NFS roads exist within the IRAs and provides a description of the potential effects of these roads as part of the existing condition. 3.3.1.1. Effects Indicators The quality of roadless area characteristics and wilderness attributes is diminished with increased motorized travel within IRAs. The environmental effects to roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes are quantitatively described by impacts on: • Roadless area characteristics and effects related to the designation of unauthorized trails. • Wilderness potential in terms of wilderness attributes.

54 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.2. Affected Environment There are 58 IRAs on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. These IRAs range in size from the 53-acre Franklin IRA located in the East Humboldt Range and contiguous with the East Humboldt Wilderness to the 71,325 acre Pearl Peak IRA located on the south end of the Ruby Mountains (USDA FS 1998). Motorized use is currently allowed within the boundaries of IRAs on NFS roads and trails, unauthorized trails, and cross-country. Out of the 58 IRAs located on the districts, 48 contain NFS roads and unauthorized trails. Approximately 23.6 miles (78 road segments) of NFS roads are located within 27 of the IRAs (table 20). These roads were in place prior to the finalization of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In addition, there are approximately 363 miles of unauthorized trails within the IRA boundaries. Each road or trail was classified into one of nine categories based on the length of the trail, and the roadless area characteristics or wilderness attributes of the areas that the motorized trail crossed. • Cartographic Errors occur where the original IRA boundaries were determined by NFS roads or trails and improved GIS information has changed the road and trail alignments as they relate to the IRA boundaries. • Trails located in areas lacking roadless character. In 2006, the IRAs were reviewed in preparation for forest plan revision (USDA FS 2006). During this review, NFS lands were analyzed for roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes and updates to IRA boundaries were proposed. In this FEIS, trails were identified in IRAs that lack roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes. • Trails located on edge of roadless area. These trail segments parallel the IRA boundary and are within 0.1 mile of the boundary. While not a cartographic error as describe above, they still represent a minor impairment of the IRA’s roadless characteristics. • Short trails into roadless area. These trails are spurs less than 0.2 miles long. Frequently they access dispersed recreations sites or are the results of more accurate mapping. • Trails located in areas with roadless characteristics. These trails represent spurs longer than 0.2 miles long. They may also access dispersed recreation areas or provide hunting access into the IRA. • Trails bisecting a roadless area. In this classification, the trail or a system of trails passes through the IRA. These trails provide connecting routes to NFS roads or trails outside the IRA. The primitive nature of the trail would generally not affect roadless characteristics. • Short trails located in a wilderness capable area. These trails are spurs less than 0.2 miles in length that enter an IRA determined to have wilderness characteristics in the 2006 review. Like the minor trails listed above, they frequently access dispersed campsites or are the result of more accurate mapping used in this travel management project. • Trails located in areas with wilderness capability. These trails are similar to the short trails but longer than 0.2 miles in length. They do not pass through the IRA. • Trails passing through IRA with wilderness capability. These trails pass through an IRA with wilderness characteristics. These trails are typically connector routes and are rare in most IRAs. In table 19, the mileage associated with each classification is displayed by alternative. In the individual IRA worksheets (project record), this table is recreated for each IRA and depicts

55 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 only. The narrative further describes the potential effect by alternative (project record).

Table 19. Classification of Roads and Motorized Trails within IRAs by Alternative. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Reduced Condition No Proposed Current Visitor Resource Action Action System Map Impacts Cartographic error 16.3 13.5 6.0 13.9 6.3 Trails located in areas lacking roadless 113.0 83.9 7.5 34.3 7.5 character Trails bisecting a roadless area 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Short trails into roadless area 1.8 1.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 Trails located in areas with roadless 28.6 21.5 0.8 5.7 1.8 characteristics Trails bisecting a roadless area 27.4 19.5 1.5 8.8 3.1 Short trails located in a wilderness capable 10.0 8.7 3.0 1.1 0.1 area Trails located in areas with wilderness 117.1 51.1 0.1 21.2 3.0 capability Trails passing through IRA with wilderness 71.4 33.6 4.5 18.4 4.5 capability Total 386.8 234.0 23.6 104.0 26.4 The majority of these trails are not currently part of the FTS, but they serve an important recreation niche. Most of the recreation use on the three ranger districts is solitary and dispersed. Visitors drive vehicles to the national forest to find a dispersed site to camp, park, picnic, and use as a base. From these sites, visitors hike away from the roads and trails to hunt, fish, hike, and explore. Since these spurs are not part of the FTS, continued use to access dispersed recreation sites would be prohibited under the action alternatives if they were not designated as open for motor vehicle use. On the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts, 180 out of 441 (40%) segments with some portion of their length in IRAs are less than 0.2 miles. On the Ruby Mountain Ranger District, 93 out of 440 segments are less than 0.2 miles. The length of the motorized trail inside the IRA boundary is often less than the total length because of intersections with NFS roads outside the IRA boundary and the width of cherry-stems. These short spurs provide secluded parking away from the main NFS roads. They are a key component of the recreation activity that occurs on the three ranger districts. Without many of these trails, nearly all the dispersed campsites/parking spots and picnic/hiking access would be inaccessible resulting in reduced recreation opportunities. Unauthorized motorized trails can have a range of impacts on the wilderness attributes and roadless characteristics of the IRAs. Most of the NFS roads that occur within IRA boundaries are located around the periphery of the IRAs and access dispersed recreation sites. The project does not designate any unauthorized motorized trails as NFS roads but it recognizes that some NFS roads exist within the IRAs. The potential effects of these NFS roads are described in Alternative 3. The average length is 0.4 miles with the shortest being 0.01 mile and the longest being 4.6 miles. In areas adjacent to the shorter motorized trails (0.5 miles or less), impacts to wilderness attributes would not be an issue because the dispersed campsite is often within sight of the main NFS road outside of the IRA boundary. Wilderness attributes, depending on primitive characteristics, are generally located further than 1.0 mile from roads. Visual impacts on the IRA

56 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and wilderness attributes would also be minimal along most of the NFS roads and unauthorized motorized trails because the NFS road or trail itself is generally narrow and hidden by surrounding vegetation. Motorized trails that may enter the IRAs are typically some distance away from other trails and generally out of site. However, the overall impact to the integrity of the IRA depends more on the impact of the trail on roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes than on how long a road is and where it intersects an IRA.

Table 20. Miles of Motorized Trail in IRAs by Alternative Alt. 5 Roadless Area Alt 1. Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 2006 IRA Reduce No Proposed Current Visitor Wilderness Acres Resource # Name Action Action System Map Capability Impacts 2-01 Wilson Creek 4,731 1.8 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 None 2-02 Elk Mountain 8,731 3.8 3.8 0.1 0.8 0.1 Mod 2-03 Elephant Buttes 6,336 2.4 1.6 0.5 2.4 0.5 Roadless 2-04 Flat Creek 5,842 12.6 3.9 1.7 2.4 1.7 None 2-05 Biroth Ridge 4,885 7.2 4.9 0.0 2.7 1.5 Roadless 2-06 Slide Creek 752 3.2 1.2 0.4 1.9 0.4 Roadless 2-07 Canyon Creek 3,257 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 Roadless 2-08 Pockets 299 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 None 2-09 Cottonwood 3,609 6.0 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 None 2-10 Sun Creek 8,820 8.6 3.8 0.3 2.1 0.3 Moderate 2-11 Pete Basin 5,245 6.6 3.1 0.4 1.5 0.4 High 2-12 Little Reservoir 409 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Roadless 2-13 Person Creek 1,186 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Roadless 2-14 West Fork 2,724 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roadless 2-15 Seventy-six 659 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roadless 2-17 Sawmill Ridge 1,512 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roadless 2-18 Three Day 2,343 6.2 4.8 0.0 0.8 0.1 None 2-19 Copper Mountain 31,932 29.9 12.4 2.5 8.5 2.7 High 2-20 Rattlesnake 19,663 22.3 22.3 1.9 14.5 1.9 Moderate 2-21 Pine Mountain 12,513 9.2 6.7 0.9 1.3 0.9 Moderate 2-23 Robinson 7,683 4.3 2.5 0.3 2.1 0.3 None 2-25 Vincenti 7,915 3.7 3.3 1.3 1.9 1.3 Roadless 2-26 Hicks Mountain 16,325 10.9 7.1 0.3 5.4 0.3 Roadless 2-27 Deadhorse Point 9,300 9.4 6.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 Roadless 2-28 Boulder Basin 6,908 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 Roadless 2-30 Jenneman Peak 6,428 10.7 10.7 2.7 4.6 2.7 None 2-32 Wildhorse 11,196 7.7 7.5 0.0 1.2 1.0 Roadless 2-33 Bald Mountain 5,212 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 None 2-35 Pennsylvania Hill 7,864 1.9 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 Moderate 2-36 McCaffie 26,092 14.9 13.4 0.9 3.0 0.9 Moderate

57 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.3. Environmental Consequences Inventoried roadless areas have a variety of characteristics including soil, water and air quality; diversity of plant and animal communities; public drinking water; habitat for sensitive species; primitive recreation; reference landscapes; distinctive landscape character and integrity; and locally unique features. Inventoried roadless areas also have wilderness attributes including natural integrity, apparent naturalness, remoteness/solitude, opportunities for primitive recreation, special features, and manageability as a potential wilderness area. Motorized trails can be incompatible with these characteristics. Gucinski and others (2001) identified several effects of motorized trails that conflict with roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes. Both roads and motorized trails can result in the removal or displacement of topsoil and alter soil properties and productivity. These routes can alter hydrologic processes by intercepting rainfall, concentrating flow, and diverting or rerouting water from its natural path. Roads and motorized trails can lead to increases of fine sediment into streams. Animal populations can be affected by habitat fragmentation. Roads and motorized trails can also affect natural habitats by providing a pathway for non-native species to enter and spread into those habitats. They can create noticeable linear features on the landscape, and because of little rainfall throughout Nevada, these linear features can remain for many decades because the amount of screening vegetation is low or non-existent from the continual impact from OHVs.

58 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, there would be no change to the FTS and no restriction on cross-country motorized travel. Under this alternative, all of these motorized trails would remain open for motor vehicle use. Table 21 displays the miles of motorized trails within the IRAs and how the motorized trails may impact the roadless characteristics or wilderness attributes of the IRA. Under this alternative, motorized recreation users would be permitted to travel on and off motorized trails in pursuit of recreation activities. This may result in adverse impacts to roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes in that motor vehicles traveling off NFS roads or unauthorized trails may access areas of the IRAs with high wilderness attributes for solitude or primitive recreation opportunities. It is unlikely that the natural integrity of the IRA would be impacted as a result of one vehicle traveling cross-country but additional vehicles traveling into the same area on slightly different tracks or the same track could begin to reduce the wilderness attributes of the area. It is likely that more unauthorized motorized trails would be pioneered, degrading roadless characteristics. In addition, many miles of existing motorized trails would remain open to motor vehicle use. Gucinski and others (2001) point out that as the number of motorized trails in a roadless area increases, the quality of the roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes decline. This decline can lead to adverse effects to wildlife habitat through fragmentation; impacts to soil, air, and water; and reduction of scenic integrity and sustainable landscape character. Many of these motorized trails are poorly located and would be difficult to maintain or repair if needed. For example, a motorized trail that is too steep or located where water cannot run off its surface is not sustainable over time. They may remain passable for years, but could leave a large scar on the landscape degrading landscape character and apparent naturalness. Leaving these motorized trails open would continue to degrade the quality of roadless areas.

Table 21. Miles of Motorized Trail in the 48 Inventoried Roadless Areas by Vehicle Class and Type of Impact (Alternative 1: No Action). Type of Route Unauthorized Type of Impact Existing Miles in IRAs Motorized NFS Roads Trails Cartographic error 10.3 6.0 16.3 Trails located in areas lacking roadless character 105.4 7.5 113.0 Trails bisecting a roadless area 1.3 0.0 1.3 Short trails into roadless area 1.8 0.0 1.8 Trails located in areas with roadless characteristics 27.7 0.8 28.6 Trails bisecting a roadless area 25.9 1.5 27.4 Short trails located in a wilderness capable area 7.0 3.0 10.0 Trails located in areas with wilderness capability 116.9 0.1 117.1 Trails passing through IRA with wilderness capability 66.8 4.5 71.4 Total 363.2 23.6 386.8 3.3.3.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, approximately 23.6 miles of NFS road and 210 miles of unauthorized trails would be designated for motor vehicle use within the boundaries of 48 IRAs (table 22). These NFS roads and unauthorized trails have been in their current locations for many years and predate the formalization of the IRA boundaries in 2001. The potential impact of continued use of

59 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement preexisting trails in the IRAs depends on how the trails are located within the IRA, the purpose the trail serves, and whether or not the wilderness potential for the area would be changed by designation of the trails. To address where the trails are located, approximately 75 percent (429 out of 568) of the unauthorized motorized trails proposed in this alternative are less than 0.5 miles in length. For the majority of the IRAs, wilderness attributes, such as the opportunities for primitive recreation or solitude are not located within 0.5 miles of these trails. The calculations used to determine the amount of primitive or SPNM area include all the NFS roads and unauthorized trails both within and outside IRA boundaries (ROS Report, project record). Under this alternative, wilderness attributes related to primitive recreation and solitude would increase from 60,594 acres under Alternative 1 to 122,849 acres. Natural integrity and apparent naturalness of the IRAs would also increase by having larger areas which are relatively undisturbed by motor vehicle use. Potential impacts to the biophysical environment from continued use of unauthorized trails in the IRA would be eliminated, and over time and with the lack of use, some trails could revegetate and become less visible on the landscape. This recovery could further improve habitat for rare plants and animals. Other trails and the associated effects of those trails may continue until efforts are made to reclaim them. This would have to be undertaken through a site-specific environmental analysis. The trails proposed for designation are located around the periphery of the IRAs for two reasons. First, they provide access to dispersed recreation sites located adjacent to NFS roads that form the IRA boundaries. They also provide access into the IRA for hunting and other recreation opportunities. For the most part, these are not recreation trails used for the sole purpose of riding or operating a motor vehicle around a loop for sport or excitement. These are mostly dead-end routes that provide access for hunting, hiking, and other quiet recreation opportunities. While trails are proposed that connect NFS roads, they also provide access across the landscape that has been traditionally used to save time and effort.

Table 22. Miles of Motorized Trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas (Alternative 2: Proposed Action). Type of Route Type of Impact Existing Miles in IRAs Motorized Trails NFS Roads Cartographic error 7.8 6.0 13.5 Trails located in areas lacking roadless character 76.3 7.5 83.9 Trails bisecting a roadless area 1.0 0.0 1.0 Short trails into roadless area 1.3 0.0 1.3 Trails located in areas with roadless characteristics 20.6 0.8 21.5 Trails bisecting a roadless area 18.0 1.5 19.5 Short trails located in a wilderness capable area 5.6 3.0 8.7 Trails located in areas with wilderness capability 51.0 0.1 51.1 Trails passing through IRA with wilderness capability 29.0 4.5 33.6 Total 210.5 23.6 234.0 With the MBGR option, all unauthorized trails would be available for use up to 0.5 mile from a designated road or trail during the hunting season to retrieve legally taken mule deer or elk. Furthermore, cross-country travel would be allowed up to 0.50 mile from a designated road or trail. Segments of unauthorized trails in IRAs could continue to receive periodic use during this period. This use could hinder recovery of these undesignated motorized trails. Cross-country travel could also hinder recovery of areas within the IRAs. While the use is estimated to be

60 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement between 140-1,180 trips a year, new tracks could be developed into a popular hunting area in one season and followed in successive seasons. The potential for new cross-country tracks to be created in IRAs would be high given there are only a few entry points and any cross-country travel for game retrieval would have to take-off from these points. The MBGR option also has the potential to impact wilderness attributes related to opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Natural integrity and apparent naturalness may also be impacted if hunters taking advantage of the option leave noticeable tracks or ruts in these areas. The MBGR option would have less of a potential effect if it was only permitted for the retrieval of elk. In this instance approximately 140 trips on average would occur within the project area. These trips would be limited to the 0.5 mile buffer which would not allow access into the central portions of IRAs that have primitive settings. As a result of this geographic relationship, few effects would occur within the larger IRAs that have wilderness potential or high value wilderness attributes. If MBGR for both mule deer and elk was authorized the 0.5 mile buffer would still be in effect but the potential number of trips would increase by approximately 1,040. Again these trips would be scattered across the project area but concentrated in the hunt units in the northern portion of the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. The additional trips into the IRAs could result in decreased primitive and semi-primitive recreation values. 3.3.3.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 addresses questions from the public regarding what effects the proposed action would have on IRAs by eliminating use of motor vehicles within the IRA except for those NFS roads that are already authorized and used. Under Alternative 3, no unauthorized trails would be designated in IRAs across the districts. As a result, only 23.6 miles of current NFS road would remain open within IRA boundaries (table 23). These 23.6 miles of NFS road are a relic of the IRA mapping process conducted on the Forest in 1998 and reflect mapping errors that occurred when the IRA boundaries were drawn. Mapping errors include cartographic errors, oversight of the road during the 1998 IRA review process, and changes in the base layers between the 1998 IRA inventory and the 2009 travel management project. The type of errors resulting in segments of these roads being located within the IRA boundary is documented in the roadless area assessment for this project (project record). The reduction in motorized trails would have an overall positive effect on roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes because disturbances to the primitive setting, solitude, wildlife habitat, and soil and water from the operation of motor vehicles in these areas would be reduced by approximately 90 percent. Potential impacts to the biophysical environment from continued use of unauthorized trails in the IRAs would be eliminated, and over time and with the lack of use, some trails could revegetate and become less visible on the landscape. This recovery would reduce habitat fragmentation, sediment transport, and impacts to historic properties. Unauthorized trails and the associated effects of those trails may continue until efforts are made to reclaim them. This would have to be undertaken through a site-specific environmental analysis.

61 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 23. Miles of NFS Road in Inventoried Roadless Areas (Alternative 3: Current System). Type of Route Type of Impact Miles in IRAs Existing NFS Roads Cartographic error 6.0 6.0 Trails located in areas lacking roadless character 7.5 7.5 Trails bisecting a roadless area 0.0 0.0 Short trails into roadless area 0.0 0.0 Trails located in areas with roadless characteristics 0.8 0.8 Trails bisecting a roadless area 1.5 1.5 Short trails located in a wilderness capable area 3.0 3.0 Trails located in areas with wilderness capability 0.1 0.1 Trails passing through IRA with wilderness 4.5 4.5 capability Total 23.6 23.6 3.3.3.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map The number of motorized trails designated in IRAs under Alternative 4 would be less than under Alternative 1 or 2. This alternative would allow hunters to use motor vehicles 0.50 mile off designated motorized trails for the retrieval of legally taken elk. During the hunting season, if all successful hunters took advantage of this opportunity there could be as many as 140 two-way trips a year. During the elk hunting seasons, motor vehicles could be used to access approximately 650,000 acres of NFS lands both within and outside of IRAs. Over time, this use could result in the creation of more unauthorized motorized trails across the landscape as hunters follow tracks of previous hunters into areas closer to their animal. Continued use of these unauthorized trails could affect roadless characteristics including scenic integrity and apparent naturalness, primitive and semi-primitive recreation, and wildlife and plant habitat. The presence and use of motor vehicles in IRAs with high and moderate wilderness capability could impact the untrammeled, natural, and undeveloped nature of those IRAs. Outstanding opportunities for solitude and manageability could also be compromised. Alternative 4 would meet more of the needs of the public to access NFS lands than Alternative 3 because it would provide more traditional access to areas where dispersed camping, picnicking, and hunting occur. The miles of routes in IRAs under this alternative are located around the perimeter of the IRAs and the periphery of motorized activity would help protect the inner core of the IRAs. Under this alternative, all 23.6 miles of NFS road within the IRAs would remain open and 80.4 miles of unauthorized motorized trails would be designated for use. These motorized trails are spread over 48 IRAs on the districts. Under this alternative, there would be approximately 47 miles of motorized trails into IRAs that lack roadless character and approximately 34 miles in IRAs with wilderness capability (USDA FS 2006) (table 24). For the most part, these trails would not adversely impact wilderness characteristics in the IRAs. The distribution of the motorized trails among the IRAs and the distribution of the trails within the IRAs would reduce potential impacts. This scattered distribution would provide many undisturbed acres between the proposed trails. Natural integrity, apparent naturalness, and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would persist in these IRAs because of the size of the landscapes considered and the high quality of these attributes in the IRAs. Fewer trails would be open for motor vehicle use, but all the trails would still be on the ground and during the MBGR period those trails would be available for use up to 0.5 mile from

62 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement designated routes. On average approximately 140 trips could be expected each year. These trips would likely be concentrated in Hunt Units 61, 62, and 71 in the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. Continued seasonal use of all the trails, as well as cross-country MBGR use, could result in additional unauthorized tracks and potential impacts to the roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes related to primitive nature and solitude.

Table 24. Miles of Motorized Trail in Inventoried Roadless Areas (Alternative 4: Visitor Map).

Type of Route Type of Impact Existing Miles in IRAs Motorized Trails NFS Roads Cartographic error 7.8 6.0 13.9 Trails located in areas lacking roadless character 26.7 7.5 34.3 Trails bisecting a roadless area 0.2 0.0 0.2 Short trails into roadless area 0.5 0.0 0.5 Trails located in areas with roadless 4.9 0.8 5.7 characteristics Trails bisecting a roadless area 7.3 1.5 8.8 Short trails located in a wilderness capable area 2.0 3.0 1.1 Trails located in areas with wilderness capability 21.1 0.1 21.2 Trails passing through IRA with wilderness 13.8 4.5 18.4 capability Total 80.4 23.6 103.9 3.3.3.5. Alternative 5: Reduce Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would meet more needs of the public to access NFS lands than Alternative 3 because it would provide more traditional access to areas where dispersed camping, picnicking, and hunting occur. At the same time, it would reduce impacts to resources of concern. This alternative would include 2 more miles of NFS trails than Alternative 3 within IRAs. These existing motorized trails travel along the edges of the IRAs. The impacts are similar to those of Alternative 3. The potential impacts resulting from Alternative 1 (increased mechanical disturbance resulting in visual and other physical impacts to roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes) would be eliminated under this alternative. This alternative would support and protect the opportunities for solitude within the IRAs along with the opportunities for primitive recreation. Areas of the IRAs may appear untrammeled, but impacts of past activity may still be visible to the keen-eyed observer. Potential impacts to the biophysical environment from continued use of unauthorized trails in the IRAs would be eliminated, and over time and with the lack of use, some trails could revegetate and become less visible on the landscape. This recovery could reduce habitat fragmentation, sediment transport, and impacts to historic properties. Unauthorized trails and the associated effects of those trails may continue until efforts are made to reclaim them. This would have to be undertaken through a site-specific environmental analysis Under this alternative, the 26.4 miles of NFS roads and motorized trails within IRAs would occur mainly around the perimeter of the IRAs, and as in Alternative 3 are the result of mapping errors during the inventory conducted in 1998 (table 25). Under this alternative, 56 NFS roads and motorized trails would be located in the IRAs as a result of cartographic errors. These currently open NFS roads and motorized trails have little impact on roadless characteristics because they were originally intended to be the boundaries of the IRAs.

63 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 25. Miles of Motorized Trail in Inventoried Roadless Areas (Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts). Type of Route Type of Impact Existing Miles in IRAs Motorized Trail NFS Road Cartographic error 0.2 6.0 6.3 Trails located in areas lacking roadless character 0.0 7.5 7.5 Trails bisecting a roadless area 0.0 0.0 0.0 Short trails into roadless area 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trails located in areas with roadless 1.0 0.8 1.8 characteristics Trails bisecting a roadless area 1.6 1.5 3.1 Short trails located in a wilderness capable area 0.0 3.0 0.1 Trails located in areas with wilderness capability 0.0 0.1 3.0 Trails passing through IRA with wilderness 0.0 4.5 4.5 capability Total 2.8 23.6 26.4 3.3.4. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for IRAs is the area within the Mountain City, Jarbidge, and Ruby Mountains Ranger Districts. There are a number of current and reasonably foreseeable projects that, when implemented, may have impacts on roadless areas when combined with this action. These projects include: Livestock Grazing: The Jarbidge Ranger District Rangeland Management EIS is being analyzed to reauthorize grazing on 26 allotments. The analysis is studying limiting utilization of some allotments to reduce their ecological impacts. In the near future, a similar EIS will look at the allotments on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Range analysis for the project area would not increase the miles of motorized trails in IRAs, so there would be no cumulative impact to roadless characteristics or wilderness attributes because of these projects or continued livestock grazing. Mineral Exploration, Mining, and Reclamation: Temporary roads may be constructed as a part of mining and exploration operations. Mining or exploration operations and reclamation activities are expected at Coffin Creek, Baker Mines, Kilgore Gold, Merritt Mountain, Robison Mines, and Bellview. This travel management project, including the authorization of MBGR, would not incrementally result in any cumulative impact to roadless characteristics or wilderness attributes when combined proposals to explore or reclaim mineral exploration and mining locations. Fuels Projects/Wildfire: There are three fuels reduction projects proposed on the districts. Wildfire can and does occur on these districts. The effects of fire are dependent on fuel moisture, temperature, and wind speed. Should wildfire strike, visual impacts, in the way of a blackened landscape, will be noticeable for a couple of years until vegetation returns. This travel management project would not incrementally result in any cumulative impact to roadless characteristics or wilderness attributes when combined with future proposals to conduct prescribed fire projects. Fuels projects are planned and implemented to mimic natural burn patterns and create a mosaic that would blend, with time, into the natural setting. Potential impacts to roadless characteristics are planned for and considered in the analysis for these types of projects. While they may occur in IRAs, they are staged from existing roads and trails and do not require additional road or landing construction. As a result, designation of roads and trails for

64 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement motor vehicle use, when combined with future fuel reduction projects, would not have an incremental effect on IRAs. 3.4. Cultural Resources

3.4.1. Introduction The project area, which includes the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts, has been used by humans for more than 10,000 years. The earliest inhabitants favored areas near water sources, meadows, and prime hunting locations. Elko County is within the cultural area of the Western Shoshone tribe called Newe, who based their existence on hunting and gathering (Crum 1994). The most important plant food was the pinyon pine nut, which is only found in the southern Ruby Mountains in the project area. North of the pinyon zone, seeds were a predominant food source. Important animal foods included the jackrabbit, deer, and antelope. Large settlements were often found in the valley bottoms along rivers, streams, and lakes, mainly outside the project area. Smaller temporary settlements and campsites were used in the higher elevations during warmer months for food gathering and trading. It is these types of sites that are mainly found in the project area. As early as 1827, EuroAmerican fur trappers crossed northeastern Nevada. The Humboldt River became a significant travel corridor for later emigrants traveling through Nevada. Although the occasional fur trapper and explorer passed through the area in subsequent years, it was not until the California gold rush in 1848 that emigrant travel increased through northeastern Nevada. Early settlement in the project area is coincident with livestock grazing and mining. Limited livestock grazing was the first use in this area as early as the 1850s. The discovery of gold in the 1860s and the establishment of small mining communities followed soon after. 3.4.1.1. Analysis Methodology Between 2008 and 2010, cultural resource inventories were conducted in response to the proposed action. The surveys were conducted on the unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the FTS in the proposed action. The purpose of the inventory was two-fold, first to locate cultural resources along the miles of proposed roads and motorized trails, and second to determine if the proposed action would have adverse effects to any of those sites that were eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places or to those sites previously known but not evaluated. The survey strategy was developed with assistance from the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Inventories were conducted using four-wheel drive vehicles and ATVs, and on foot depending on the proposed use and condition of the existing route. Previously surveyed roads and motorized trails where the survey was deemed adequate were not resurveyed; however, recorded sites that were either previously determined significant or left unevaluated were revisited. If a road or motorized trail was located on an extremely steep slope with no potential for cultural resource sites, the road or trail was not surveyed. However, if the road or motorized trail itself was historic and prefield research showed there were historic features along it, the road or trail was driven and recorded as well as the sites that were found. In the proposed action, dispersed camping corridors are proposed along M15774 and NFS road 56748. Each of these areas was completely surveyed for cultural resources. The cultural report for a portion of the inventories conducted on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District received SHPO concurrence in March of 2009. Concurrence on the remaining portions of the project area is anticipated before publication of the record of decision in the fall of 2011.

65 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.1.2. Effects Indicators Impacts to the integrity of cultural resources will be evaluated by: • Miles of unauthorized roads and trails proposed for addition to the FTS that pass through cultural resource sites. 3.4.2. Affected Environment Prehistoric Occupation: For over 10,000 years, the plant and animal resources in the mountain ranges and surrounding lowlands on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts have supported human existence. Human use of the area is marked with prehistoric/ethnographic sites that include artifact scatters (lithics, ground stone, fire-altered rock, and ceramics), open campsites, rock shelters, habitation sites, game drives and hunting blinds, lithic sources/quarries, rock art sites, and sites of sacred or ceremonial importance. Each district is unique in its quantity and location of sites based on the resources available and sought after across the landscape. Historic Occupation: The earliest historic cultural resource sites in the project area include those related to emigration such as the California National Historic Trail from the 1850s, which has portions located on the Ruby Mountains District. Although ranchers were the first to settle in the region it was after precious minerals were found in the mountains that people began settling on lands that would later become the Humboldt National Forest. As is typical with the development of mining communities, additional people arrived who supplied goods and services to the miners. This included ranchers who found the resources available for raising stock to be highly suitable and grazing became a major activity across all districts. Mining, a major activity in the area, is found in specific locations where the minerals were located. The historic mining sites on the districts include mines, mills, prospected areas, towns, stage and freight roads, and wood gathering areas. Other sites included farms, ranches, sheep camps, waterlines, ditches, telegraph, telephone, powerlines, and nearly any other human activity that occurred on the districts in the nineteenth and early twentieth century functioning as some form of support to the mining industry. The districts also include a number of Forest Service administrative sites, some that are still in use and others that have become cultural resource sites. Cultural Resources: The three districts have documented 1,560 sites (882 prehistoric, 582 historic, and 96 multicomponent cultural resource sites). Of these recorded sites, 675 have been determined not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, 134 have been determined eligible, and 750 remain unevaluated for listing pending further research. Of the roughly 1.2 million acres in the project area, about 12 percent, or 130,138 acres have been inventoried. Cultural Resource Sites Relevant to the Project: The cultural resource inventory completed for the project located or revisited 267 cultural resource sites. A total of 213 new sites were recorded along the proposed roads and motorized trails. The remaining 54 sites previously known along the proposed routes were either verified or monitored depending on the previous level of recordation. Across the three districts, there were about 15 percent more historic sites than prehistoric sites. Prehistoric sites are mainly lithic scatters or campsites and totaled 97 (36% of the site total). Historic sites totaled 140 (52% of the site total) and consisted of historic roads (34), mine sites, ranch sites, simple trash dumps, and one cemetery. Twenty-nine sites (11% of the site total) can be defined as having both historic and prehistoric components. The types of new sites found reflect the site types previously recorded throughout the districts. They included sites associated with mining, ranching, the Forest Service, and Native Americans. Only one unique site type was found, a pinyon cache. Although it is common in other parts of Nevada, this site is the only one recorded on Forest within the project area.

66 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

None of the sites previously recorded along any proposed road or motorized trail is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Of the newly recorded or revisited sites, 136 were determined not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Twenty-one sites were determined significant, and 96 sites were left unevaluated. Some of the unevaluated sites remain unevaluated because their size far exceeded the area of potential effect determined for this project; they will need to be revisited to fully record prior to an evaluation. Fourteen multicomponent sites were recorded that have mixed eligibilities, meaning one component such as the historic component was determined not eligible and the prehistoric component was left unevaluated. Based on guidelines within the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, the districts will treat all ‘unevaluated’ sites as if they were eligible cultural resources. Sites eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, as well as unevaluated sites are managed to protect National Register values. 3.4.3. Environmental Consequences Motorized vehicle use across cultural resources can potentially cause physical alteration of sites and artifacts by repeated mechanical action of vehicles resulting in the creation of new routes. In addition, the establishment of unlimited unauthorized routes increases erosion leading to the damage or destruction of sites even outside the direct path of the motorized routes. According to 36 CFR 800.5, adverse effects to eligible cultural resources or cultural resources that have not been evaluated include destruction or alteration of the property itself. Indirect effects can also occur by making sites more accessible. In some instances, adverse effects can occur from dispersed camping along motorized trails or from people stopping at highly visible sites and vandalizing the site through actual collection or dismantling of a feature. In some instances, the effects to sites are not intentional while in some cases they are. In contrast, utilization of historic roads by motorized vehicles can have a positive benefit for their continued existence by preventing vegetation from encroaching into the road prism. For the purposes of this cultural resource assessment, it is assumed that there is no measurable difference in the magnitude of effects to cultural resources from full-size four-wheel drive vehicles, passenger vehicles, specialized off-highway vehicles, and motorcycles. A MBGR option, for both deer and elk or elk only, would be considered for Alternative 2. Alternative 4 will be analyzed for an elk only component. Under MBGR, 0.50 mile on either side of a designated road or trail would be open to continued but restricted motorized cross-country travel. The designated MBGR area includes much of the acreage of the three districts and includes all of the newly recorded and previously recorded sites already being considered for impacts by each alternative, in addition to almost all the recorded sites on each district. The potential impacts to sites that fall within the MBGR area cannot be appropriately quantified for this analysis due to too many unknown contributing conditions. The exact routes taken by each vehicle and the amount of visits would vary. The impact of a particular visit is also influenced by moisture, soil condition, and vegetation present. Impacts to recorded and unrecorded cultural resources could include rutting, increased erosion, damage to materials from the physical action of driving through a site, or collection by hunters who come across the site while traveling cross- country. These impacts may or may not increase with the amount of visitors to each area since it could potentially only take one visit to greatly impact site integrity while many visitors may drive through or near a site and never notice or impact it in a major way. This depends on the nature of the site as well as the visitor. Because of the potential for impact, it is assumed that some impacts would occur to cultural resources from MBGR. If this option is included in the travel management decision, additional cultural survey and monitoring may be necessary to mitigate potential impacts.

67 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects considerations for cross-country travel under a MBGR option include timing, intensity, and direct or indirect occurrences. Timing refers to a specific season, weather condition, or time of day. As MBGR is already restricted to a specific season and time of day, wet weather conditions should also be considered an effect. Cross-country travel under wet weather conditions could result in greater rutting, damage to subsurface deposits, and redistribution or damage to surface artifacts. Intensity of cross-country game retrieval trips could be considered accordingly in terms of higher or lower impacts; however, it has already been stated that number of trips through or near a site does not necessarily influence the level of impact to a site. The exception to this understanding may occur if other conditions (such as soil condition, vegetation cover, and visibility) are also in a state in which increased use intensity would work to greatly increase erosion, downcutting, or collection where more vehicle visits in dry soil and sturdy vegetation would not. Both timing and intensity could influence direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are those that are caused by the physical action of a vehicle on the ground while indirect effects are those that encourage camping within a site where collection and other more hands-on damage can occur. Direct effects are of more concern for the MBGR option as camping off-road more than a car length distance would not be allowed under this rule.

Table 26. Motorized Big Game Retrieval, Number of Sensitive Sites per Alternative.

Alternative Number of Sites Eligible Unevaluated Alt. 2: Proposed Action 1,371 106 649 Alt. 4: Visitor Map 1,293 105 615 Determining the scope of additional monitoring needs would involve consideration of recorded sensitive sites as well as predictive models. Predictive models use a variety of conditions including slope, vegetation, elevation, and proximity to water, as indicators of cultural site probability. An existing predictive model for the Mountain City Ranger District shows that about 28 percent of the MBGR buffer is considered high probability. Accordingly, about 26 percent falls within medium sensitivity while 45 percent is low sensitivity. The distribution of high probability areas may help determine where the greatest potential impact from implementation of the MBGR option could occur. The Cultural Resources Specialist report outlines a specific monitoring plan for sites along designated roads, and a general monitoring plan is found in appendix B. The specialist report outlines monitoring as part of the Section 106 process which will be conducted twice in five years following the publication of the report. Under the general plan, cultural resources would be monitored on an opportunity basis when cultural resource specialists are in the field conducting work for other projects. More monitoring could be called for if deer and elk MGBR is selected, as opposed to elk only because elk hunts are fewer and less widespread. Because it is not possible to monitor all of the sites that fall within the MBGR buffer, sample monitoring could serve as a representation of what impacts may be occurring across the districts to similar site types in similar locations. The conclusions of this monitoring would inform any further decisions on the impacts of MBGR to cultural resources. 3.4.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action This alternative has the potential to damage recorded cultural resource sites and many unrecorded sites both historic and prehistoric. Under this alternative, 1,020 miles of existing NFS roads or motorized trails and about 1,151 miles of unauthorized roads and trails would remain available for use by the public. In addition, cross-country travel could continue in areas where the activity is not already prohibited (wilderness, municipal watersheds). Damage to sites could occur through the mechanical action of the vehicle creating artifact displacement and erosion. In addition, new unauthorized motorized trails in previously unroaded areas would potentially allow

68 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement for collection of artifacts and archaeological site looting. Indirect impacts would occur from dispersed camping off these new motorized trails. Dispersed camping can cause irreversible damage to a site when people dig holes for fire pits, flatten areas for tent locations, compact areas for parking, and through general concentrated activities. Based on the available data, there are about 102 miles of unauthorized roads and motorized trails passing through cultural resource sites under this alternative. 3.4.3.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, 93.5 miles of proposed roads and motorized trails would pass through cultural resource sites, an approximately 8 percent decrease in the number of miles over Alternative 1. However, there is only a 1 percent decrease in the number of sites (4) with an unauthorized road passing through them. This alternative is not anticipated to affect any additional sites because these motorized trails are already created and additional vehicle impacts are expected to be minimal or non-existent. Cultural resource surveys (2008 to 2010) have identified 49 sites with some form of recommendation concerning possible impacts from a proposed road or motorized trail. These recommendations include monitoring 48 sites and testing 1 site. Where monitoring was recommended for a site, it was due to potential impacts from people driving off designated roads or motorized trails or a location that could lend itself to dispersed camping. In most cases, the road itself has caused the damage or is causing minimal damage with the threat from indirect impacts possible. A monitoring plan would be implemented that would identify whether adverse impacts are occurring to the site. If they occur then mitigation measures would be applied, which could include closing the road, blocking off access to the site, or data recovery. In some cases, the site may extend far beyond the project’s area of potential effect and, therefore, the site was not fully recorded or evaluated. Two sites proved to have unique characteristics that made them eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The motorized trails that access both of those sites end right at the site which can create damage when people turn around in the area or stop and camp. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 without the MBGR option would substantially lessen further effects to cultural resources because travel would be restricted to designated roads and motorized trails. Historic properties located along routes not designated for use would no longer be impacted by motor vehicle use. The risk of impacts from motor vehicle use at other properties, located some distance from roads or motorized trails, would be reduced as a result of the prohibition of motor vehicle use inconsistent with the designation. If the MBGR option were applied to this alternative, hunters would be able to access approximately 674,357 acres of NFS land. Within this MBGR buffer, there are 1,371 recorded sites (table 26). Of these, 755 are either eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (106) or remain unevaluated (649). Approximately 70 percent of the eligible sites include prehistoric resources and the remaining 30 percent are historic. About 63 percent of the unevaluated sites include prehistoric components and 37 percent are historic. Unevaluated sites are treated as sensitive, as they could be eligible. The hunter success rates for deer are more even across the districts than for elk. If MBGR was allowed for elk only, the same areas would be open to cross-country travel; however, most of the successful elk hunts occur in Hunt Units 72 and 61 on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. Impacts for an elk only MBGR option could reasonably be far fewer than those for a more inclusive option. There are only 258 sites within the non-wilderness portion of MBGR buffer in Unit 72 and 136 sites within Unit 61. Within Unit 72, 45 sites are eligible resources while 125 are unevaluated. Most of the eligible sites are prehistoric. Within Unit 61, 6 sites are eligible while 68 are unevaluated, with an equal portion of historic and prehistoric eligible and unevaluated sites.

69 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Without additional monitoring of these eligible and unevaluated sites within the MBGR buffer, there would be no way to determine the impacts MBGR could have on these sites. Additional monitoring may needed if this option is selected with Alternative 2. It is reasonable to expect that both direct and indirect effects, as described above could occur at any of the sites within the MBGR buffer. 3.4.3.3. Alternative 3: Current System Under Alternative 3, motor vehicle use would be restricted to an existing 1,021 miles of NFS roads and motorized trails. The impacts to historic properties currently resulting from motorized cross-country travel and use of unauthorized routes would be eliminated in this alternative. Under this alternative, the sites currently impacted by dispersed camping or potentially impacted by indirect effects would revegetate resulting in a reduction in erosion and artifacts would become obscured, reducing collection opportunities. Historic roads that have not been designated to the FTS would become overgrown and would not serve their original function. 3.4.3.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Under this alternative, the FTS would include approximately 335 miles of NFS road and 1,232 miles of NFS motorized trail. These roads and motorized trails reflect those that are currently displayed on the Forest visitor map. As a result, the FTS would include approximately 1,567 miles of roads and motorized trails. Under this alternative, 29 eligible or unevaluated cultural resource sites would incur no further impacts as compared to Alternative 1. Sites that have recommendations would be treated according to those recommendations as discussed in Alternative 1. The game retrieval component of this alternative would allow continued motor vehicle use off designated roads and motorized trails. This use could result in impacts to historic properties across the 629,782 acres of area within 0.50 mile of designated roads and trails. These could range from minor dispersal of material on the surface of a historic property to the rutting and breakage of the same material. Depending on the type of site, material could be removed by collectors who discover the sites as they are retrieving their elk. A total of 1,293 sites fall within the MBGR buffer for Alternative 4 (table 26). Of these 105 are eligible and 615 are unevaluated. The number of miles of unauthorized routes passing through cultural resource sites would be reduced to 85.6 miles, a reduction of 16.3 miles (16%) from Alternative 1. Still the unknown nature of the potential impacts on sites within the 0.50 mile MBGR buffer could increase the effects to sites located some distance from designated roads and trails. The sites with motorized trails passing through them would not necessarily be the same sites as those in other alternatives but would include all those in Alternative 1. As with Alternative 2, MBGR for elk only could significantly decrease the amount of impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 4 due to the fact that the majority of successful hunts occur in just two hunt units. For Alternative 4, Unit 72 includes 229 sites. Of these, 43 are eligible resources and 111 are unevaluated. Unit 61 includes 136 sites; 6 of which are eligible and 68 are unevaluated. The number of sensitive sites that could be impacted by MBGR is far fewer with an elk only option. 3.4.3.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Under this alternative about 465 miles of existing unauthorized roads and motorized trails would be added to the FTS. This alternative would designate 691 fewer miles of roads or motorized trails to the FTS compared to Alternative 1. Under this alternative, 27 (10%) fewer eligible or unevaluated sites would incur no further impacts as compared to Alternative 1.

70 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The number of miles of unauthorized roads and trails passing through cultural resource sites would be reduced to 66.8 miles, a reduction of 35 miles (34%) from Alternative 1. Sites along designated motorized trails would be treated according to the recommendations made based on the cultural resource survey report. 3.4.4. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for cultural resources is the area within the boundaries of the districts. Because all proposed undertakings require archaeological review under the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, there is less likelihood for effects to "add up” cumulatively that would adversely affect cultural resources. Archaeological surveys and reviews usually result in the avoidance or mitigation of effects to National Register eligible or unevaluated archaeological sites. However, cumulative effects would be expected under Alternative 1 if the development of unauthorized routes continues unchecked across the project area. Under the action alternatives, there may be an increase in adverse effects to eligible or unevaluated sites if there is an increase or more concentrated use in dispersed camping areas along designated motorized trails. Road Maintenance: General road maintenance conducted by the Forest Service is done without going through the Section 106 process. Sites that have roads passing through them may be bladed repeatedly shaving off layers of a site and redepositing artifacts either to the side of the road or down the road. In some cases, the maintenance work extends beyond the existing road prism cutting into the site through widening of the road or through digging water drainage trenches into the site. Livestock Grazing: Under all alternatives, impacts from livestock grazing and range improvements are expected to decrease. Any new improvements, such as trough installation and fence building, must be addressed through the Section 106 process, therefore any eligible or unevaluated sites would be avoided or mitigated. The reauthorization of grazing on the Jarbidge Ranger District is being analyzed and from a cultural resources viewpoint, it is expected that livestock impacts would decrease in response to a decrease in range utilization. The Ruby Mountains District will be analyzed in the near future and the same results are expected. Mineral Exploration, Mining, and Reclamation: Under all alternatives, any mineral exploration, mining, or reclamation activities are addressed through the Section 106 process. Currently, approximately six exploration operations are being proposed for the near future. An increase in development of mineral resources can have the potential to temporarily or permanently increase the miles as well as number of roads in mining areas. Indirectly, road access, even temporary, can open areas to new unauthorized access or to casual artifact collectors and site looters. Fuels Projects/Wildfire: Under all alternatives, proposed fuels projects will be addressed through the Section 106 process whether the project is a prescribed burn or mechanical treatment. Previous projects have not resulted in adverse impacts to cultural resource sites. While a site may be burned over exposing artifacts, it is temporary and vegetation quickly grows back obscuring the artifacts. Recreation Development: Under all alternatives, the potential for cumulative effects to occur on cultural resource sites is possible. Under Alternative 1, dispersed camping can occur throughout the project area and there is no way to determine where a new site would be established. Under the action alternatives, new or expanding dispersed campsites would occur along designated routes.

71 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.5. Economics

3.5.1. Affected Environment The population of Elko County experienced rapid growth from 1980 to the mid-1990s. Since then there has been more moderated rates of growth, with populations somewhat stable since 2007. Growth in the gold mining industry has had a strong influence on population and employment in Elko and Eureka Counties, particularly after 2000, and is likely to help account for the condition where income earned by Elko County residents who work outside the county exceeds the income earned by county residents who work within Elko County. In 2007, it is estimated that 33 percent of county jobs were in the travel and tourism sectors, which is greater than the percentage of U.S. employment within these sectors (14%), recognizing that it is difficult to determine the proportion of jobs that are attributable to non-local visitor spending. Elko County continues to rely on the travel and tourism industry sectors; however, the magnitude of that reliance has decreased to some extent in recent years. Reliance on the travel and tourism sectors is likely to contribute to lower average earnings per job in Elko County, compared to Nevada or the United States. The county has become a visitor destination for a variety of annual recreational, historical, cultural, and ethnic events, as well as traditional recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, equestrian use, increasing participation in ATV and OHV use, hiking, nature viewing, skiing, and boating. Average annual OHV participation rates for Nevada have been somewhat greater than national averages but somewhat less than the participation rate for all western states. The Forest Service’s NVUM data indicates that the percent of national forest visitors participating in OHV use on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lands, excluding the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area, is greater than average participation rates across all national forest units. Of the estimated 1,607,000 recreational visits to the Forest, excluding SMNRA, approximately 240,570 annual visits are estimated to occur within the three districts addressed in this analysis. Primary activity participation rates are highest for hiking/walking, viewing natural features, driving for pleasure, hunting, bicycling, and OHV use. The main or primary activities for roughly 16 percent of recreational visits are estimated to involve motorized activities, while 44 percent of primary activities involve non-motorized activities that used roads and trails by foot or non-motorized transportation (e.g., hiking, biking, skiing, etc.). The primary activity for the remaining 44 percent of recreational visits is estimated to be associated with “other” activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, sight-seeing, and nature study, where the use of roads and trails is not necessarily the primary reason for their visit. Roads, trails, and motorized vehicles are used as a secondary activity (e.g., for accessing sites, game) for a number of non-motorized or ‘other’ primary activity visits, making it difficult to separate the economic impacts according to motorized and non-motorized users. Smaller individual rural communities, located near or within the districts, contain only a small fraction of the county’s population and businesses but, due to their size, economic orientation, and location, they may experience proportionately greater effects from recreational activity on the districts. The culture and heritage of these communities are also more likely to be a direct function, in part, of opportunities available on district lands. Some of these communities may serve as a source of supplies or ‘portals’ just beyond the boundaries of the districts (e.g., Jackpot, Rogerson, Lamoille), while others are surrounded by the districts (e.g., Jarbidge, Mountain City). Establishments in these communities are predominantly associated with industry sectors affiliated with travel and tourism (e.g., accommodation and food services; retail trade).

72 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.5.2. Environmental Consequences An impact analysis for planning (IMPLAN) model was developed for Elko County and used in this analysis to estimate employment and labor income contributed by recreational visitor spending on the three districts. Calculated employment and labor income contributions associated with estimates of current numbers of visits and spending are assumed to represent the economic effects under baseline conditions or Alternative 1. Details about validation of economic impact modeling results, including comparisons to Nevada tourism data and data from available economic reports for Elko County, are provided in the Economics Specialist Report. 3.5.2.1. Alternative 1: No Action When considering spending by non-local visitors (e.g., visitors from outside of Elko County), and accounting for potential local visitor effects (i.e., assumption that 20% of local visitors would travel outside of Elko County to seek substitute opportunities if recreation opportunities on the districts are perceived as not available), total annual job and income contributions under Alternative 1 are estimated to be 112 jobs and approximately $3.1 million in labor income per year. The projected distribution of these impacts across different activities is as follows: 18 jobs ($500,000 income) per year from motorized use visits with OHV use contributing approximately 5 percent of estimated jobs and income (5 jobs and $170,000 per year); 44 jobs ($1.2 million) per year from non-motorized use visits; and 50 jobs ($1.4 million) per year from all other primary activities with hunting accounting for 14 jobs ($440,000 per year). Activity-specific results are presented to demonstrate the potential for impacts to vary by category of recreational activity due to (1) different levels of visitor spending across activities and (2) different numbers of visits within each category. Estimated numbers of visits and spending across activities for the districts are based in part on NVUM data for the forest unit and the nation as a whole, and as such, actual numbers of visits and economic impacts by activity category for the districts may differ from results presented here. It is difficult to project the effect of changes in demographics, recreational demand, and other outside factors on future recreational visits and corresponding economic impacts; however, the potential for continued degradation of resources and recreational experiences associated with unauthorized or unmanaged motorized access could have an adverse impact on job and income contributions in the future. The economic impact results for Alternative 1 suggest that the economic contributions to the local county economy by recreation on the districts are relatively small when compared to total county employment (estimated to be 0.6%) and specific employment in the travel and tourism sectors (1.5%). However, motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities would continue to have a substantial impact on the lifestyles and culture of the Elko County area, including the attractiveness of the area from the perspective of a variety of forest users and local residents. It is also noted that jobs and income contributed by recreation are likely to be an important component of welfare for individual communities such as Jarbidge, Lamoille, and Mountain City. 3.5.2.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action The total miles of designated routes would be reduced compared to Alternative 1, but this alternative would still designate more miles of unauthorized routes when compared to the other alternatives. While motorized and non-motorized recreation activities, including MBGR, are indeed responsible for supporting jobs in the local communities and contributing to the attractiveness, lifestyles, and customs of residents and visitors, changes in jobs and income resulting from Alternative 2 are expected to be relatively small and difficult to accurately project or detect. There may be some potential for decreases in motorized visits to the districts as a consequence of the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel and designating routes under Alternative 2,

73 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement however, potential job impacts may be offset or tempered, in part, by a number of mitigating factors, including: • Some potential for increases in visitors associated with non-motorized trails and other activities as conditions contributing to the quality of their experience improve. • Improved long-term management and maintenance of a planned travel system (larger than the other action alternatives) and enhanced quality of motorized trail system opportunities. • The potential for some portion of displaced motorized users to visit substitute sites and/or participate in alternative outdoor recreational activities within the local area. • Potential adoption of an option to retain some opportunities for cross-country motorized travel during hunting season for elk and deer retrieval (MBGR option). The direction of any net changes in jobs and income contributed by recreation under Alternative 2 are therefore difficult to predict. Under Alternative 2 (as well as the other action alternatives), the mitigating factors described above are also expected to apply to smaller areas surrounding specific community or ‘portal’ areas (e.g., Mountain City, Jarbidge) where economic impacts may be more pronounced. 3.5.2.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would reduce motorized recreation opportunities more than the other action alternatives, though it would still retain a number of the NFS roads and motorized trails that provide quality recreational opportunities. There would be a reduction in ROS acreage associated with SPM compared to Alternative 1. However, potential shifts in locations of motorized activity and potential congestion are not expected to threaten or degrade SPM conditions or quality of the recreational experience in those areas. Alternative 3 would preserve and improve a wide variety of non-motorized and other recreational use opportunities, as evidenced by the 15 percent increase in SPNM. However, access for some activities may be more limited when compared to the other action alternatives. Similar to Alternative 2, changes in jobs and income resulting from Alternative 3 would be expected to be relatively small and difficult to project or detect. There may be greater potential (compared to the other action alternatives) for decreases in motorized as well as non-motorized visits to the districts as a consequence of prohibiting cross-country motorized travel and decreasing miles of designated routes and access under Alternative 3. Potential job impacts may be offset or tempered, in part, by a number of mitigating factors, including: • Greatest potential (compared to other action alternatives) for increases in visitors associated with non-motorized trails and other activities as conditions contributing to the quality of their experience improve. • The potential for some portion of displaced users to visit substitute sites and/or participate in alternative outdoor recreational activities within the local area. The direction of any net changes in jobs and income contributed by recreation, or shifts in recreational activities under Alternative 3 are therefore difficult to predict. 3.5.2.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Aternative 4 would reduce motorized recreation opportunities compared to Alternative 1 and 2 but would still retain significant motorized opportunities, more so than Alternative 3 or 5. Restricting MBGR to elk only would have less of a mitigating impact on perceptions of decreased motorized opportunities (compared to an option for both elk and mule deer proposed under

74 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2). Alternative 4 would preserve and improve non-motorized and other recreational use opportunities to a greater extent than Alternative 2 but to a lesser extent than Alternative 3. Similar to the other action alternatives, any potential changes in jobs and income would likely be relatively small and difficult to accurately project or detect at the county level under Alternative 4. There may be greater potential for decreases in motorized visits compared to Alternative 2, but less potential than Alternative 3. Potential corresponding job impacts may be offset or tempered, in part, by a number of mitigating factors, including: • Potential increases in visitors associated with non-motorized trail and other activities as conditions contributing to the quality of their experience improve. • Improved long-term management and maintenance of a planned travel system and enhanced quality of motorized trail system opportunities (e.g., greater numbers of designated motorized trails). • The potential for some portion of displaced users to visit substitute sites and/or participate in alternative outdoor recreational activities within the local area. • Retention of some opportunities for cross-country motorized travel during hunting season for game retrieval. The direction of any net changes in jobs and income contributed by recreation, or shifts in recreational activities under Alternative 4 are therefore difficult to predict. 3.5.2.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 may reduce motorized recreation opportunities to a slightly greater extent than Alternative 4 (e.g., reduced miles of motorized trails), but would still retain significant motorized opportunities, more so than Alternative 3. Alternative 5 may preserve and improve non- motorized and other recreational use opportunities to a slightly greater extent than Alternative 4. Access for non-motorized activities may be more difficult under Alternative 5, implying an increase in primitive recreation experience but reduced opportunities for less primitive recreational non-motorized activities. Similar to the other action alternatives, any potential changes in jobs and income are likely to be relatively small and difficult to accurately project or detect at the county level. There may be greater potential for decreases in motorized visits compared to Alternative 2 and 4 but less potential than Alternative 3. Possible job impacts may be offset or tempered, in part, by a number of mitigating factors, including: • Potential increases in visitors associated with non-motorized trail and other activities as conditions contributing to the quality of their experience improve. • Improved long-term management and maintenance of a planned travel system and enhanced quality of motorized trail system opportunities (though less system diversity relative to Alternative 4 and more than 3). • The potential for some portion of displaced users to visit substitute sites and/or participate in alternative outdoor recreational activities within the local area. The direction of any net changes in jobs and income contributed by recreation, or shifts in recreational activities under Alternative 5 are therefore difficult to predict. Similar to the other action alternatives, the mitigating factors described above are also expected to apply to smaller areas surrounding specific community or ‘portal’ areas (e.g., Mountain City, Jarbidge) where economic impacts may be more pronounced.

75 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.5.3. Cumulative Effects Changes based on economy, age distribution, and population can affect how people recreate. The population for Elko County grew substantially but inconsistently between 1970 and the late 1990s. Growth has slowed since that time with little change between 2007 and 2009, suggesting some degree of uncertainty about future growth and increases in numbers of local visitors. There is no direct evidence indicating that activity participation would change, though shifts in demographics as well as social and economic conditions could impact activity shares. Given that the 45 to 49 year age group has grown somewhat in Elko County, there may be some increase in recreational demand by OHV users characterized as “middle age activities” (characteristics include an interest in a variety of activities). The “middle age active” user group (as well as other groups) is likely to favor management alternatives that provide for and help protect a diverse set of motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Changes in demand and participation may place stress on proposed route systems; however, improvements in long-term management of motorized use under a travel management plan are expected to help adapt to and mitigate adverse effects associated with changing recreational demands. Forest Service NVUM data provide evidence that visitors to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest who may feel displaced by travel management restrictions are likely to seek out substitute sites within the local area. There is no evidence that other public land management agencies are implementing additional travel management restrictions. Should future travel management restrictions be considered by other agencies and create the potential for decreases in motorized opportunities, cumulative effects are expected to be offset or mitigated by a number of the same mitigating factors noted for direct effects (e.g., potential increases in visitors engaged in non- motorized or ‘other’ activity; improved long-term conditions and quality of available motorized opportunities; and potential for adopting activity-specific exceptions for motorized travel such as MBGR). As a consequence, cumulative effects are not expected to have a great impact on the community. 3.6. Social Environment

3.6.1. Introduction This analysis will look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative social effects related to two social factors: 1) lifestyles of those who use NFS lands, and 2) the landscape connection that those who use NFS lands develop with “special places3” on the Forest. These two factors relate directly to an individual’s quality of life as well as a community’s quality of life. The social effects analysis is focused on Elko County where the majority of direct effects would be realized. Some limited impacts would be felt in the greater area surrounding Elko County (Ely, Reno, Salt Lake City, Twin Falls, etc.), but are assumed to be minimal. This analysis is also focused on the effects to 1) recreational visitors, 2) tribal members, and 3) cultural users. The focus is on these three groups of non-commercial users since commercial users such as mineral exploration and mining companies, special use permit holders, and livestock grazing permittees have exemptions that authorize those uses to continue.

3 For the purposes of this analysis, specific geographic locations that hold special meaning to forest visitors are referred to as “special places”.

76 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.6.1.1. Effects Indicators Lifestyles4: There is the potential for travel restrictions to change how recreationists, tribal members, and cultural users use NFS lands, which in turn could have an effect on the lifestyle that these people choose to lead. Impacts may be greater for those individuals and groups whose activity has a substantial motorized component. If impacts occur to a substantial portion of the local population, there is the possibility the social well-being of communities around the project area, such as Elko, Wells, and Jarbidge, could be affected. The impacts to lifestyles would be evaluated by: • Ability of the three user groups – 1) recreational visitors, 2) tribal members, and 3) cultural users - to participate in Forest activities. Landscape Connections5: Members of the recreation, tribal members, and cultural user groups often develop strong attachments to specific places they visit. This attachment can develop from a special event or from repeated visits to the same place. Examples include a family that uses a hunting camp annually for generations, a Native American tribal member who visits a certain location to practice traditional ceremonies over many years, or a person who periodically visits a vista for meditation and spiritual growth. The ability to continue to access these special places is important to those individuals. There is the potential for travel management decisions to affect how some people and groups can connect with the land. Impacts may be greater for those individuals and groups whose activity has a substantial motorized component. The impacts to the landscape connections people have with the land will be evaluated by: • Acres of NFS lands readily accessible for use (measured in terms of acres within 0.5 and 1.0 mile of an open motorized route). 3.6.2. Affected Environment The affected area for this social analysis includes all of Elko County and the northern portion of White Pine County, Nevada. Travel management decisions may affect the way people living near the project area live, work, and recreate. These decisions may also affect the lives of people who come from outside the area as well to spend time on NFS lands. Northeastern Nevada is largely dominated by natural resource based activities that support a rural lifestyle. From a social perspective, the ties that many have to the national forest are personal and this interaction contributes greatly to the quality of life that people enjoy. Many residents identify with the recreational and amenity values that the national forest provides. Recreational opportunities influence the leisure activities participated in by many local residents and area visitors. Numerous studies have portrayed the recreational uses of NFS lands. In 2006, the Forest Service completed a forest-wide survey on visitor use (NVUM). Across the Forest as a whole (except for the Spring Mountains Recreation Area), approximately 75 percent of all visits were recreation related (USDA Forest Service 2006). In 1995, the Humboldt National Forest conducted a survey to measure public opinion regarding the Forest (A & A Research 1995). The study surveyed local residents of Elko, White Pine, and Humboldt counties. Key findings related to use of NFS lands included: • Three out of five adults have used the national forest in the last twelve months.

4 A person’s typical approach to living, including his moral attitudes, preferred entertainment, fads, fashions, etc. (The Random House College Dictionary, 1975) 5 Landscape Connections is the term used in this analysis for the concept commonly referred to as “place attachment.”

77 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

• The most frequent activities engaged in are to drive and enjoy the scenery (94%), look at wildlife and birds (89%), hike (65%), fish (62%), camp (52%), and wilderness use (40%). Use of off-road vehicles followed at 26 percent.

Other users discover and maintain spiritual, historical, or cultural ties with the landscape. The Shoshone and Paiute tribes have ancestral ties to the lands in northeast Nevada that go back hundreds of years. Today, Native American tribes continue to use national forest resources and practice traditional customs. These practices include religious ceremonies, gathering of plant materials for baskets, pine nut gathering, and hunting. Local ranching communities and families have historical ties with national forest resources for livestock production purposes. In 2007, there were approximately 456 farms in Elko County (Nevada Department of Agriculture). Seventy permittees graze cattle, horses, and/or sheep on the NFS lands across the three districts. Some visitors also engage in other cultural activities on the national forest such as practicing yoga or meditation, observing special events, or attending church services. Overall, many individuals value NFS lands for a variety of uses and are passionate about the various opportunities the districts provide. 3.6.3. Environmental Consequences 3.6.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would not change motorized access on NFS or unauthorized roads and trails. The current system of roads and motorized routes, totaling 2,171 miles, would continue to provide access to most areas on the districts. Cross-country travel would continue to be allowed, including for big game retrieval. Lifestyle: For recreationists, tribal members, and cultural users whose lifestyle is influenced by the use of the Forest there should be no change in their ability to participate in Forest activities. Whether or not these uses involve motorized vehicles, all participants would continue to enjoy the same access they had in the past. Continued use by these constituents would mean there would be no impacts to their lifestyles under this alternative (table 27). Landscape Connections: The amount of NFS lands accessible within 0.5 mile of a designated route is 754,789 acres or 63 percent of the total amount of NFS lands (table 28). The amount of NFS lands accessible within 1.0 mile of a designated route is 951,941 acres or 80 percent of the total amount of NFS lands. Whether by motorized or non-motorized means, recreationists, tribal members, and cultural users would continue to connect to the land in ways that are presently available to them across the three ranger districts. There would be no change in a person’s ability to reach “special places” that are important to them. Overall, there should be no impacts to recreationists, tribal members, and cultural users who value the Forest for societal reasons. At a larger scale, there would be no impacts to the social well being of the communities close to the project area. 3.6.3.2. Effects Common to the Action Alternatives Lifestyle: Under the action alternatives, many users would not experience any changes that would affect their ability to participate in forest-based activities. For others, the changes in access under the action alternatives could have a noticeable effect on the recreational, tribal, or cultural uses on the Forest. For those who participate in non-motorized activities, there would likely be enhanced opportunities for their pursuits such as hiking, wildlife viewing, and hunting (by non-motorized means).

78 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The miles of roads and motorized trail designated under each alternative (table 27) could change the way users engage in activities, but uses are expected to continue. The loss of cross-country motorized travel may impact some motorized users, but it would be expected that most drivers/riders would shift use to designated routes on the districts. Some OHV riders who prefer the challenges of cross-country riding may choose to continue this sport elsewhere. Recreationists involved in non-motorized recreational uses such as hiking, horseback riding, or mountain biking, would still be able to do so, and should not experience any negative effects. Designated roads and trails would still provide access to trailheads and other “jumping off” points. The prohibition of cross-country travel by motorized vehicles could provide more opportunities and enhance or improve the experience for the non-motorized user by reducing the interaction between motorized and non-motorized activities. The majority of visitors who use the Forest for spiritual, historical, or cultural reasons would still be able to engage in interests they consider important in their individual lifestyle. Tribal members would be able to engage in interests they consider important in their individual lifestyle. Where designated open access in not available, tribal uses would likely be allowed access by written authorization. Table 27 provides a review of impacts to the motorized and non-motorized users by alternative.

79 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 27. Comparison of Impacts to Lifestyle Factors of Motorized and Non-motorized User Groups by Alternative Alternative Lifestyle Factor Changes to Motorized Users Changes to Non-motorized Users 2,171 miles of open motorized routes No change No change Alternative 1: Motorized cross-country travel No change No change No Action allowed Big game retrieval allowed No change No change Increased opportunities for non-motorized activities. Enhanced 2,042 miles of open motorized routes Reduced opportunities for motorized travel experience due to decreased interaction with motor vehicles Alternative 2: No motorized cross-country travel No opportunity for cross-country motorized More opportunity for non-motorized activities. Enhanced Proposed allowed recreation experience due to decreased interaction with motor vehicles Action For some hunters there may a decrease in the quality of the hunt Option for MBGR for elk and mule MBGR option would assist some hunters in due to interaction with motorized vehicles used for big game deer hunting retrieving downed elk or mule deer retrieval. Increased opportunities for non-motorized activities. Enhanced 1,021 miles of open motorized routes Reduced opportunities for motorized travel experience due to decreased interaction with motor vehicles Alternative 3: No motorized cross-country travel No opportunity for off-road motorized More opportunity for non-motorized activities. Enhanced Current allowed recreation experience due to decreased interaction with motor vehicles System For some hunters there may an increase in the quality of the hunt Hunters of big game may adjust or alter their No big game retrieval due to no interaction with motorized vehicles used for big game hunting practices. retrieval. Increased opportunities for non-motorized activities. Enhanced 1,567 miles of open motorized routes Reduced opportunities for motorized travel experience due to decreased interaction with motor vehicles No motorized cross-country travel No opportunity for off-road motorized More opportunity for non-motorized activities. Enhanced Alternative 4: allowed recreation experience due to decreased interaction with motor vehicles Visitor Map This would assist some elk hunters in retrieving downed elk. Other hunters of mule For some hunters there may a decrease in the quality of the hunt MBGR allowed for elk hunting deer and antelope may adjust or alter their due to interaction with motorized vehicles used for elk retrieval. hunting practices. 1,480 miles of open motorized routes Reduced opportunities for road travel Increased opportunities for non-motorized activities Alternative 5: No motorized cross-country travel No opportunity for off-road motorized More opportunity for non-motorized activities. Enhanced Reduced allowed recreation experience due to decreased interaction with motor vehicles Resource For some hunters there may an increase in the quality of the hunt Hunters of big game may adjust or alter their Impacts No big game retrieval due to no interaction with motorized vehicles used for big game hunting practices. retrieval.

80 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Landscape Connections: When compared with Alternative 1, the action alternatives could prevent some people from being able to reach special places that have significant meaning to them. For others, reduced motorized access could affect their ability to connect with the land (table 28). The accessible acres within 0.5 mile and 1.0 mile of a designated route by alternative are displayed in table 28. Maps 2 through 6 display the area within 0.5 mile of designated routes by alternative. Breaking these connections with the land or places could in turn affect the person’s willingness to visit the Forest. While the action alternatives might not have an effect on a large scale, the potential effects to the social connection that some individuals have with the land could be long lasting. However, over time, many of those affected by loss of access to a “special place” could develop new connections to the land based on new experiences. Conversely, the increased amount of “unroaded lands” may improve the possibility for those who value “quiet recreation” to develop stronger connections to the land. Overall, there should be limited impacts to individuals who value and use the national forest. At a larger scale, impacts to the social well being of the communities close to the project area (including Elko, Wells, and Jarbidge) would see minimal, if any, impacts. Uses that contribute to the social well-being of local communities would continue across the three districts. 3.6.3.3. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, a reduction of 129 miles of motorized travel routes is not expected to have a noticeable impact on motorized recreational uses as 2,042 miles of designated routes would still be available for use. If the MBGR option were applied to this alternative then limited game retrieval would continue. Allowing limited game retrieval would lessen the amount of displacement on hunters who prefer to use motorized access. 3.6.3.4. Alternative 3: Current System Under Alternative 3, while all opportunities would still be available, the extent of motorized opportunities may be reduced and/or the quality of the experience altered. With fewer miles of open roads to drive on, it is expected that the amount of traffic on remaining open roads would increase and could alter the driving experience. There would also be a reduction in the number of existing dispersed campsites that would be accessible by motorized vehicle. 3.6.3.5. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Effects described above in Alternative 3, would be the same for Alternative 4. By allowing for elk retrieval under this alternative, the impacts on some elk hunters who rely on motorized retrieval would be slightly reduced. 3.6.3.6. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Effects under Alternative 5 would be the same as for Alternative 3. Table 28 provides a review of impacts to landscape connection factors of motorized and non-motorized users by alternative.

81 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comparison of Areas within 0.5 miles of Designated Routes by Alternative.

Map 2. Alternative 1: No Action Map 3. Alternative 2. Proposed Action

82 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Map 4. Alternative 3: Current System Map 5. Alternative 4: Visitor Map

83 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Map 6. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts

84 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.6.4. Cumulative Effects The local social environment can be affected by a variety of factors including population growth, changes in recreational trends, location of new magnet industries, recession, growth of new economic sectors, tax policy, state economic policy, etc. When compared to these kinds of variables, travel management decisions on the national forest have a relatively small effect on the social setting. While the decisions of this project would have some minor direct and indirect effects on some forest users and the social well being of local communities, the available information does not lend itself to predicting the cumulative social impacts. Without additional analysis that is beyond the scope of this analysis, cumulative social impacts cannot be predicted.

85 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 28. Comparison of Impacts to Landscape Connection Factors of Motorized and Non-motorized Users by Alternative Alternative Landscape Connection Factor Changes to Motorized Users Changes to Non-motorized Users 754,789 acres within 0.5 mile of No change to current condition No change to current condition a designated route Alternative 1: No Action 951,941 acres accessible within No change to current condition No change to current condition 1.0 mile of a designated route

715,947 acres within 0.5 mile of Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with a designated route is with “special places” the land Alternative 2: Proposed Action 928,678 acres accessible within Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with 1.0 mile of a designated route with “special places” the land

536,616 acres within 0.5 mile of Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with Alternative 3: a designated route with “special places” the land Current System 802,043 acres accessible within Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with 1.0 mile of a designated route with “special places” the land

663,186 acres within 0.5 mile of Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with Alternative 4: a designated route with “special places” the land Visitor Map 901,023 acres accessible within Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with 1.0 mile of a designated route with “special places” the land

Alternative 5: 627,298 acres within 0.5 mile of Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with Reduced a designated route with “special places” the land Resource 870,610 acres within 1.0 mile of Reduced opportunity for maintaining connections Impacts Increased likelihood of developing stronger connections with a designated route with “special places” the land

86 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.7. Soil and Water Resources

3.7.1. Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to examine each travel management alternative and determine the potential effect that each will have on soil and water resources. Forest Plan direction concerning soil and water resources is to comply with State Water Quality Standards, manage soils to maintain long-term productivity, and close travel routes and areas to vehicle travel if there is resource damage (USDA FS 1999). In addition to the Forest Plan, the Forest has established a memorandum of understanding with the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (USDA FS 2009d). The goal of this MOU is to prevent, mitigate, and control nonpoint source pollution on NFS lands for the overall purpose of improving water quality and meeting the Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state, and local water quality laws and regulations. Roads and motorized trails are potentially a major source of nonpoint source pollution on the Forest. Roads have three primary effects on water: 1) they intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and road cutbanks and intercept subsurface water moving down the hillslope; 2) they concentrate flow, either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and 3) they divert or reroute water from flow paths it would take were the road not present. Most hydrologic and geomorphic consequences of roads result from one or more of these processes. In a synthesis of published literature on the effects roads have on water quality, Elliot (2000) noted, “on most forested watersheds, sediment is the most troublesome pollutant, and roads are a major source of that sediment.” Sediment rates from watersheds with roads and other soil disturbances tend to be significantly higher than watersheds with their natural cover of vegetation intact (Elliot and Hall 1997). Because all analysis routes contain disturbed soil, they represent some level of risk to the watershed for erosion and sediment runoff into streams. The level of risk and potential for impact, however, will vary due to conditions such as a route’s location in the watershed, route steepness, and the erodibility of the soil on which the route is constructed. A motorized route may have many other attributes that add risk. However, to make the task of analyzing each alternative manageable, only attributes that were judged to most influence impacts to water and soil resources were used as indicators of risk. The likelihood of erosion and sediment runoff increases as the value of any of the risk indicators increase. The risk indicators for this analysis are described in the paragraphs that follow. Roads near streams tend to affect stream habitat more than those in the uplands (McGurk and Fong 1995). Most sediment from roads enters streams where roads cross streams, or where roads are in close proximity to streams (Elliot 2000). An estimated 60 to 65 percent of stream crossings in the analysis area are fords. The general perception is that fords have greater impacts on water quality than other types of crossings. Fords introduce sediment during vehicle crossings. They also present more opportunity for sediment-laden runoff to flow down the road and into the stream. Fords have added risk because they can cause the channel to widen and become shallower (US EPA 2005) and hinder the stream channels ability to route sediment. Culverts and bridges are less frequent and are for the most part limited to NFS roads. Culverts that are not properly installed, are under sized, or not maintained can clog, over top the road and in extreme cases wash out. Bridges may alter streams both upstream and down for quite some distance changing the erosion and deposition processes, thereby, altering flow rates, pool-riffle sequences, and scour. Stream crossings are a major concern for water quality because they are an entry point for sediment and other pollutants that run off road surfaces (Elliot 2000). In this analysis, multiple crossings of streams are considered an indicator of risk. Stream channels naturally migrate within their historic floodplain, eroding the channel bed in one place while aggrading and building new streambanks in another. This process aids in floodplain

87 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement development and maintenance. When motorized routes are constructed within floodplains and in close proximity to streams, they can restrict natural channel migration and alter the natural transport process. As runoff is captured, concentrated, and rerouted through ditches, rills and gullies, the road systems effectively increase the density of streams on the landscape. This changes the amount of time required for water to enter a stream channel, which alters the timing of peak flows. The amount of motorized routes within a designated riparian buffer on either side of a stream was considered an indicator of risk. The riparian buffer widths were designated as 150 feet for intermittent drainages and 300 feet for perennial drainages. These buffer widths are modeled after the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas used in Amendment 5 of the Forest Plan (USDA FS 1999). According to Copstead and others (1998), “If all else is equal, steeper road grades exhibit greater surface flows and erosion than milder grades.” To prevent excessive erosion on low-volume roads, best management practices advocate the installation of cross drains to divert water off steep road surfaces (Copstead et al. 1988, Keller and Sherar 2003). It is unlikely that the low volume, unauthorized routes in the project area have cross drains. Because most of the NFS roads are not regularly maintained, they are also not likely to have functioning cross drains. If the soil is also highly erodible, not only is there a greater chance of sediment runoff, but there may be catastrophic failure of the road due to mass wasting (Gucinski et al. 2001). Mass wasting has the potential to contribute large quantities of sediment to streams (Gucinski et al. 2001, USEPA 2005). Roads constructed using best management practices tend to have less risk of mass wasting (USEPA 2005). Since most unauthorized routes were not created using best management practices, they would likely be at the greatest risk for mass wasting. In this analysis, routes on steep slopes, greater than 30 percent with highly erosive soils, are considered an indicator of increased risk. The orientation of the road on the slope, the soil texture, level of traffic and design, as well as its position on the slope contributes to the erosion rate generated by the route. Routes that contour across steep slopes are less likely to cause erosion than routes climbing parallel up the slope. Erosion rates for various soil textures, levels of traffic, and slope are displayed for three road designs in the table 29. These erosion rates were estimated using the road erosion model of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). Studies conducted by Swift (1984) and Kochenderfer and Helvey (1987) found “soil loss from well-located roads” ranged from 2 to 115 tons per acre per year. The predicted erosion rates shown in the table are on the lower end of this range (table 29). Assumptions used in modeling erosion include: no new ground disturbing activities are proposed with this project. The routes being evaluated in this analysis already exist on the ground, but may require periodic maintenance. They have some degree of compaction, soil displacement and generally lack vegetation. The potential effect of the alternatives on soil and water resources are related to sustaining road or trail function, protecting adjacent soils from runoff and gully erosion, or protecting water quality. The average road has 2.4 acres per mile of road at the 20 foot width; however, NFS roads and trails in the project area range from 8 to over 20 feet.

88 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 29. Erosion Rates for Various Soil Textures, Slopes and Road Design Erosion Measured in Tons per Acre Soil Texture Road Surface, Traffic Level Insloped, Outsloped, Outsloped, and Slope Bare Ditch Unrutted Rutted Native, low traffic, 10% slope 2.1 0.7 1.9 Native, low traffic, 10% leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.6 0.04 0.5 Native, no traffic, 10% slope 1.5 0.6 1.5 Native, no traffic, 10% leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.5 0.03 0.5 Clay Loam Native, low traffic, 30% slope 7.2 4.7 6.8 Native, low traffic, 30% slope leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 1.7 0.8 1.6 Native, no traffic, 30% slope 5.9 4.4 5.9 Native, no traffic, 30% slope leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 1.4 0.5 1.4

Native, low traffic, 10% slope 0.9 0.9 0.6 Native, low traffic, 10% leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.1 0.1 0.01 Native, no traffic, 10% slope 0.7 0.7 0.4 Native, no traffic, 10% leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.1 0.1 0.01 Sandy Loam Native, low traffic, 30% slope 1.8 2.0 1.7 Native, low traffic, 30% slope leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.2 0.2 0.1 Native, no traffic, 30% slope 1.8 1.8 1.6 Native, no traffic, 30% slope leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.2 0.2 0.08

Native, low traffic, 10% slope 1.8 0.6 1.7 Native, low traffic, 10% leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.3 0.01 0.3 Native, no traffic, 10% slope 1.4 0.6 1.4 Native, no traffic, 10% leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.2 0.01 0.2 Silt Loam Native, low traffic, 30% slope 5.3 3.9 5.4 Native, low traffic, 30% slope leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.7 0.3 0.7 Native, no traffic, 30% slope 4.9 3.8 4.9 Native, no traffic, 30% slope leaving 50’ vegetative buffer 0.6 0.3 0.6 Clay loam: Native-surface roads on shales and similar decomposing sedimentary, some volcanics Sandy loam: Glacial outwash and finer grain granitics Silt loam: Ash cap native surface or fine grained alluvium Insloped roads with ditches are usually of greatest concern because they typically collect the runoff and deliver it directly to the stream network. Propagation of sediment laden flows off road surfaces has an average transport distance of 72 feet. Grass cover can reduce sediment transport to streams by as much as 40 percent (Swift 1986). According to the modeling, the range for roads that are insloped with a bare ditch is approximately .01 to 7.2 tons per acre of road per year and .01 to 17 tons per mile per year. For

89 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement outsloped unrutted roads, the range is approximately .01 to 4.7 tons per acre of road per year and .2 to 11 tons per mile of road per year. For outsloped rutted the range is .01 to 5.4 tons per acre per year and .4 to 17 tons per mile of road per year. 3.7.1.1. Analysis Methodology The line density tool calculates the density of linear features in the neighborhood of each 30 meter block. Density is calculated in units of length per unit of area. Conceptually, a circle is drawn around each block using the search radius. These figures are summed and the total is divided by the circle's area (one square mile). The figure below illustrates this concept:

Figure 2. Line Density Calculation The results of this density analysis is a surface type map where high points indicate areas of high route density and valleys (and plains) areas with low route density. Additional GIS analysis can then be used to build statistics about route density within a set of defined areas such as Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), ranger districts, or critical resource areas, or the data can be classified into zones of route density to produce a contour type map. Both methods were used in this analysis. 3.7.1.2. Effects Indicators Effects to soils and water are evaluated for each alternative using the following indicators: • Miles of routes within 300 feet of perennial streams • Miles of routes within 150 feet of intermittent streams • Number of perennial stream crossings • Number of intermittent stream crossings • Miles of routes located on slopes greater than 30 percent with erosive soils • Road density 3.7.2. Affected Environment The project area includes all watersheds or portions of watersheds within the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. Drainage on the Mountain City Ranger District flows either to the Snake River Basin of Idaho or to the Humboldt River Basin of northern Nevada. With the exception of watersheds descending off the east side of the Independence Range, all other watersheds on the district flow into the Snake River Basin. Streams on the east side descend into the North Fork Humboldt River, which flows south into the Humboldt River. The Humboldt River eventually terminates at the Humboldt Sink in the Humboldt Wildlife Management Area.

90 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Drainage within the Ruby Mountains Ranger District is controlled by the north-south trending Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Mountains. Watersheds on the west side flow into Huntington Valley. For most of these drainages, the surface flow ends near or as soon it reaches the valley floor. However, a few drainages provide surface flows to Huntington Creek which is a tributary to the Humboldt River. Drainages on the east side of the district flow into Ruby Valley or Clover Valley where they end near the valley floor or flow into sinks, such as Ruby Lake. Drainage within the Jarbidge Ranger District is divided between the Snake and Humboldt River basins. Most of the watersheds within the project area contribute flow to the Bruneau River or Salmon Falls Creek watersheds, which flow north into the Snake River Basin of southern Idaho. The remaining watersheds contribute flow to the Mary’s River drainage, which flows south into the Humboldt River drainage. As discussed above, motorized trails on steep slopes (greater than 30 percent slope) composed of erosive soils are a concern for risk of erosion or mass wasting. Table 29 displays miles of motorized trails on slopes over 30 percent with erosive soils. For a list of erosive soil units derived from soil surveys of the area (Crockett 1967, USDA FS 1982) and miles of motorized trails located on steep slopes composed of these soils see the Water and Soils Specialist Report. 3.7.2.1. Water Quality 303(d) Listed Streams Roads and motorized trails can cumulatively impact streams that already have impaired water quality such as those listed on the Nevada State 303(d) listed streams (table 30). Cumulative impacts may occur as additional sediment or dissolved solids enter the waterbodies at stream crossings or when insufficient vegetative buffers occur along routes or trails adjacent to waterbodies. Of the 23 waterbody segments in the project area, there are six impaired waterbodies. One is impaired for Turbidity (a measurement of suspended solids in the water column) and five are impaired for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). For a full list of 303(d) waterbodies and their impairments reference the Water and Soils Specialist Report. Turbidity affects the clarity of water and the depth sunlight can penetrate the waterbody. Its most common causes are activities that disturb the land surface and remove vegetation. Heavily urbanized areas contribute turbidity to nearby waters from paved and unpaved surfaces such as roads, trails, bridges, and parking lots. Industries such as mining and renewable energy can also contribute to the amount of turbidity in the waterbody. Streams undergoing accelerated bank erosion are typically the largest contributor. According to the Humboldt Basin Water Quality Standard Review conducted by Desert Research Institute in 2007, the state standard for turbidity applies only to designated waters in the Humboldt Basin. The most restrictive beneficial use is municipal or domestic supply. All designated waters must have turbidity less than 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). The primary concern with turbidity for domestic use is it interferes with chlorine disinfection. The turbidity standard for Nevada comes from the EPA’s Gold Book (1986), though the Gold Book does not specifically recommend a standard of 50 NTU. Desert Research Institute reports that through conversations with Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), it was revealed that the EPA is re-evaluating TDS and turbidity thresholds. Nevada Department of Environmental Protection plans to revisit their own standard, but only after the EPA concludes their study. Until then, the standard of 50 NTU applies. The main sources for TDS are agricultural and residential runoff, sewage treatment plant and industrial point source discharge as well as leaching of soil contamination. Common chemical constituents include calcium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates, potassium, and sodium. Total Dissolved Solids also occur naturally from the weathering and dissolution of rocks and soils.

91 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

According to the Humboldt Basin Water Quality Standard Review (2007), the standard for TDS for class A, B and C waters is less than 500 mg/l or one-third above that characteristic of natural conditions, whichever is less. The standard for designated waters is less than 500 mg/l except at Woolsey, where the standard is less than 1000 mg/l. The TDS standard for the Humboldt Basin is taken from the EPA’s Red Book (1976), which refers to the Public Health Service’s drinking water standards of 1962 and recommends a maximum TDS concentration of 500 mg/l. However, many species of freshwater aquatic life can tolerate concentrations as high as 10,000 mg/l. For a beneficial use of municipal or domestic supply, the TDS standard is often exceeded and is a common parameter of concern on the EPA’s 303(d) list. Therefore, it is necessary to determine if this standard is appropriate for the reaches of the Humboldt River. If these reaches are not used as municipal or domestic supply, it may be possible to use the higher standard and still protect the actual uses of these reaches.

Table 30. 303(d) Waterbodies with Potential for Cumulative Effects. Waterbody Associated Location Beneficial Uses Attainment Cause Name Watershed(s) AL, IS, Irr, MDS, Bruneau River, Control Point at Not Temperature 170501020104 PW, RICW, WF Diamond “A” Road Supporting AL and Turbidity RNICW, WL AL, Irr, MDS – From the waste rock Not disinfection Selenium and Dry Creek 170501020108 dump to the North Fork Supporting AL treatment only, TDS Humboldt River and MDS PW AL, IS, Irr, MDS, Jerritt Canyon From its origin to the Not 170501050104 PW, RICW, TDS Creek national forest boundary Supporting RNICW AL, Irr, MDS – From the waste rock Not Zinc, disinfection Sammy Creek 160401020101 dump to the North Fork Supporting AL Selenium, treatment only, Humboldt River and MDS TDS PW AL, Irr, MDS – From its origin to the Not disinfection Sheep Creek 160401020107 North Fork Humboldt Supporting TDS treatment only, River MDS PW AL, IS, Irr, MDS, Snow Canyon From its origin to the Not 170501050204 PW, RICW, TDS Creek national forest boundary Supporting RNICW AL, Irr, MDS – From the waste rock Not Water Canyon disinfection Selenium and 160401020102 dump to the North Fork Supporting AL Creek treatment only, TDS Humboldt River and MDS PW AL= Aquatic Life, IS = Industrial Supply, Irr = Irrigation, MDS = Municipal or Domestic Supply, PW = Propagation of Wildlife, RICW = Recreation Involving Contact with the Water, RNICW = Recreation Not Involving Contact with the Water, WL = Watering of Livestock.

To determine the potential cumulative impact to 303(d) streams, miles of road and motorized trail were summed within the watershed where the impaired waterbody resides. An evaluation of the miles of road/trail and the number of stream crossings that had the potential to impact the waterbody were evaluated. The conclusions of that evaluation follows. There is very little literature on the volume of sediment generated at or transported to stream crossings. According to a study by Ayala (2005) average annual sediment load from the stream crossing is about 51.3 tons/acres. This material is generated from sediment migrating down slope on the approach or ascent of the route and displacement of sediment on the stream bottom and

92 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement through the active widening of the stream channel. If the combined approach and ascent is 20 feet then approximately 0.5 tons of sediment per crossing per year would be generated. However, if the combined approach and ascent is 50 feet then approximately 1.18 tons of sediment per crossing per year would be generated. If slopes are relatively flat less sediment is likely to be generated. Bruneau River, WF: Area of concern is not on NFS land and there are no roads close enough to contribute sediment or TDS. Dry Creek: There are two stream crossings and less than 0.50 mile of road that influence this stream. Depending on road/trail type, length, and slope of the approach and ascent, there is a potential for .005 to 8.7 tons of sediment to be delivered from the road surface to the stream and 1 to 2.4 tons from the crossings per year. Jerrett Canyon Creek: There are six stream crossings, two stream crossings on tributaries and 5 miles of road that contribute to sediment and TDS. Depending on road/trail type, length and slope of the approach and ascent there is a potential for .05 to 87 tons of sediment to be delivered from the road surface to the stream and 4 to 7 tons from the crossings per year. Sammy Creek: There is one stream crossing and approximately 0.50 mile of road that influence this stream. Depending on road/trail type, length and slope of the approach and ascent there is a potential for .005 to 8.7 tons of sediment to be delivered from the road surface to the stream and 1 to 2.4 tons from the crossing per year. Sheep Creek: This stream has the largest potential for negative water quality impacts from sediment and TDS. There are five stream crossings and approximately 4 miles of road on NFS land. There are three stream crossings, six stream crossings on tributaries and approximately 6 miles of road off NFS land that contribute sediment and TDS to the stream. Depending on road/trail type there is a potential for .1 to 174 tons of sediment (over 14 ten-yard dump trucks) to be delivered from the road surface to the stream and 4.5 to 10.6 tons from the crossings per year. Snow Canyon Creek: There are no roads in the vicinity. Water Canyon Creek: There is one stream crossing and approximately 0.33 mile of road that influence this stream. Depending on road/trail type, length and slope of the approach and ascent there is a potential for .003 to 5.7 tons of sediment to be delivered from the road surface to the stream and 1 to 2.4 tons from the crossing per year. 3.7.3. Environmental Consequences Each alternative allows for the existence of roads and, therefore, all of the alternatives are assumed to have some level of risk for soil erosion and degraded water quality. Given that all other alternatives contain a subset of the motorized routes represented in Alternative 1, it is considered to have the highest risk. The other alternatives are evaluated relative to Alternative 1. Risk is assumed to be additive for a given alternative. As the overall value of the indicators increase, so does the risk of affecting soil and water resources. The effects indicators for water quality and soil erosion by district and alternative are displayed in table 31.

93 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 31. Indicators for Water Quality and Soil Erosion by District and Alternative. Alt 5 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Reduced Indicators No Proposed Current Visitor Resource Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City Ranger District Routes within 300 feet of Perennial Streams (miles) 249 229 182 218 201 Routes within 150 feet of Intermittent Streams (miles) 241 223 143 187 183 Perennial Stream Crossings (number) 293 266 201 243 217 Intermittent Stream Crossings (number) 1,187 1,099 704 909 890 Routes Located on Slopes Greater than 30% with 154 133 79 104 103 Erosive Soils (miles) Ruby Mountains Ranger District Routes within 300 feet of Perennial Streams (miles) 235 233 209 221 219 Routes within 150 feet of Intermittent Streams (miles) 123 118 76 95 94 Perennial Stream Crossings (number) 255 252 225 185 218 Intermittent Stream Crossings (number) 467 447 283 171 96 Routes Located on Slopes Greater than 30% with 201 198 176 186 59 Erosive Soils (miles) Jarbidge Ranger District Routes within 300 feet of Perennial Streams (miles) 105 102 89 97 28 Routes within 150 feet of Intermittent Streams (miles) 74 70 50 63 36 Perennial Stream Crossings (number) 148 146 129 141 136 Intermittent Stream Crossings (number) 397 381 271 335 324 Routes Located on Slopes Greater than 30% with 97 146 81 90 84 Erosive Soils (miles) Miles rounded to the nearest whole mile Density by 6th Level HUC: Open route density is often used as an indicator of watershed health. For this project, 6th level HUCs were used. Data limitations allowed for statistics to be developed for only the areas within the national forest boundary, so the summaries do not reflect the over-all HUC route density. Caution is required when looking at the density values; in some cases, very small portions of a HUC lie within the national forest boundary and the density value may be a poor indicator of overall HUC condition. For example, 160600071101, Ruby Lake, has route densities between .01 and 2.7, however only two acres of the HUC lie within the Forest boundary and that portion contains a road. The balance of the HUC is within the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge with few routes other than those on the perimeter. In general, since routes typically lie near the Forest boundaries, truncated, small HUCs on the Forest boundaries would have inflated densities. One hundred and thirty 6th-level HUCs intersect the project area. All of the action alternatives reduce route density when compared with Alternative 1. Road density within the analysis subwatersheds ranges from 0.03 to 3.85 miles per square mile (mi/ mi2). For watershed effects, generally road density ratings are considered low (less than 1 mi/mi2); moderate (2 to 3 mi/mi2); and high (greater than 3 mi/mi2). With one exception, all watersheds in the project area are within the low and moderate range. The one watershed in the high density range is the Spring Branch-Pie Creek watershed (160401020207) located at the southern end of the Independence Range and includes 16 acres of NFS land.

94 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.7.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would present the highest risk for soil erosion and degraded water quality. Under this alternative the miles of road, both NFS and unauthorized, would remain the same. Continued use of existing unauthorized routes not included in the other alternatives that are poorly located on steep erosive slopes and in critical riparian areas would continue to impact water and soil resources. There would be no benefit to hydrologic processes from road closures or restoration of unauthorized routes. The miles of road in close proximity to stream channels and the number of road/stream crossings would not change. Soil erosion and stream sedimentation would remain essentially unchanged. In addition, cross-country travel would continue. The proliferation of unauthorized roads would occur in locations susceptible to soil erosion and prone to water quality problems. Because unauthorized routes do not go through the NEPA planning process and lack appropriate design and engineering, there is a risk that they would be created in locations more susceptible to soil degradation and sediment runoff and would lack critical design elements that make them more stable and less prone to erosion and structural failure. Under Alternative 1, road density within the watersheds ranges from .039 to 3.85 mi/mi2. There are 41 watersheds with densities less than or equal to 1 mi/mi2 (low density). There are 89 watersheds with moderate density (1.01 to 3 mi/mi2) and 1 watershed is rated high for density and exceeds 3 mi/mi2. Watersheds in the high density category include Spring Branch-Pie Creek. This alternative poses the greatest risk for erosion, loss of vegetative cover, and sediment transport to the stream system because it has the most mile of roads that would remain open and does not eliminate cross-country motorized travel. For the purpose of assessing environmental effects, all other alternatives will be compared to Alternative 1 (table 32).

Table 32. Comparison of the Indicators by Alternative. Reduced Proposed Current System Visitor Map Resource Alt. 1 Action Reduction in Reduction in Impacts Effects Indicators No Reduction in Indicator from Indicator from Reduction in Action Indicator from No Action No Action Indicator from No Action No Action Acres of Route 2,171 -127 -1,151 -605 -690 Routes within 300’ 589 -25 -109 -53 -141 Routes within 150’ 438 -27 -169 -93 -125 Perennial Stream 696 -32 -141 -127 -125 Crossings Intermittent Stream 2,051 -124 -739 -50 -51 Crossings Slopes>30% 452 -5 -116 -206 -206 3.7.3.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the existing miles of unauthorized routes within the project area by approximately 129 miles or approximately 6 percent when compared to Alternative 1. Depending on road type erosion, rates can be as little as 0.01 or as much as 17 tons per acre. In a 20 foot wide road there are 2.4 acres per mile of road. Using this information predicted sediment production from road surfaces would be reduced by a minimum of 3 to 5,224 tons per year. Under this alternative, cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited; however, there is no way to accurately predict the reduction in erosion potential from the elimination of unrestricted cross-country travel. Twenty-two percent of the roads in this alternative are within 300 feet of a perennial stream and 16 percent are within 150 feet of an intermittent stream. Road miles within

95 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

300 feet of a perennial stream would be reduced by 25 miles or approximately nine percent when compared to Alternative 1, while miles of road within 150 feet of intermittent streams would be reduced by 27 miles or six percent. The reduction in stream crossings for perennial streams is 32 and for intermittent streams is 124. Assuming sediment generated at stream crossings range from 0.5 to 1.18 per year per crossing the reduction in erosion rates would range from 16 to 38 tons per year for perennial streams. Stream crossings on intermittent channels behave differently than streams where water is continually flowing. These streams send pulses of sediment through the system during their season of flow or during significant rain events, reduction in erosion rates would range from 62 to 146 tons per year. Under this alternative there would be a 5 mile reduction in roads on slopes greater than 30 percent. The overall potential for reduction in sediment from road surfaces and stream crossings is 81 to 5,409 tons per year. To put this into visual perspective, it would be approximately 7 to 449, 10-yard dump trucks. Increased erosion rates for roads over 30 percent are not included in the overall reduction in erosion rates but would be an additional benefit to the watershed. Under Alternative 2, road density within the watersheds would range from .03 to 3.7 mi/mi2. There would be 54 watersheds with densities less than or equal to 1 mi/mi2 (low density). There would be 76 watersheds with moderate density (1.01 to 3 mi/mi2) and 1 watershed would be rated high for density and would exceed 3 mi/mi2. When compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would not increase road density in any watershed and decreases in density would range from -.01 to -0.95. Spring Branch-Pie Creek would be the only watershed in this alternative in the high category. The use of ATV or UTV machines would be authorized for MBGR up to 0.5 mile off either side of a designated road or motorized trail within the boundaries of the districts. A single trip into and out of an area to retrieve a legal taken and tagged elk or mule deer would be allowed. Motorized vehicles would not be permitted to cross riparian areas, streams, and rivers except at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in existing off road travel restricted areas (for examples designated wilderness areas and municipal watersheds). Impacts of the MBGR option would be similar to those of unrestricted cross-country travel. When compared to Alternative 1, 30 percent of the project area would still remain closed to travel off designated routes. Of the 70 percent of the area that has the potential to be accessed, impacts would likely be limited to 140 for elk only or up to 1,180 trips per year for both elk and deer. Trips would likely occur in late summer and fall when soils are dry and least prone to compaction. However, this is also late in the growing season so any loss in soil cover would have little potential for recovery before the first wetting rains. As a result, the potential for erosion would be increased. It is not likely any sediment generated would make it to the stream channel from these areas unless they are immediately adjacent to a stream channel where there is not an adequate vegetative buffer (10 to 15 feet). Impacts to soil and water resources are expected to be minimal with the following exceptions. Where streams are not meeting water quality standards for TDS and/or turbidity, all efforts should be made to restrict any additional activity that would add to the cumulative totals of those constituents unless management activities are undertaken that would reduce or mitigate the current source(s) of impact that is leading to the listing. Similarly in watersheds where road densities are rated high, allowing cross-country travel may lead to further increases in density in locations where vegetation is easily disturbed or soils are prone to displacement so additional mitigation, restrictions, or restoration may be warranted.

96 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.7.3.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the existing miles of unauthorized routes within the project area by approximately 1,151 miles or approximately 53 percent from Alternative 1. As a result sediment production from road surfaces would be reduced by a minimum of 28 to 47,352 tons per year. Under this alternative, cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited. Twenty-seven percent of the roads in this alternative are within 300 feet of a perennial stream and 15 percent are within 150 feet of an intermittent. Road miles within 300 feet of a perennial stream would be reduced by 109 miles or approximately nineteen percent when compared to Alternative 1, while miles of road within 150 feet of intermittent streams would be reduced by 169 miles or 39 percent. The reduction in stream crossings for perennial streams is 141 and for intermittent streams it 793. Assuming sediment generated at stream crossing range from 0.5 to 1.18 per year per crossing, the reduction in erosion rates would range from 71 to 166 tons per year for perennial streams. Erosion rates for intermittent streams would range from 397 to 936 tons per year. Under this alternative, there would be a 116 mile reduction in roads on slopes greater than 30 percent. The overall potential for reduction in sediment from road surfaces and stream crossings is 493 to 48,454 tons per year. To put this into visual perspective, it would be 41 to 4,021, 10 yard dump trucks. Increased erosion rates for roads over 30 percent are not included in the overall reduction in erosion rates but would be a benefit to the watershed. Under Alternative 3, road density within the watersheds would range from .02 to 3.7 mi/mi2. There would be 86 watersheds with densities less than or equal to 1 mi/mi2 (low density). There would be 44 watersheds with moderate density (1.01 to 3 mi/mi2) and 1 watershed would be rated high for density and would exceed 3 mi/mi2. According to the density analysis, decreases in road density between this alternative and Alternative 1 would range from -0.04 to -1.7 mi/mi2. Watersheds with the highest decreases would include Trail Creek, Dorsey Creek, Skull Creek, Upper Three Creek, Buck Creek, and Deep Creek. Watersheds in the high density category would include Spring Branch-Pie Creek. 3.7.3.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would decrease the existing miles of unauthorized routes within the project area by approximately 605 miles or approximately 28 percent as compared to Alternative 1. As a result sediment production from road surfaces would be reduced by a minimum of 15 to 24,890 tons per year. Under this alternative, cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited. Twenty-five percent of the roads in this alternative are within 300 feet of a perennial stream and 16 percent are within 150 feet of an intermittent stream. Road miles within 300 feet of a perennial stream would be reduced by 53 miles or approximately nine percent when compared to the Alternative 1, while miles of road within 150 feet of intermittent streams would be reduced by 93 miles or 21 percent. The reduction in stream crossings for perennial streams is 127 and for intermittent streams it is 50. Sediment generated at stream crossing is predicted to decrease by as much as 64 to 150 tons per year for perennial crossings. Reduction in erosion rates when compared to Alternative 1, on intermittent channels would range from 25 to 59 tons per year. Under this alternative, there would be a 206 mile reduction in roads on slopes greater than 30 percent. The overall potential for reduction in sediment is 104 to 25,069 tons per year. To put this into visual perspective, it would be 9 to 2080, 10-yard dump trucks. Increased erosion rates for roads over 30 percent are not included in the overall reduction in erosion rates but would be a benefit to the watershed. Alternative 4 would allow for motorized cross-country travel within 0.5 mile of a NFS road or trail for retrieval of elk. The potential effects to those acres would be similar to acres under Alternative 1 impacted by cross-country travel. Given the restrictions on resource damage, limited number of game tags, limited duration of the hunting season, and likely dispersed nature

97 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement of the retrievals, the size of the watershed disturbance would be expected to be minimal with little effect to overall water quality when routes are not in close proximity to streams. Under Alternative 4, road density within the watersheds would range from .03 to 3.84 mi/mi2. There would be 60 watersheds with densities less than or equal to 1 mi/mi2 (low density). There would be 70 watersheds with moderate density (1.01 to 3 mi/mi2) and 1 watershed would rate high for density and would exceed 3 mi/mi2 (Spring Branch-Pie Creek). Road density differences between the Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 would range from -0.01 mi/mi2 and -1.3 mi/mi2. Watersheds with the largest differences would include Buck Creek, Trail Creek, and Skull Creek. 3.7.3.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the existing miles of unauthorized routes within the project area by approximately 690 miles or approximately 32 percent as compared to Alternative 1. As a result sediment production from road surfaces would be reduced by a minimum of 17 to 28,327 tons per year. Under this alternative, cross-country motorized travel would be prohibited. Twenty-one percent of the roads in this alternative are within 300 feet of a perennial stream and 15 percent are within 150 feet of an intermittent stream. Road miles within 300 feet of a perennial stream would be reduced by 141 miles or approximately 24 percent when compared to Alternative 1, while miles of road within 150 feet of intermittent streams would be reduced by 125 miles or 21 percent. The reduction in stream crossings for perennial streams is 125 and for intermittent streams it is 51. Sediment generated at stream crossing is predicted to decrease by as much as 63 to 148 tons per year for perennial crossings. Reduction in erosion rates when compared to Alternative 1, on intermittent channels would range from 26 to 60 tons per year. Under this alternative, there would be a 206 mile reduction in roads on slopes greater than 30 percent. The overall potential for reduction in sediment is 106 to 28,959 tons per year. To put this into visual perspective, it would be 9 to 2403, 10-yard dump trucks. Increased erosion rates for roads over 30 percent are not included in the overall reduction in erosion rates but would be a benefit to the watershed. Under Alternative 5, road density within the watersheds would range from .03 to 3.8 mi/mi2. There would be 64 watersheds with densities less than or equal to 1 mi/mi2 (low density). There would be 67 watersheds with moderate density (1.01 to 3 mi/mi2) and 1 watershed would be rated high for density and would exceed 3 mi/mi2. When compared to Alternative 1, there would be no increases in road density in any watershed and decreases would range from -.01 to -1.2. Watersheds in the high density category would include Spring Branch-Pie Creek. 3.7.3.6. Common to All Alternatives Surface erosion would be expected to continue for a several years after the use of unauthorized routes is discontinued. As vegetation re-establishes, disturbed soils would stabilize and surface erosion would decrease. According to Elliot (2000), most surface erosion occurs within the first 2 years of construction, and tends to drop off significantly when a route is closed. However, without restoration the effects of compaction may persist for decades. 3.7.4. Cumulative Effects Within the analysis area, watershed integrity can be jeopardized by disturbances such as motorized roads and trails, motorized cross-country travel, wildfire, livestock grazing, and mineral exploration and mining. Watershed disturbances such as these can create large areas of bare ground that intercept and concentrate precipitation runoff that would otherwise pass at a slower rate through vegetated surfaces, causing soil erosion. When these disturbances occur together in a watershed, they can have the cumulative effect of increasing sedimentation in surface waters (McGurk and Fong 1995, Menning et al. 1996).

98 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

This analysis uses the density of route networks in a given watershed as an indicator of the cumulative effects to soil and water resources. Motorized routes are created for access to the national forest for activities such as recreation, hunting, fire fighting, livestock grazing, mineral exploration, and mining. There is a direct relationship between route density and the amount of watershed disturbing activities that are occurring or have occurred in the past for a given area. For example, watersheds that have higher recreational use will tend to have a greater density of NFS roads, unauthorized routes, and motorized cross-country travel than areas with less use. Similarly, historic mining districts will have higher road densities than areas without a history of mining activity. Under all alternatives, there would be a reduction in road density within the sixth level HUCs. These reductions would, over time, result in a decrease in the amount of road and trail related disturbance within the watershed. 3.8. Air Quality

3.8.1. Introduction This section describes the effects of the alternatives on air quality. 3.8.1.1. Effects Indicators The following indicator will be used to evaluate the effects to air quality: • Acres of area within 20 meter buffer of roads and trails potentially exposed to emissions and fugitive dust. 3.8.2. Affected Environment Air quality across the districts is generally considered good to excellent due to low population density and the remote nature of the national forest. Air quality can be severely impacted by particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants during large wildfire events on or off the Forest. Fugitive Dust: Atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular material exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed “fugitive” because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Common sources of fugitive dust include native surface roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and heavy construction operations. In the project area, native surface roads are the most common source of fugitive dust. Fugitive road dust is a result of motor vehicle use when road surfaces are dry; the force of wheels moving across the native surface causes pulverization of surface material. Dust is lofted by the rolling wheels as well as by the turbulence caused by the vehicle itself. This air turbulence can persist for a period of time after the vehicle passes. The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of native surface road varies linearly with the volume of traffic. Variables which influence the amount of dust produced include the average vehicle speed, the average vehicle weight, the average number of wheels per vehicle, the road surface texture, the fraction of road surface material which is classified as silt (particles less than 75 microns in diameter), and the moisture content of the road surface. The impact of a fugitive dust source on air quality depends on the quantity and drift potential of the dust particles injected into the atmosphere. In addition to large dust particles that settle out near the source, considerable amounts of fine particles are emitted and dispersed over much greater distances from the source. Theoretical drift distance, as a function of particle diameter and mean wind speed, has been computed for fugitive dust emissions. Results indicate that, for a typical mean wind speed of 10 miles per hour (mph), particles larger than about 100 microns in

99 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement aerodynamic diameter (about the size of a grain of dust) are likely to settle out within 20 to 30 feet from the edge of the road or motorized trail or other point of emission. Particles that are 30 to 100 microns in diameter, depending upon the extent of atmospheric turbulence, are likely to settle within a few hundred feet of the road or motorized trail. Smaller particles (particularly inhalable particles, PM10, and fine particles) have much slower gravitational settling velocities and are much more likely to have their settling rate retarded by atmospheric turbulence. Class I Airsheds: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that a program be established to prevent degradation of air quality in pristine areas and protect Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) of Class I areas. Designation as a Class I area allows only very small increments of new pollution above already existing air pollution levels. Class I areas include national wildernesses greater than 5,000 acres in existence on August 7, 1977, when the amendments were signed into law. The Jarbidge Wilderness, a Class I area, is located within the project area. Within Class I areas, visibility is the AQRV that is most affected, especially by fugitive dust. Particulates that remain suspended in the atmosphere are efficient light scatterers and contribute to regional haze. The AQRV of visibility is considered good to excellent most of the time in the Class I airshed. 3.8.3. Environmental Consequences The effects of the alternatives were analyzed to determine the potential for public motor vehicle travel to cause or contribute to violations of National Ambient Air Quality standards (NAAQs), degrade air quality, affect Class I areas, or to cause or contribute to visibility impairment beyond the existing conditions. 3.8.3.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives The number of vehicle miles traveled annually by Forest users is not expected to change in any of the alternatives through the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel and the redirection of motorized use to a designated system of roads, trails, and areas. As a result, adverse effects to air quality (i.e., effects that would cause or significantly contribute to air quality impairment beyond the existing conditions) are not anticipated for any of the alternatives. This determination is based on the following. There may be a decrease in the area affected by fugitive dust and emissions when comparing the miles of road and motorized trail designated to the FTS under Alternative 2 with the miles designated in Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3 approximately 1,151 miles of unauthorized routes would not be designated for motor vehicle use. Areas within 20 meters of either side of unauthorized routes (approximately 15,114 acres) would no longer be subject to the potential harmful effects of fugitive dust or emissions on vegetation. However the roads and motorized trails designated in Alternative 3 would be expected to absorb the motor vehicle use that would have been distributed across more miles of road and motorized trail in Alternative 2. Vegetation along Alternative 3 routes would potentially be subjected to more dust generated from the potential increase in traffic resulting from fewer miles available for use. Under all alternatives, use levels for the vast majority of unauthorized routes are well below capacity. In addition, many of these routes are short spurs off existing NFS roads. Since many of the routes do not provide through access, require relatively slow speeds (less than 5 mph), and receive very low use, reductions in the miles of routes available for motorized use are not expected to result in major changes in the amount of fugitive dust generated through use.

100 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

None of the alternatives would produce fugitive dust beyond current levels. All of the action alternatives would reduce the miles of native surface roads and motorized trails on the Forest, which would reduce fugitive dust and PM 10 production below current levels (table 33).

Table 33. Acres of NFS Land within 20 Meter Buffer along Road and Trails by Alternative. Alternative 5 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Reduced Alternative Proposed Current No Action Visitor Map Resource Action System Impacts Miles/Acres 2,171/34,519 2,042/32,468 1020/16,234 1,567/24,915 1,480/23,532

Adjacent to the Jarbidge Wilderness Class I airshed, motorized vehicle use of native surface roads and trail would continue to produce dust and emissions at or below current levels. Very few of the current unauthorized routes on the Forest are located within 1.0 mile of the Jarbidge Wilderness Class I airshed. Fugitive dust generated from unauthorized routes impacting visibility in the Class 1 airshed is of low concern. The relative contribution of any of the alternatives to visibility concerns within the Class I airshed is expected to be negligible. If applied the MBGR option would not contribute to the amount or dispersal of fugitive dust or a reduction in air quality across the project area. Because of one trip in and out (between 140 and 1,180 trips annually depending on the level of game retrieval authorized), the location of travel (undesignated routes and cross-country), the seasons of use (late summer-fall), and slow speeds because of vegetation, this use would not create a great deal of dust. 3.8.4. Cumulative Effects There are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions that would impact air quality across the project area or within the Class I airshed for an extended (longer than one day) period of time. 3.9. Aquatic Resources

3.9.1. Introduction A healthy aquatic system, including both instream and riparian habitats, offers many benefits. In addition to providing habitat for fish and amphibians, streams are used by anglers; supply water for wildlife, livestock, agriculture, and municipalities; support riparian forage important for wild and domestic animals; may function as a firebreak; and impart a scenic value. A transportation system which includes unrestricted use and poorly placed roads can affect aquatic and riparian resources, degrading habitat and creating negative impacts well beyond the physical road itself. Current management direction on desired future conditions for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and management indicator species on the Forest can be found in the following documents: • National Forest Management Act (NFMA) • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Endangered Species Act (ESA) • Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) • Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) • Recovery Plans and Conservation Agreements for Individual Species • Critical Habitat for Bull Trout

101 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Plan has a goal of focusing on federally listed species, such as Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) and bull trout, by mandating the Forest to “Manage classified species…to maintain or enhance their status through coordination with other land use programs, agency cooperation, and direct habitat improvements.” Lahontan cutthroat trout are also considered a management indicator species (MIS). Lahontan cutthroat trout are specifically mentioned in the Forest Plan. Objectives under the goal to manage LCT include re-establishment of this species into historic habitats as outlined by its recovery plan, and prioritizing structural habitat improvement work (USDA FS 1999). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has no policy for hybrid LCT, and therefore hybrids are not specifically protected under the ESA. When the Forest Plan was originally completed in 1981, the bull trout was not a listed species and therefore not explicitly included in the Forest Plan. However, Amendment #5 to the Forest Plan (1995), addresses bull trout issues as part of a riparian management strategy applied to all waters draining into the Columbia Basin. The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) outlines riparian standards and guidelines for all projects which may potentially affect a stream system. Special emphasis is given to watersheds that support bull trout populations (USDA FS 1999). Redband trout are native throughout the Columbia River Basin portions of the project area. As with bull trout, the same INFISH standards and guidelines apply for riparian areas occupied by redband trout. Bull trout and redband trout are also considered a MIS. In addition to LCT, bull trout, and redband trout, non-native trout species which include brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, and cuttbow make up the collective “trout” management indicator species. Although the Columbia spotted frog (CSF) has not been formally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), an agreement has been reached under which coordination will occur between Forest Service and USFWS during project planning and analysis. Columbia spotted frog are included on the Region 4 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list. 3.9.1.1. Analysis Methodology Data sources used in this analysis include: • Amphibian presence/absence and habitat surveys • Aquatic habitat (stream) surveys, especially General Aquatic Wildlife System (GAWS) methodology • Corporate (Forest Service) databases • Field visitations and historic notes • Fish population surveys • Photographs • Professional knowledge • Sediment surveys Stream habitat and fish surveys have been conducted throughout the project area by the Forest Service, NDOW, USGS, University of Reno-Nevada, and various contractors. Emphasis has been placed in those watersheds which support listed species. Most habitat surveys have been conducted using the Forest Service GAWS, Level III procedure or the R1/R4 protocol, although other methodologies have been used as well. Sediment profiles have occasionally been collected using Wolman pebble count (Wolman 1954) and shovel sample (Grost et al. 1991) procedures. While both fish and habitat data may exist for some streams from as early as 1935, the focus of data for this analysis will be 1979 to present, which is the time period that includes GAWS and R1/R4 methodologies.

102 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Amphibian surveys have been conducted throughout the three ranger districts by the Forest Service, although NDOW and other individuals have provided data as well. Surveys are completed using a visual encounter protocol (Fellers and Freel 1995). While amphibian surveys in the project area date back to the early 20th century, an increased emphasis to characterize CSF distribution and habitat has occurred from 2002 to present. Additionally, three long-term monitoring sites (2004/5 to present) utilizing passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags have been established, one per district. 3.9.1.2. Effects Indicators Impacts to aquatic resources will be evaluated by: Miles of Road within 300 Feet of Streams: Sediment has the potential of moving overland from roads to affect stream systems; 300 feet is generally considered an appropriate distance to protect fish-bearing streams from this impact pathway. The INFISH specifically identifies a 300 foot riparian habitat conservation area width for fish bearing streams. Streams are considered to be “occupied” by aquatic biota if (1) fish/amphibian resource of concern is present, or (2) within 1.0 mile upstream/downstream of a known CSF area (to account for potential movement). Number of Road Crossings: The primary impact of road crossings is to act as conduits inputting sediment to stream systems. In general, the fewer stream crossings on the landscape, the less impact to aquatics. Road Density: The primary impact of road density is to alter the hydrologic character of a stream system. While various road densities are used as thresholds to evaluate potential impacts to riparian systems from roads, it is accepted that aquatic systems experience a lesser degree of impact in drainages with lower road densities. This indicator will be considered by 6th order HUC, or subdrainage, level. 3.9.2. Affected Environment The project area for this travel management project encompasses the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. Drainages within the districts flow into one of three basins – Columbia River, Humboldt, or Interior. While Columbia River Basin streams ultimately drain to the Pacific Ocean, both the Humboldt and Interior Basins end with inland sinks. Elevation in the project area ranges from 4,900 feet to 11,387 feet. Most precipitation falls in the winter as snow. Following spring runoff, streamflow is supported by springs and other discharge sources, with the occasional supplement via summer thunderstorms. Due to this precipitation regime, stream discharge can vary widely between the high flows of runoff and the summer baseflow. Many streams may include dry segments during the summer, leading to a naturally fragmented environment where connectivity between local populations of aquatic species is seasonal. Additionally, there may be large differences in flow on a yearly basis. Where a stream in a wet water year may support many miles of fish or amphibian habitat, during drought that same length could be restricted to a few isolated pools. Riparian vegetation in the project area primarily includes aspen, cottonwood, and/or willow. Other common woody riparian species which may be present are alder and dogwood. Many types of grasses and sedges, herbs, and flowering plants are also found. Upland vegetation communities can include grass, sage, mountain brush, aspen, conifer, or mountain mahogany. Due to the large analysis area, the fisheries affected environment has been illustrated initially at the 6th field HUC watersheds corresponding to the primary drainages (maps 2 and 3). A general overview of each watershed including major uses and activities which have the potential to affect the aquatic environment are included in the Fisheries Specialist Report. The distribution of the key aquatic species discussed in this analysis is displayed in table 34 and maps 2 and 3.

103 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 34. Aquatic Resources by District and Watershed within the Project Area (the Bruneau River Watershed encompasses both the Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Districts). Aquatic Resource District Watershed Bull Trout LCT Redband CSF Other Trout Bruneau River X X X Mountain NF Humboldt River X X X City EF Owyhee River X X X SF Owyhee River X X X EF Humboldt River X X Ruby SF Humboldt River X X X Mountains Interior Basins X Bruneau River X X X Jarbidge River X X X X Jarbidge Marys River X X X Salmon Falls Creek X X X 3.9.2.1. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout The project area supports Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi), a species federally listed as threatened. This fish is an inland subspecies of cutthroat trout endemic to the Lahontan basin of northern Nevada, eastern California, and southern Oregon. Lahontan cutthroat trout are found on all three districts –Mountain City (North Fork Humboldt River drainage), Ruby Mountains (South and East Fork Humboldt River drainages), and Jarbidge (Marys River drainage). Although cuttbow trout (rainbow/cutthroat cross) have been documented elsewhere in the LCT range, genetic evidence shows these hybrids to be largely absent in the project area. The exception is the Long Canyon drainage on the Ruby Mountain Ranger District. Lahontan cutthroat trout were listed by the USFWS as “endangered” in 1970 (Federal Register Vol. 35, p. 13520) and then reclassified as “threatened” in 1975 to facilitate management and allow angling (Federal Register Vol. 40, p. 29864). The project area is located within the range of the LCT Humboldt River Basin Geographic Management Unit (GMU). An interagency team has been developed for the GMU to implement actions and conduct research necessary for LCT recovery. Lahontan cutthroat trout are also considered management indicator species on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Lahontan cutthroat trout inhabit both lakes and streams, but are obligatory stream spawners. Within the project area LCT only inhabit streams. Optimum LCT habitat is characterized by well-vegetated and stable streambanks, stream bottoms with relatively silt-free gravel/rubble substrate, cool water, and pools in close proximity to cover and velocity breaks (USFWS 1995). They generally spawn from April through July, depending on stream flow, elevation, and water temperature (Calhoun 1943, La Rivers 1962, Lea 1968, McAfee 1966, Moyle 1976 in USFWS 1995). Eggs are deposited in 0.25 to 0.50 inch size gravel, and spawning beds must be well oxygenated and fairly silt-free for good egg survival. Fry will remain in shallow shore areas with hiding cover. Threats to LCT include habitat loss associated with land management practices, reduction and alteration of stream discharge, alteration of stream channels and morphology, degradation of water quality, and hybridization or competition with non-native fish species (USFWS 1995). Other threats within the project area are fire and drought.

104 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Map 7. Distribution of Aquatic Resources for Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. (Non-native trout are displayed only where they occur without concurrent presence of native trout. Major watersheds are also included).

105 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Map 8. Distribution of Aquatic Resources for Ruby Mountain Ranger District. (Non-native trout are displayed only where they occur without concurrent presence of native trout. Major watersheds are also included).

106 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Lahontan are found within 15, 6th Code HUCs (Fisheries Specialist Report). Occupied habitat within the upper Humboldt River include the Marys River, West Marys River, Camp Draw, GAWS, Marys, East Fork Marys, Marys, Basin, Williams, T, and Draw Wildcat creeks, and one unnamed tributary (USFWS 2009). Occupied habitat within the upper Humboldt River (East Humboldt Range/Ruby Mountains) include North Fork Cold, Second Boulder, Fourth Boulder, Green Mountain, Carville, McCutcheon, Gennette, North Fork Smith, Middle Fork Smith, Smith, Pearl, Welch, North Furlong, Mahogany, Long Canyon, Segunda, and Lee creeks. Occupied habitat within the North Fork Humboldt River includes Cole, Foreman, Winters, California, Gance, Warm, and Road Canyon creeks. Maps 2 and 3 show the distribution of LCT within the project area. 3.9.2.2. Bull Trout The project area supports bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a species federally listed as threatened. Bull trout are associated with Columbia River Basin drainages, and in the project area are found on the Jarbidge Ranger District in the East and West Forks Jarbidge River and selected tributaries. Although non-native brook trout were historically introduced for recreational fishing, there is no evidence of hybridization within the local bull trout population. The Jarbidge population of bull trout was emergency listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as “endangered” in August 1998 (FR Vol. 63, p. 42757); and in April 1999, prior to expiration of the emergency rule, the population was formally declared “threatened” (FR Vol. 64, p. 17110). By November 1999, all bull trout in the contiguous United States were classified as threatened (FR Vol. 64, p. 58909). Critical habitat was designated on October 18, 2010 (FR Vol. 75, p. 63898). In freshwater areas such as the Jarbidge River system, critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and a lateral extent as defined by the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the opposite bank. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the ordinary high-water line determines the lateral extent of critical habitat. Jarbidge River bull trout are considered to be a part of the larger Snake River Recovery Unit. Bull trout are also considered management indicator species on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. As summarized in the USFWS Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan (2004), bull trout inhabit waters characterized by colder water (less than 59º F with spawning habitat below 48º F in the fall), complex cover, and stable stream channels and flow. Bull trout in the Jarbidge River system are thought to exhibit two life history strategies: stream-residents which remain in one location, generally the headwaters regions, and fluvial migrants which spawn in small tributary streams with adult fish otherwise inhabiting the mainstem Jarbidge River and its forks. Of the two forms, migrants grow larger and tend to be more piscivorous (feed on other fish) than residents. Jarbidge River bull trout are isolated from other populations in the Columbia River system by dams, diversions, and thermal barriers. The NDOW believes that bull trout in the Jarbidge River system are fully (or nearly) occupying their historical habitat (NDOW 1999). Threats to bull trout include habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, past fisheries management practices, and the introduction of non native species (USFWS 2004). The reasons for decline specific to Jarbidge bull trout are dams and diversions, isolation and habitat fragmentation, inadequacy of existing water quality standards, livestock grazing, roads, overharvest, non-native species (brook trout), mining, residential development, and recreation (USFWS 2004). Fire and drought may also be factors affecting bull trout. Primary constituent elements (PCEs) were determined for bull trout at the time of critical habitat designation. These include: (1) space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

107 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species. Bull trout are found within four 6th Code HUCs (Fisheries Specialist Report). Occupied habitats and designated critical habitat in West Fork Jarbidge River drainage include West Fork Jarbidge River, Pine Creek, and Jack Creek. One bull trout has been observed in Deer Creek. Occupied habitats and designated critical habitat in East Fork Jarbidge River Drainage include East Fork Jarbidge River, Dave Creek outside of the Jarbidge Wilderness, and Slide Creek, Fall Creek, Cougar Creek, Gods Pocket Creek, and several unnamed tributaries within the Jarbidge Wilderness. Map 2 shows the distribution of bull trout within the project area using the most current knowledge based on NDOW and USGS inventories. 3.9.2.3. Redband Trout The project area supports redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), an inland subspecies of rainbow trout found throughout the Columbia River Basin. In the project area, redband are found on Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Districts within the following watersheds: Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, East Fork Owyhee River, South Fork Owyhee River, and Salmon Falls Creek. Specifically they are found within 48, 6th Code HUCs (Fisheries Specialist Report). Due to historical stocking of non-local strains of rainbow trout, genetic purity of some populations may be suspect. For instance, several creeks above Wildhorse Dam support spawning runs of non- local rainbow trout planted in the reservoir; and genetic analysis has found redband populations to be introgressed (introduction of a gene from one gene complex into another) (NDOW 2005). However, unless future genetic testing demonstrates otherwise or a selected stream is known to have been fishless prior to stocking, all redband trout occurrences are considered to be “pure” (non-hybridized). Redband trout are not federally listed. Nevada specifically classifies redband trout at the state (S rank) level as S2, or “imperiled due to rarity or other demonstratable factors” (NatureServe 2009). Because of this categorization, the state of Nevada regards this species as “sensitive.” Redband trout are also considered management indicator species on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. They also best represent the distribution of native fish within the Columbia River Basin portion of the Forest covered by INFISH (USDA FS 1995) and will be used to evaluate consistency with INFISH direction. Redband, like other trout, require cool water and graveled spawning areas for successful maintenance of populations. Redband abundance has been strongly correlated with riparian cover components, including undercut banks, large woody debris, overhanging vegetation, and stream shade (Lee et al. 1997, Zoellick and Cade 2006). A healthy, developed community of riparian vegetation provides shade to help maintain adequate water temperatures. Ideal stream temperatures are below 70ºF (Bowers et al. 1979). Although redband trout can withstand brief periods of high water temperatures (Vinson and Levesque 1994), these fish can only survive if they can find relief in cooler water (Bowers et al. 1979). Land and water use practices, habitat loss, overharvest, hybridization, and a geographically restricted range are leading factors contributing to the decline of redband trout abundance, distribution, and genetic diversity of redband (Behnke 2002, Lee et al. 1997, Williams et al. 1989).

108 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.9.2.4. Columbia Spotted Frog The project area supports Columbia spotted frog [Great Basin population] (Rana lutieventris), a federal candidate for listing under the ESA. Columbia spotted frogs are found on all three districts, most commonly associated with beaver or stock ponds which sustain sufficiently elevated water temperatures to allow development from egg to juvenile within one season. Columbia spotted frog was proposed for listing in 1989 (Federal Register Vol. 54, p. 42529). The species was then split into three Distinct Population Segments (DPS), with two – Wasatch Front and West Desert – being removed from listing consideration (FR Vol. 63, p. 16218). Although the petition for the Great Basin population has been subsequently reconsidered every year, a “Warranted, But Precluded” status means it has remained a Candidate (FR Vol. 73, p. 75176). In 2003, a conservation agreement for the northeastern Nevada subpopulation of the Great Basin DPS was signed by federal and state agencies (NDOW 2003). An interagency technical team has been developed for the conservation agreement area to implement actions and conduct research necessary for CSF recovery. Columbia spotted frog are found within 28, 6th Code HUCs (Fisheries Specialist Report). In Nevada, CSF is closely associated with slow-moving or ponded waters which are clear and have little or no canopy cover. Such habitats are usually beaver-created ponds, stock ponds, or small lakes, but springs, wet meadow seeps, and river oxbows and backwaters are also potentially utilized. Emergent vegetation provides cover and a silt/muck substrate may be necessary for hibernation. Columbia spotted frogs of the Great Basin population are found in naturally fragmented habitats which may be ephemeral and resource-limited. These habitats are sensitive to both human-caused and natural disturbance (NDOW 2003). Threats to CSF include habitat degradation and loss of connectivity associated with water development, livestock grazing, loss of beaver, mining, and roads; disease; predation from introduced non-native species; and other natural or manmade factors such as climate change, ultraviolet radiation, chemicals, and LCT recovery actions (NDOW 2003). 3.9.2.5. Other Aquatic Species While LCT, bull trout, redband trout, and CSF are the primary species of interest for the purpose of this analysis, other aquatic biota are also found in the project area. For a list of these species, see the Fisheries Specialist Report. 3.9.2.6. Existing Transportation System The existing transportation system on the three districts includes approximately 2,171 miles of roads and motorized trails. The existing miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of key aquatic species (and habitats), number of stream crossings, and road density are displayed in tables 35, 36, and 37 under Alternative 1 (baseline condition). Alternative 1 includes all routes currently available for use on the districts. Additional information on existing condition can be found in the Fisheries Specialist Report. 3.9.3. Environmental Consequences Roads can impact aquatic habitat and biota in several ways, including increase in levels of fine sediment, alteration of channel morphology, alteration in runoff regimes, and reduction in riparian vegetation and cover (Furniss et al. 1991, Forman and Alexander 1998, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Of these potential road-related effects, sedimentation is the most significant. Although stream crossings and water-concentrating features are the most effective pathways to convey sediment, fines can also be washed off roads and carried overland to streams. The closer a road is to a stream, the more potential it has to impact aquatic systems, even if sediment does

109 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement not have an obvious direct connection. Sediment production differs by road type. It has been assumed in the past that sediment from OHV routes would be similar to forest roads (Elliot et al. 1999b). In general, sediment yield is determined by road geometry, slope, segment length, width, surface type, and maintenance (Forman and Alexander 1998). Compared to forest roads, OHV routes tend to be user-created (i.e., not specifically engineered and constructed), lack maintenance, are located on steeper hillslopes with greater road gradient, have a native-soil surface, and have a network that includes more stream crossings and riparian intrusions (Brooks and Lair 2005, Welsh 2008). All these characteristics promote greater sediment production. Welsh (2008) specifically compared sediment production and delivery to streams for forest roads and OHV trails. He found that for a given unit-area, even after taking rainfall erosivity into account, trails produced twice as much sediment as roads, with key underlying processes linked to slope and traffic. Rills and sediment plumes originating from the trails were also longer than roads, indicating a higher degree of potential connection to stream systems. Finally, when examining several subbasins which combined had three times the road density as trails, the latter were found to be delivering nearly as much sediment to streams as the former due to the higher sediment production and greater connectivity. Sediment production from roads is greatly influenced by surface material. Native surface (i.e., dirt) roads produce more sediment than gravel roads (Bilby et al. 1989, Clinton and Vose 2003, Coe 2006, Elliot et al. 1999a). Hard-packed dirt roads are not as permeable to water compared to gravel roads, agricultural soils, or forest soils (Elliot et al. 1999a). In other words, water tends to run off dirt roads instead of soaking into the surface. Additionally, rain which falls directly on compacted soil, as opposed to a rougher, graveled surface, has more energy and, thus, greater erosion potential (Ziegler et al. 2000). Vehicles traveling on dirt roads also liberate more fine sediment from the surface compared to gravel roads, which is then available for transport during the next precipitation event (Coe 2006). Even among gravel roads, not all materials are equal. Foltz (1996) compared high-quality gravels against marginal-quality, finding the former to produce lower values for runoff and sediment production. The mechanism suggested was that marginal-quality gravels were less resistant to crushing and more prone to rutting. While graveling a dirt road can decrease erosion, Coe (2006) cautions that if an inside ditch is present and not rocked in an appropriate manner, or other road design or maintenance issues exist, then the action may not be effective. Road maintenance can affect sediment production and delivery to streams. Recently graded roads produce more sediment than roads not recently graded (Coe 2006). However, this effect may be less at higher elevations or in snow-dominated climates because snow has a lower inherent ability to cause roadbed erosion compared to rain (Coe 2006). While sidecasting soil and snow is an obvious source of sediment (Furniss et al. 1991), its exact contribution to stream habitat impact has never been quantified. Soil erosion and conveyance by ditches is a large sediment contributor, with ditch grading not only increasing sediment production, but with effects potentially persisting for more than a year (Elliot et al. 1999a, Luce and Black 2001). Road sediment can be decreased with a well-planned maintenance program, including rocking ditches, not blading them, outsloping the road bed, encouraging vegetative buffer strips, judicial use of grading, applying gravel as needed, and controlling ruts which may otherwise bypass drainage structures (Clinton and Vose 2003, Elliot et al. 1999a, Luce and Black 2001). The overall road network potentially affects the hydrology of a watershed. Roads intercept surface and subsurface flow, rerouting water to ditches, gullies, and established stream channels (Jones et al. 2000, Wemple et al. 1996, Wemple and Jones 2003). By increasing the efficiency of water delivery to streams, roads have the potential to alter timing and magnitude of flow events (Bilby et al. 1989, Jones et al. 2000, Wemple et al. 1996, Wemple and Jones 2003). Although basin-wide road density is generally the most visible and easily quantified variable, it is not the

110 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement only consideration: Location on a slope and stream system connectivity is also important (Jones et al. 2000, Wemple et al. 1996, Wemple and Jones 2003). For instance, a mid-slope road that crosses an intermittent channel may have a greater impact to hydrology than a ridgetop road. 3.9.3.1. Sediment Effects to Fish Fish are affected by excessive sediment in multiple ways. In extreme cases, sediment can cause physical damage and suffocation, but such is normally only seen following catastrophic events such as landslides (Hicks et al. 1991). More likely are sublethal effects, such as greater energy expenditure spent swimming due to the filling in of hiding cover and/or searching for food among an altered aquatic macroinvertebrate community (Meehan 1991, Suttle et al. 2004). Reproduction is particularly impacted by high levels of fine sediment via the infilling of spaces in spawning substrates, leading to interference with egg deposition and incubation, egg suffocation, and reduction of fry emergence (Meehan 1991). Sensitivity to a given class of fine sediment is dependent upon fish life stage. Sediments less than 1 millimeter (mm) are especially detrimental to eggs because they impede water flow through gravels, decreasing dissolved oxygen availability and suffocating embryos (Kondolf 2000, Olsson and Person 1986). Once hatched, salmonids remain in the redd for a time before pushing their way to the surface. While many researchers have found elevated amounts of gravels in the 3 to 10 mm range can negatively impact emergence, multiple studies by Kondolf (2000) suggest a general threshold exists starting around sizes less than 4 mm. While sediment tends to have the greatest impact on the reproductive segment of the fish life cycle, negative effects have been documented in juveniles. Aquatic invertebrates, a primary food source for fish, are also affected by sediment. Changes in sediment composition have been shown to reduce density, biomass, and diversity of aquatic insects (Meehan 1991). Sediment composition also affects the types of insects found, with certain species favoring clean, rocky substrate and others a silty environment. Trout prefer to feed on the former species (grazers and predators), and activities which input excessive amounts of sediment can shift an aquatic insect community towards the latter (burrowers) (Cordone and Kelly 1961, Suttle et al. 2004). Other Effects to Fish: Compared to sediment, other potential road-related impacts tend to be limited in scope. In some cases, such as for hydrologic effects, road-related impacts may be difficult to discern against natural annual variation or other on-going activities. • Barriers – Undersized or poorly sited culverts may limit fish passage, leading to fragmented populations, genetic bottlenecking, and even local extirpation (Burford 2005, Furniss et al. 1991, Wofford et al. 2005). How fish passage barriers influence fish distribution and species viability across the larger landscape scale is poorly known (Burford 2005). • Channel Morphology – Although changes in channel morphology are widely cited as an effect of roads, it is neither well studied nor well documented. While fords may encourage wide and shallow channels, culverts can cause downcutting and incision. The effect of channel morphology on fish can be complex, with life stage playing a large role. Habitat partitioning by size among salmonids is common, often with larger (older) fish preferring deeper water compared to smaller (younger) fish (Jakober et al. 2000, Mäki- Petäys et al. 1997). • Vegetation – Vegetation removal is associated with roads. Riparian vegetation is an important element of healthy fish habitat. It moderates temperature, provides cover, supports insect fish-food, and stabilizes banks (Meehan 1991). However, unless a road is

111 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

paralleling a stream for a significant portion of its length, any effect of roads on streamside vegetation and, therefore, fish habitat, is likely minor. • Hydrology – Discharge can affect timing and success of all fish lifestages – migration, spawning, incubation, rearing (Meehan 1991). However, the impact of roads on the hydrologic regime, unless they are a significant portion of the watershed, is expected to be minor. 3.9.3.2. Road Effects to Amphibians Amphibians are more susceptible to road-related mortality than fish, particularly when attempts are made to disperse or migrate across roads (Forman and Alexander 1998, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). The chance of an amphibian safely crossing a road is related to traffic volume, and mortality can be particularly high when activity patterns, such as spring or fall migrations, coincide with heavy traffic (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Indirect effects of roads on amphibians fall into similar categories as those already discussed for fish. Road impacts include habitat loss (e.g., wetland fill) and multiple kinds of habitat degradation (including changes in hydrology and surface features, pollution from water runoff and exhaust, lights, noise) (Forman and Alexander 1998). Roads also fragment habitat and act as barriers; and animal behaviors can be modified, potentially disrupting breeding activities and migrations (Forman and Alexander 1998, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). In northeast Nevada, both adults and larvae are commonly associated with beaver ponds, and beaver ponds trap sediment. The few studies which have looked at amphibian response to increases in sediment load have focused on the inhabitants of moderate- to fast-moving water, species which might be expected to react in a manner similar to trout (Corn and Bury 1989, Gillespie 2002). In contrast, CSF tadpoles are poor swimmers, requiring a ponded environment. Sediments may be used by CSF as escape cover from predators or thermal refuge in cold temperatures. However, too much sediment may cover the streambed, possibly disrupting both algae cover and macroinvertebrate populations in the streams. Adult frogs forage on macroinvertebrates, and frog larvae eat algae, therefore a fluctuation of algae cover or insect populations could impact CSF. Excessive sediment may also infill pools, decreasing habitat availability. 3.9.3.3. Effects by Resource Indicator Miles within 300 Feet of Occupied Habitat: The closer a road is to a stream, the more potential it has to impact aquatic systems, even if sediment does not have an obvious direct connection. A 300 foot riparian buffer is the accepted distance considered satisfactory to protect aquatic habitats, with studies showing filter strips of 200-300 feet as generally effective at protecting streams from overland movement of sediment (Packer 1967, Swift 1986, Trimble and Sartz 1957, USDA FS 1995). Roads within this buffer that are unmaintained and poorly placed in regards to riparian and aquatic resources will perpetuate issues related to sediment production, channel morphology, and hydrology. Although there has been no specific research comparing primitive roads with engineered Forest roads, many unauthorized routes are two-tracked and effectively parallel ruts. Unauthorized routes, especially the two-track routes, will produce more sediment and have a greater connectivity to stream systems than the “official” portion of the NFS road network. Indirect effects to aquatic habitat due to NFS and unauthorized road and trails will continue.

112 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 35. Percentage Difference in Road Miles Located within a 300 Feet Buffer of Locales Occupied by Aquatic Species by Alternative. Alt 5 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Reduced Alternatives Proposed Current Visitor No Action Resource Action System Map Impacts Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Motorized Miles within 300 Ft. 31.3 15.2 11.9 15.6 12.9 Percent Motorized Miles Reduced 0.0 51.6 62.1 50.2 58.9 Bull Trout Motorized Miles within 300 Ft. 7.8 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.2 Percent Motorized Miles Reduced 0.0 20.0 20.0 22.7 20.0 Bull Trout Critical Habitat Motorized Miles within 300 Ft. 8.7 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.7 Percent Motorized Miles Reduced 0.0 18.8 18.8 21.4 18.8 Redband Trout Motorized Miles within 300 Ft. 141.7 125.1 99.3 117.6 106.6 Percent Motorized Miles Reduced 0.0 11.7 29.9 17.0 24.8 Columbia Spotted Frog Motorized Miles within 300 Ft. 148.7 132.4 96.5 114.3 109.1 Percent Motorized Miles Reduced 0.0 11.0 35.1 23.1 26.7 Trout Motorized Miles within 300 Ft. 47.7 26.4 21.7 23.6 23.6 Percent Motorized Miles Reduced 0.0 44.7 54.5 50.4 50.4 Road Crossings: Road crossings can impact aquatic habitat as well as affect fish distribution. Although not all road crossings within the project area have been specifically surveyed in regards to aquatic impacts, there are several locations with known problems that are representative of the issues both described in the literature and informally observed within the project area (Fisheries Specialist Report). A ford on Pratt Creek (Mountain City Ranger District) is an extreme instance of a crossing impacting stream flow, although it is not the only example present with the project area. In several areas, a road has either partially or completely captured the stream, diverting it from its original channel. Aquatic habitat is impacted, including changes to stream morphology, headcutting, and channelization. Other examples include Badger Creek, and an unnamed Jack Creek tributary (Mountain City Ranger District), and Pole Creek in upper O’Neil Basin (Jarbidge Ranger District). Fords do act as pathways to conduct sediment into the stream system. While the amount of sediment input is dependent on many factors – geology, soil erosivity, road placement, and traffic level – unimproved, unauthorized routes may be particularly at risk. Fords are not the only type of stream crossing to impact the aquatic environment. Improperly sized and placed culverts can also affect stream habitat, as well as act as barriers to fish and amphibian movement. In the worst case scenario, culverts can completely block fish movement, facilitating extinction of the isolated population. The number of road crossings located on streams occupied by aquatic species is displayed in the table below by species and alternative.

113 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 36. Summary of Percentage Difference in Road Crossings Located on Streams Occupied by Aquatic Species by Alternative. Alt 5 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Reduced Alternatives Proposed Current Visitor No Action Resource Action System Map Impacts Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Motorized Crossings 63 35 26 37 27 Percent Motorized Crossing Reduced 0.0 44.4 58.7 41.3 57.1 Bull Trout Motorized Crossings 11 11 10 10 11 Percent Motorized Crossing Reduced 0.0 0.0 9.1 9.1 0.0 Bull Trout Critical Habitat Motorized Crossings 12 12 11 11 12 Percent Motorized Crossing Reduced 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 0.0 Redband Trout Motorized Crossings 340 304 252 275 275 Percent Motorized Crossing Reduced 0.0 10.6 25.9 19.1 19.1 Columbia Spotted Frog Motorized Crossings 397 346 247 294 282 Percent Motorized Crossing Reduced 0.0 12.9 37.8 25.9 29.0 Trout Motorized Crossings 114 71 49 62 56 Percent Motorized Crossing Reduced 0.0 37.7 57.0 45.6 50.9 Road Density: A following framework developed by the USFWS can assist in making decisions regarding the status of bull trout populations and its habitat (USFWS 1998). • “Functioning Appropriately”: <1 mi/mi2 of road with no valley bottom roads • “Functioning-At-Risk”: 1 to 2.4 mi/mi2 of road with some valley bottom roads • “Functioning At Unacceptable Risk”: >2.4 mi/mi2 of road with many valley bottom roads These thresholds are similar to Quigley and others (1997) which included categorizing watersheds into condition. With a road density of 2.5 mi/mi2 and greater, the “high” class is similar to the USFWS recommendation for classifying watersheds to be functioning with an unacceptable risk for bull trout (USFWS 1998). Although bull trout are the most sensitive of the aquatic species being analyzed, other trout species also demonstrate a negative response to increased road densities (Quigley et al. 1997). For “medium”, the 1.5-2.5 mi/mi2 range is not only within the range where USFWS recommends an at-risk designation for bull trout, but other trout species may also begin to show signs of depression (Quigley et al. 1997, USFWS 1998). Additionally, it is likely within this range that hydrologic and physical habitat effects may start to become evident, although significance is highly dependent on the system under consideration and local climate (Quigley et al. 1997). For this analysis, each species-occupied 6th order HUC was considered separately. The numbers of watersheds in various conditions were counted for each key species. These numbers were used to evaluate changes from Alternative 1 (table 37). Additional information on road densities by alternative, key species, and watersheds are found in the Fisheries Specialist Report.

114 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 37. Number of Functioning Condition Key Species of Watersheds (6th Order HUC) by Alternative. Alt 5 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Reduced Alternatives Proposed Current Visitor No Action Resource Action System Map Impacts Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Functioning Appropriately (<1 mi/m2) 8 10 13 12 10 Functioning-at-Risk (1-2.4 mi/mi2) 6 5 2 3 5 Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (>2.4 mi/mi2) 1 0 0 0 0 Bull Trout Functioning Appropriately (<1 mi/m2) 1 1 2 1 2 Functioning-at-Risk (1-2.4 mi/mi2) 2 2 1 2 1 Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (>2.4 mi/mi2) 0 0 0 0 0 Bull Trout Critical Habitat Functioning Appropriately (<1 mi/m2) 1 1 2 1 2 Functioning-at-Risk (1-2.4 mi/mi2) 2 3 2 3 2 Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (>2.4 mi/mi2) 1 0 0 0 0 Redband Trout Functioning Appropriately (<1 mi/m2) 7 15 29 16 22 Functioning-at-Risk (1-2.4 mi/mi2) 37 32 19 31 26 Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (>2.4 mi/mi2) 4 1 0 1 0 Columbia Spotted Frog Functioning Appropriately (<1 mi/mi2) 3 6 13 9 10 Functioning-at-Risk (1-2.4 mi/mi2) 22 21 15 18 18 Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (>2.4 mi/mi2) 3 1 0 1 0 3.9.3.1.1. Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, impacts currently occurring to aquatic organisms and their habitat are expected to continue. As cross-country travel would continue under this alternative, indirect effects are expected to increase in the long term. While one or two passes by a vehicle are unlikely to impact the aquatic environment, unless the route chosen is a streambed, repeated use of a track would eventually turn it into a road. This is especially true where passage by a vehicle through thick riparian vegetation or heavy sagebrush is highly visible, prompting future users to the area to explore the new track. Because this alternative does little to curb road proliferation, the number of unauthorized roads and motorized trails would be expected to grow, increasing indirect effects to the aquatic environment long-term. Bull trout and LCT population surveys and habitat data for the analysis area for recent years document generally stable/increasing fish populations and stable or improving aquatic and riparian habitat (Fisheries Specialist Report). In general these conditions (aquatic and riparian habitat) indicate the stream sediment levels are likely near or above threshold levels where trout species experience impacts. In general fish populations are stable, however localized elevated fine sediment levels as a result of road crossings and roads management adjacent to occupied streams may be reducing populations (tables 35, 36, 37). Overall, Alternative 1 would maintain the highest number of routes, crossings, and road densities within riparian areas and habitat condition indicators such bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratio would worsen compared to all action alternatives. Therefore Alternative 1 has the least likelihood for improving aquatic habitat and trout populations. Key aquatic species continue to experience ongoing impacts and effects; areas where routes, crossings, and road densities are high and may increase, adverse affects would not be reduced.

115 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The continued use of the NFS roads and motorized trails and newly designated motorized routes may negatively impact redband trout and CSF habitat and populations in the 6th field watersheds with road density that is considered to be functioning at unacceptable risk (Fisheries Specialist Report). Alternative 1 does not follow INFISH guidance by not minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RF2). By not reducing routes, crossings, and road densities within RHCAs, riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios would continue to be degraded. Determination: Bull trout, LCT, redband trout, and non-native trout are collectively considered management indicator species. These species would continue to experience continued adverse effects in some areas. Alternative 1 may impact individual CSF. This is not expected to lead to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the species. Although current populations are stable, Alternative 1 may result in downward populations because there is no reduction in the number of routes, crossings, and road density. In addition, by not prohibiting cross-country travel, it is likely that the number of routes, crossings, and road densities would continue to increase. 3.9.3.1.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, the prohibition on cross-country-motorized travel means road proliferation would cease because new routes would not be established. Motorized big game retrieval for retrieval of legally taken mule deer and elk would be an option under Alternative 2. The use of ATV/UTVs would be authorized for MBGR up to 0.5 mile off either side of a designated road or motorized trail within the boundaries of the districts. Motorized vehicles would not be permitted to cross riparian areas, streams, and rivers except at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Retrieval for elk is estimated at 140 annual trips; retrieval for mule deer would be around 1,040 trips. Both would be about 1,180 trips. However this number is far greater than would be expected to cross occupied streams or to come within 300 feet of streams. This requirement would reduce impacts compared to Alternative 1 where multi-stream crossings may occur at unauthorized crossings. Bull trout and LCT population surveys and habitat data for the analysis area for recent years document generally stable/increasing fish populations and stable or improving aquatic and riparian habitat (Fisheries Specialist Report). In general these conditions within aquatic and riparian habitat indicate the stream sediment levels are likely near or above threshold levels where trout species experience impacts. In general fish populations are stable, however localized elevated fine sediment levels as a result of road crossings and roads management adjacent to occupied streams may be reducing populations. Overall, compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would slightly reduce routes, crossings, and road densities within riparian areas and habitat condition indicators such bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratio would improve. Alternative 2 would likely improve aquatic habitat and key aquatic species populations compared to Alternative 1. When compared to all other action alternatives, Alternative 2 has the least likelihood for improving aquatic habitat and trout populations. One 6th field HUCs is considered to be functioning at unacceptable level under Alternative 2. This 6th field HUC is occupied by redband trout and Columbia spotted frog (Fisheries Specialist Report). Alternative 2 follows INFISH guidance by minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RF2). Alternative 2 may continue to degrade native fish habitat and negatively impact riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios. However, by reducing routes, crossings, and road densities within RHCAs,

116 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios would be improved compared to Alternative 1. Determination: Although key aquatic species would experience ongoing impacts and effects, areas where routes, crossings, and road densities are reduced would result in a reduction of adverse effects to aquatics resources. Bull trout, LCT, redband trout, and non-native trout would continue to experience continued adverse effects in some areas. However, this is not expected to result in a downward population trend for these species since current populations are stable and there is an overall reduction in routes, crossings, and road density. Alternative 2 may impact individual CSF; this is not expected to lead to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the species. 3.9.3.1.3. Alternative 3: Current System Under Alternative 3, the greatest reduction in road-related impacts would occur (tables 35, 36, 37). Because roads and trails would continue to be used, some degree of direct and indirect impact is expected to continue. However, Alternative 3 would provide the greatest landscape scale reduction in crossings and buffer areas adjacent to occupied and unoccupied stream segments where detrimental impacts to an aquatic habitat or species is most likely to occur. Under Alternative 3, non-motorized use (hiking, equestrian, and bicycle) may continue on routes where motorized use is prohibited. Studies have attempted to compare different modes of transportation in regards to trampling, soil compaction, or erosion (Lei 2004, Weaver and Dale 1978, Wilkerson and Whitman 2010, Wilson and Seney 1994). However, factors such as differing weights (i.e., hiker versus motorcycle), hillslope, and route condition (wet versus dry) can be confusing factors making direct comparison difficult; and many studies of motorized versus non-motorized consider users of smaller trails with widths prohibiting ATVs or four-wheel drive vehicles. In general, hiking tends to have the least impact, followed by bicycle/horse/motorcycle, with ATVs and full-sized vehicles having the greatest detrimental environmental effect. Bull trout and LCT population surveys and habitat data for the analysis area for recent years document generally stable/increasing fish populations and stable or improving aquatic and riparian habitat (Fisheries Specialist Report). In general these conditions within aquatic and riparian habitat indicate the stream sediment levels are likely near or above threshold levels where trout species experience impacts. In general fish populations are stable, however localized elevated fine sediment levels as a result of road crossings and roads management adjacent to occupied streams may be reducing populations. Overall, compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would reduce routes, crossings, and road densities within riparian areas and habitat condition indicators such bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratio would improve. Alternative 3 would improve aquatic habitat and key aquatic species populations compared to Alternative 1. When compared to all other action alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in the greatest reduction in road-related impacts. Therefore, Alternative 3 has the greatest likelihood for improving aquatic habitat and trout populations. No 6th field HUCs are considered to be functioning at unacceptable levels under Alternative 3 (Fisheries Specialist Report). Alternative 3 follows INFISH guidance by minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RF2). Alternative 3 may continue to degrade native fish habitat and negatively impact riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios. However, by reducing routes, crossings, and road densities within RHCAs, riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios would be improved compared to all other alternatives.

117 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: Although key aquatic species would experience ongoing impacts and effects, areas where routes, crossings, and road densities are reduced would result in a reduction of adverse effects to aquatics resources. Bull trout, LCT, redband trout, and non-native trout would continue to experience continued adverse effects in some areas. However, this is not expected to result in a downward population trend for these species since current populations are stable and there is an overall reduction in routes, crossings, and road density. Alternative 3 may impact individual CSF; this is not expected to lead to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the species. 3.9.3.1.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would have miles of roads and trails open to motorized use in-between the alternatives with the least (Alternative 3) and most (Alternative 2) miles of route. Motorized big game retrieval of elk would be allowed under Alternative 4. The use of ATV/UTVs would be authorized for MBGR up to 0.50 mile off either side of a designated road or motorized trail within the boundaries of the districts. Motorized vehicles would not be permitted to cross riparian areas, streams, and rivers except at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Retrieval for elk is estimated at 140 annual trips. However this number is far greater than would be expected to cross occupied streams or to come within 300 feet of streams. This requirement would reduce impacts compared to Alternative 1 where multi-streams crossing may occur at unauthorized crossings. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in existing off road travel restricted areas (for examples designated wilderness areas and municipal watersheds). Bull trout and LCT population surveys and habitat data for the analysis area for recent years document generally stable/increasing fish populations and stable or improving aquatic and riparian habitat (Fisheries Specialist Report). In general aquatic and riparian habitat conditions indicate the stream sediment levels are likely near or above threshold levels where trout species experience impacts. In general fish populations are stable, however localized elevated fine sediment levels as a result of road crossings and roads management adjacent to occupied streams may be reducing populations. Overall, compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would reduce routes, crossings, and road densities (tables 35, 36, 37) within riparian areas and habitat condition indicators such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratio would improve. Alternative 4 would improve aquatic habitat and key aquatic species populations compared to Alternative 1. When compared to all other action alternatives, Alternative 4 generally results in less reduction in road- related impacts than Alternative 3 but generally more than Alternative 2. Therefore Alternative 4 is more likely to improve aquatic habitat and trout populations than Alternatives 1 and 2 and less likely to improve aquatic habitat and trout populations than Alternative 3. One 6th field HUCs is considered to be functioning at an unacceptable level under Alternative 4. The continued use of NFS roads and trails and newly authorized motorized routes in this area may negatively impact redband trout and CSF habitat and populations (Fisheries Specialist Report). Alternative 4 follows INFISH guidance by minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RF2). Alternative 4 may continue to degrade native fish habitat and negatively impact riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios. However, by reducing routes, crossings, and road densities within RHCAs, riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios would be improved compared to all other alternatives.

118 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: Although key aquatic species would experience ongoing impacts and effects, areas where routes, crossings, and road densities are reduced would result in a reduction of adverse effects to aquatics resources. Bull trout, LCT, redband trout, and non-native trout would continue to experience continued adverse effects in some areas. However, this is not expected to result in a downward population trend for these species since current populations are stable and there is an overall reduction in routes, crossings, and road density. Alternative 4 may impact individual CSF and this is not expected to lead to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the species. 3.9.3.1.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would benefit all aquatic species discussed in this analysis. In most cases this alternative would provide greater benefits than Alternative 4. Bull trout and LCT population surveys and habitat data for the analysis area for recent years document generally stable/increasing fish populations and stable or improving aquatic and riparian habitat (Fisheries Specialist Report). In general these aquatic and riparian habitat conditions indicate the stream sediment levels are likely near or above threshold levels where trout species experience impacts. In general fish populations are stable, however localized elevated fine sediment levels as a result of road crossings and roads management adjacent to occupied streams may be reducing populations. Overall, compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 5 would reduce routes, crossings, and road densities (tables 35, 36, 37) within riparian areas and habitat condition indicators such bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratio would improve. Alternative 5 would improve aquatic habitat and key aquatic species populations compared to Alternative 1. When compared to all other action alternatives, Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4 and generally results in less reduction in road-related impacts than Alternative 3 but generally more than Alternative 2. Therefore Alternative 5 is more likely to improve aquatic habitat and trout populations than Alternatives 1 and 2 and less likely to improve aquatic habitat and trout populations than Alternative 3. The continued use of NFS roads and motorized trail and newly authorized motorized routes may negatively impact redband trout and CSF habitat and populations in the 6th field watersheds with road density that is considered to be functioning at unacceptable risk (Fisheries Specialist Report). Alternative 5 follows INFISH guidance by minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RF2). Alternative 5 may continue to degrade native fish habitat and negatively impact riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios. Hoverer, by reducing routes, crossings, and road densities within RHCAs, riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperatures, and width-depth ratios would be improved compared to all other alternatives. Determination: Although key aquatic species would experience ongoing impacts and effects, areas where routes, crossings, and road densities are reduced would result in a reduction of adverse effects to aquatics resources. Bull trout, LCT, redband trout, and non-native trout would continue to experience continued adverse effects in some areas. However, this is not expected to result in a downward population trend for these species since current populations are stable and there is an overall reduction in routes, crossings, and road density. It is determined that Alternative 5 may impact individual CSF and this is not expected to lead to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the species.

119 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.9.4. Cumulative Effects Activities that have cumulatively affected stream habitats and aquatic species within the project area and at the watershed scale outside of the project area include the following. Livestock Grazing: Cumulatively, livestock grazing is the most widespread activity with the longest duration in the area, starting in the late 1800s. Grazing not only occurs on NFS land, but also on adjacent land administered by the BLM and private lands. Impacts to the landscape have been extensive, with that to streams and riparian areas particularly well documented. Grazing can affect all components of the aquatic system – riparian vegetation, channel morphology, quality and shape of water column, and streambank structure (Platts 1990, Trimble and Mendel 1995). Elimination or alteration of riparian vegetation can decrease streambank stability, leading to elevated fine sediments and changes in stream morphology, reduction in fish food supplies, and increased stream temperature (Platts 1990, Meehan 1991). Physical bank modification (shear, ramps, crossings) can reduce bank resistance, promoting channel erosion (Trimble and Mendel 1995). Agricultural diversions, such as those for hay meadow irrigation or watering stock, occur on multiple streams in the project area, and municipal diversions are present as well. In addition, hundreds of small water developments, often at springheads, have been constructed to water livestock. There are also multiple diversions on private land (inholdings or outside Forest boundaries) and BLM which may be impacting aquatic resources on the Forest. Depending on the diversion, trout occupancy of a stream may or may not be affected; and as some structures are non-permanent and function only part of the year, restrictions may be seasonal. In addition to acting as a barrier, effects to the water source, such as alterations in channel morphology leading to channel incision, can cause changes to water retention along the riparian zone. This can amount to less water being available during low-flow periods. Water removal can result in reduced quantity and quality of habitat for aquatic species. During drought conditions, the diversion water-right may exceed discharge, resulting in complete dewatering downstream of the structure. Diversions and impoundments are factors which have led to isolation of fish from larger metapopulations. Mining (Exploration and Extraction): Mining is one of the major historical activities throughout the project area. Jerritt Canyon (Mountain City Ranger District) is the only currently active mine, although there are many examples of historic operations. Minerals-related activities may impact streams in a number of ways, such as alterations of water quality, increased fine sediment, channel alteration (if activities are adjacent to or in streams), and road-related impacts. In 1935, the West Fork of Jarbidge River was described to be so polluted due to mines and mills that no fish life was present until 2 miles upstream of the town of Jarbidge (Durrant 1935). Unlike past activities, roads associated with current and future minerals projects are strictly controlled as to amount and placement, and decommissioning/reclamation is expected once the project is complete so as to minimize long-term impacts to the landscape. Recreation and Dispersed Camping has contributed to stream impacts. Heavily used dispersed camping sites may have localized problems related to soil compaction, vegetation removal (for campfires), and improperly disposed of garbage and human waste. Fishing: While fishing is an obvious cumulative effect via the removal of fish from the population, most streams within the project area are lightly used compared to systems located closer to urban areas. Exceptions include Lamoille Canyon, Angel Lake, East Fork Owyhee River, and other areas with easy (i.e., paved or high-quality graded gravel) access. On the other hand, the desire to catch “suitable” fish species has led to past stocking of non-native fish such as brook trout or rainbow trout. Not all stocking activities have been documented; it is assumed that most perennial streams with adequate access were stocked at some time with non-native fish.

120 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Stocked fish may hybridize with local native fish. Planted rainbow trout will hybridize with LCT and native redband, compromising genetic purity; similarly, brook trout may do likewise with bull trout. Although loss of LCT has been documented elsewhere in Nevada, rainbow stocked in many cutthroat-occupied waters never appear to have established, and, thus, the majority of existing LCT strains remain pure. The exception is the Long Canyon system (Ruby Mountain Ranger District), where hybrids have been documented (NDOW 2000). It is likely stocked rainbows also played a part in the decline of a historic population of cutthroat in Lamoille Canyon (Ruby Mountain Ranger District). The genetic status of many redband streams is unknown, but most of those tested are considered to be uncompromised (NDOW 2005). Despite repeated stocking of brook trout in the Jarbidge River watershed, this species was unable to persist in most cases – the exceptions include Bear Creek (fish are undergoing removal) and Emerald Lake (an alpine lake lacking a defined outlet) – and bull trout retain genetic purity (USFWS 2004). Competition from non-native trout is considered one of the major threats currently facing LCT (USFWS 2009) and is believed to be a contributing factor to declines of both bull trout (USFWS 2004) and redband (NDOW 2005). It has also been suggested that CSF have been negatively impacted from trout introductions (NDOW 2003, Reaser 1997). In the project area, brook trout are the primary introduced trout of concern in respects to competition, although both brown trout and rainbow trout may also be present. Brook trout are well-documented in their ability to compete with LCT, often pushing the cutthroat to marginal habitat in the extreme headwaters. Brook trout impacts are most prevalent on the Ruby Mountain Ranger District, although they have also affected LCT distribution on the Mountain City Ranger District, primarily on the North Fork Humboldt River mainstem. Actions taken by NDOW to remove brook trout from the Forest portion of the Marys River mainstem seem to have limited impact in that area. Redband trout are also potentially at risk from brook trout, with studies showing significant overlap in the habitat variables both species use (Bozek and Hubert 1992). It is unknown to what effect, if any, stocked rainbows (practice discontinued after 1998) had on bull trout (USFWS 2004). Similarly, without a comprehensive historical map of CSF presence, impact due to historical fish stocking to this amphibian is unknown. Natural Processes: Natural processes outside the control of the Forest have contributed to cumulative effects to aquatic resources. One of these processes is wildfire. Since record keeping began in the 1950s, multiple fires, both large and small, have occurred within the project area. The Murphy Complex and East Slide Rock Ridge fires occurred in the project area in 2007 and 2008. The Murphy Complex was primarily located on the Mountain City Ranger District and included the Bruneau River mainstem, as well as portions of its major tributaries of Coon Creek, Copper Creek, McDonald Creek, and Meadow Creek. The East Slide Rock Ridge fire was located on the Jarbidge Ranger District and encompassed the East Fork Jarbidge River and all its tributaries, except Dave Creek; Canyon Creek and its tributaries; Cottonwood Creek; and the Caudle Creek sage flats (fishbearing streams - Caudle Creek, Pole Creek, Sheep Creek). Impact ranged from none and light to areas of moderate- and high-intensity in Canyon Creek, Jim Bob Creek, and Robinson Creek. Fire can cause mortality if fish are unable to find refuge from heat, although this is considered to be rare (Neary et al. 2005). Most fire-related impacts to the aquatic environment, and thus the biota within it, occur after the event. This includes impacts to hydrology, often to timing and increases in discharge (run-off from storms/spring melt, as well as baseflow); alterations in channel morphology; increases in amount of sediment (fine and coarse) and woody debris; alterations to nutrient cycling; and removal of riparian vegetation, leading to increases in stream temperature (Neary et al. 2005). It is too soon to know how the East Slide Rock Ridge Fire may have affected aquatics, especially bull trout, within its perimeter. Although it is known that slides on the Bruneau River following the Murphy Complex resulted in increased sedimentation and

121 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement higher turbidity, subsequent impacts to spawning by redband (and other species) is as yet unknown. On the other hand, a survey completed on Cottonwood Creek in 2004 found conditions similar, if not better, to those seen in 1995, prior to the Camp Fire (NDOW 1995, NDOW 2004b). Conversely, the Saval Fire is believed to be one of the causes, along with grazing and other anthropogenic factors, to have cumulatively led to local extirpation of the Mahala Creek and Jim Creek populations of LCT within the North Fork Humboldt River subbasin. The Snow Canyon Fire was responsible for fishkill to some west-side Independence Range redband streams, although the effect appears to have concentrated on larger individuals unable to seek refuge from temporarily elevated water temperatures. In addition to fire, all districts within the project area have experienced drought conditions on and off since 1987, and native trouts such as LCT and redband tend to display depressed populations during conditions of low flow, rebounding during years of good spring run-off. Columbia spotted frog, juveniles in particular, also respond negatively to drought conditions, although effects at a given area may be moderated depending on factors such as beaver activity and how responsive a drainage is to drought. 3.9.4.1. Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives Under all alternatives, most cumulative effects as described above are expected to continue. Road presence is not expected to alter ongoing or future effects associated with mining, grazing (domesticated and wild), water development, or natural processes. 3.9.4.2. Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, the cumulative effects associated with various aspects of recreation, including the potential of illegal fish stocking, may increase; and overall hydrologic impacts on the watershed scale are expected to intensify. Road proliferation and the establishment of new routes are likely to continue. Roads act as an “enabler” for various activities, such as recreation and woodcutting, providing access either where none previous existed or was limited due to natural obstacles like slope or rock. Additionally, the continued introduction of more powerful and faster machines has allowed users to access places previously thought inaccessible (Dunfee 2008). For example, it has been observed that lakes near roads experience greater fishing pressure than those further away. When new roads are constructed (for instance, during silviculture operations), lakes with low utilization showed an increase in fishing afterwards (Hunt and Lester 2009, Kaufman et al. 2009). Therefore, as road and motorized trails increase on the landscape level, opportunities for recreation would increase, and those recreational activities that occur near water could lead to increased impacts to aquatic species. Route proliferation would also lead to increased road density over time. In turn, the long-term (e.g., decadal) trend is for the cumulative effects associated with roads to continue. Neither the individual HUCs or species, nor the magnitude of impact, that would be most affected can be projected due to uncertainties in future use patterns on the Forest. Areas already identified with specific road-aquatics issues would continue to exhibit Forest user/resource conflicts. Particularly in the case of bull trout where the transportation network is one of the primary limiting factors currently affecting local populations (USFWS 2004), increases in road mileage and/or use intensity may impede future recovery efforts. 3.9.4.3. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, cumulative effects associated with various aspects of recreation should continue at the present level, as would hydrologic impacts on the watershed scale. While there may be some decrease in remote motorized recreational opportunities, it should be minimal

122 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement because most dispersed campsites and other high use areas are near larger artery roads. Furthermore, effort was made to pinpoint these areas so continued access would be available. As the dispersed campsite areas identified under Alternative 2 are distant from critical aquatic resources, they are not expected to appreciably add to cumulative impact. Alteration from the natural hydrologic regime which may be occurring due to the present road system would continue. As cross-country travel would be prohibited, further impacts to hydrology and aquatic resources would not be expected. In terms of MBGR, crossing of streams must occur at designated routes. Although key aquatic species could be impacted, disturbance of riparian vegetation would not likely occur. 3.9.4.4. Alternative 3: Current System Under Alternative 3, the cumulative effects associated with various aspects of recreation would decrease, and overall hydrologic impact on the watershed scale would decline. Compared to Alternative 1, all species-occupied HUCs would decrease in road density (Fisheries Specialist Report). Fewer routes would equate to less opportunity for users who primarily recreate using motorized vehicles. Therefore, it is assumed that impacts, such as those associated with popular dispersed campsites no longer accessible under this alternative, would decrease. Change in use of areas currently accessed via foot or horse is not expected. Initially, basin-scale hydrologic impacts due to roads would remain similar to Alternative 1. Although motorized travel would be limited to existing NFS roads and trails, the unauthorized routes would remain on the landscape. Unless action is taken to obliterate roads, the existing routes would be allowed to naturally deteriorate to a pre-disturbance state. Such a reversion requires decades (McGurk and Fong 1995, Menning et al. 1996), and while various obliteration techniques can be used to hasten the process, recovery still requires multiple years (Foltz et al. 2007, Switalski et al. 2004). Therefore, while cumulative effects under Alternative 3 would eventually decrease the most when compared to Alternative 1, it would be over the long term. 3.9.4.5. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Similar to Alternative 3, cumulative effects associated with various aspects of recreation would decrease, and hydrologic impact on the watershed scale would decline. As the FTS under this alternative would be larger than Alternative 3 and limited cross-country travel for MBGR would be allowed, the overall decreases would not be as great. 3.9.4.6. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Similar to Alternative 3, cumulative effects associated with various aspects of recreation would decrease, and hydrologic impact on the watershed scale would decline. 3.10. Wildlife

3.10.1. Introduction Management of wildlife species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on NFS lands, including those related to wheeled, motorized travel must be planned and implemented so they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service sensitive species. In addition, management activities should be designed to maintain or improve habitat for MIS to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives established in each forest plan. It is Forest Service policy to minimize

123 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for wheeled motorized public use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). 3.10.1.1. Analysis Methodology Federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive species, MIS, species of interest, and migratory birds were selected for analysis for this project using available information and knowledge about the distribution of the terrestrial wildlife species and potential habitat on the districts. Species that have been observed in the project area and for which the project area contains occupied habitat will be discussed in this EIS (table 38). All other species listed below are discussed in detail in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

Table 38. Species Considered for Travel Management Analysis.

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Candidate Species Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Regional Forester Sensitive Species Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bighorn Sheep Ovis Canadensis Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Great gray owl Stix nebulosa Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus dorsalis Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Management Indicator Species Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Other Species of Concern Elk Cervus canadensis 3.10.1.2. Effects Indicators Effects to wildlife will be measured by the following indicators: • Total miles of roads and motorized trails within potential habitat • Road density within certain wildlife habitat types • Acres of habitat in the “Zone of Influence” for each species Using the data sources referenced in the next section, these indicators are used to compare the effects of the alternatives related to roads and motorized trails on terrestrial wildlife on the district. These indicators were selected for project effects based on a review of literature on the interaction between wildlife and roads and motorized trails. The zone of influence differs for each species based on its tolerance to disturbance (Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulak and Frissell 2000) and is a relative index of disturbance used to compare alternatives. The zone of influence for each species used in this analysis was based on published literature if available; otherwise assumptions were made from best available science.

124 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determining Acres of Habitat and Miles of Roads in Habitat: Acres of potential habitat for individual species were determined using GIS vegetation layers to discern habitat types. Miles of routes were calculated by including all roads and motorized trails within mapped potential habitat. Determining Acres of Habitat in the Zone of Influence: Habitat for each species was modeled in GIS (see Data and Information Sources below) and a map of this habitat was created. This habitat map was overlayed on the map of the road and motorized trails. The roads and motorized trails were then buffered on each side by the zone of influence for each species. 3.10.2. Affected Environment Table 39 includes the species considered in this EIS, their status, and the determination of effects. Species with a “No Impact” or “NI” determination have not been observed in the project area and the project area does not contain suitable habitat in meaningful quantities. Northern goshawk, greater sage-grouse, and mule deer are the three terrestrial MIS on the Humboldt portion of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

Table 39. Species Considered and Determination of Effects

Common Likelihood of Habitat Scientific Name Status* Determination of Effects Name occurrence Y/N Federal Candidate Species May impact individuals but is not Greater sage- Centrocercus FC,RFSS,MIS Confirmed Y likely to cause a trend to federal grouse urophasianus G4, S3S4 listing or loss of viability Regional Forester Sensitive Species May impact individuals but is not Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis RFSS, G4, S4 Confirmed Y likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not Northern RFSS,MIS,G5 Accipiter gentilis Confirmed Y likely to cause a trend to federal goshawk S2 listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not Brachylagus Pygmy rabbit RFSS,G4, S3 Confirmed Y likely to cause a trend to federal idahoensis listing or loss of viability Management Indicator Species Odocoileus Mule deer MIS, G5, S5 Confirmed Y Actions contribute to stable trend hemionus Other Species of Concern Cervus Elk G5, S5 Confirmed Y Actions contribute to stable trend canadensis Migratory Birds Various species Confirmed Y Actions contribute to stable trend *Status: NatureServe Element Rank: Forest Service Status: RFSS- Regional Forester G- Global; T- Infraspecific Taxon; S- State Sensitive Species; MIS-Management Indicator 1 – Critically imperiled Species 2 – Imperiled Federal Status: FT – Threatened; FE – 3 – Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Endangered 4 – Apparently secure FP- Proposed; FC- Candidate, 5 – Demonstrably widespread, abundant FEXPN- Experimental- Nonessential Q- Questionable taxonomy;?- Inexact rank; B- Breeding N-Non-breeding; NA- Not Applicable- not appropriate for conservation.

125 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.10.2.1. Federal Candidate Species 3.10.2.1.1. Greater Sage-grouse A status review was recently completed for the sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) by the USFWS and it was determined that listing was “warranted but precluded” giving the sage-grouse status as a candidate species (USFWS 2010b). Populations are difficult to estimate but trends show the species in decline, with approximately 88,000 males counted on leks across the species range in 2007 (USFWS 2010b). According to USFWS, threats to the species are conversion of habitat to agriculture, urbanization, habitat fragmentation (from fences, roads, powerlines, railroads etc.), fire, invasive species, pinyon-juniper encroachment, grazing, energy development, and climate change (USFWS 2010b). The Forest Plan identified the 1986 population of sage-grouse on the Humboldt National Forest at 36,300, with a maximum potential of 40,000 animals. Minimum viable population for the Humboldt National Forest was identified as 3,900 animals under the MIS discussion (USDA FS 1986). According to NDOW monitoring efforts as of 2001, sage-grouse populations within the state of Nevada were estimated at approximately 65,000 adult birds. Sage grouse populations in the state peaked during the late 1970s; however, they have been on a steady decline since and are currently down an estimated 49-60 percent from their peak (Neel 2001). Annual rates of change analyzed by Connelly and others (2004) suggest a long-term decline for sage-grouse in Nevada. This trend is affirmed by a recent review by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA 2008). In Nevada, sage grouse populations have been monitored through lek counts and analysis of hunter wing returns. This analysis is completed by NDOW annually. A small percentage of leks are surveyed each year to determine sage grouse trends in Nevada; counts are not completed at each lek (Huebner 2009). There are approximately 249 known leks on or within 2.0 miles of the project area. Current Forest-wide estimates of active leks are not available. A majority of the active leks occur on the Mountain City Ranger District. 3.10.2.2. Regional Forester Sensitive Species 3.10.2.2.1. Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep (BHS) (Ovis canadensis) were added to the Region 4 Forester Sensitive Species list on July 29, 2009, due to the following factors: • Bighorn sheep numbers are less than 10 percent of historical numbers. • Bighorn sheep distribution is less than a third of its pre-settlement distribution. • Most BHS populations are relatively isolated and consist of less than 100 individuals. • Greatest threats to BHS include habitat degradation, human disturbance, and disease transmission from domestic sheep or goats. • Every national forest in R4 has BHS populations potentially affected by vegetation, recreation and grazing management on NFS lands. • Nature Serve Rankings throughout R4 suggest the species is vulnerable in several states (USDA FS 2009b). Bighorn sheep live in a variety of habitats including sagebrush habitat, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and mountain sagebrush with a grassy understory. Grasses provide a larger portion of their diet than shrubs and forbs (McQuivey 1978). Additional key elements to bighorn habitat are good visibility and steep escape cover that provide security from predators (Coates and Schemnitz

126 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

1994). In summer months, bighorn are often associated with water sources, but are able to range further in other seasons (McQuivey 1978). Bighorn sheep are rare to Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts (observations are usually young rams dispersing from populations in Idaho and in Hunt Unit 74) (Huebner 2009). Hunt Unit 74 had an estimated population of approximately 70 animals as of 2008 (NDOW 2008). Forest personnel have observed a single ram near the Pole Creek Guard Station on the Jarbidge Ranger District two times in the last several years. Potential habitat occurs across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts and the only habitat NDOW identifies as occupied occurs on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Bighorn sheep are present on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. A catastrophic die-off due to a pneumonia outbreak occurred on the Ruby Mountains (1996 to 1997) and occurred again in late 2009 (NDOW 2008, 2010). The mortality rate is speculated to be at 40 percent but could be much higher than what is currently known. Over 70 sheep have been confirmed dead, most of which were found on the East Humboldt range (NDOW 2010). 3.10.2.2.2. Pygmy Rabbit The pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) is the smallest of North American rabbits. The morphology of the pygmy rabbit includes dark grizzled or slate-gray above and buffy white or grayish below, with a tail that is short, gray and inconspicuous. Pygmy rabbits can be distinguished from other rabbits by size alone, but also have shorter ears and do not have a white tail, such as cottontails. The pygmy rabbit has a discontinuous distribution occurring in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (Green and Flinders 1980a). The Washington state population is considered genetically distinct from the remainder of the species and has been listed as endangered by the USFWS. On January 8, 2008, the USFWS initiated a status review to determine if listing the pygmy rabbit is warranted; in 2010, it was determined that listing was “not warranted” (USFWS 2008b, 2010c). There is little information on the current distribution of pygmy rabbits in Nevada, but some broad-scale research has been done (Larrucea 2007). Pygmy rabbit surveys were conducted on the Jarbidge Ranger District in 2004 and 2009 but no signs of pygmy rabbit were observed (Breckel and Keehn 2009, Winslow 2004). Pygmy rabbits tend to avoid areas where soils include volcanic substrates and gravel, as occurs on the Jarbidge and portions of the Mountain City Ranger Districts (Winslow 2004). Based on Larrucea (2007), suitable habitat for pygmy rabbit was assessed using the parameters of basin, mountain, and Wyoming big sagebrush; less than 25 percent slope; and elevations between 1,340 meters and 2,750 meters (approximately 4,400 to 9,000 feet). There are approximately 322,593 acres of potentially suitable pygmy rabbit habitat in the project area. 3.10.2.2.3. Northern Goshawk In addition to being a Region Forester Sensitive Species, the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentillis) is also considered a management indicator species in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan identifies northern goshawks as a management indicator species for old growth cottonwood, aspen, and fir stands associated with riparian areas. The Forest Plan identified a population level of 500 pairs to be maintained through the life of the plan with a maximum potential population Forest-wide of 1,000 pairs. These numbers were established through consultation with NDOW. The numbers were based primarily on known nest sites and an estimate of habitat (USDA FS 1986). The northern goshawk is widely distributed throughout North America and Eurasia. It is an uncommon permanent resident of Great Basin montane forests, requiring large trees for nesting

127 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

(DeGraaf 1991). The northern goshawk is a year-round resident of Nevada and may be observed in mountainous terrain up to 10,500 feet during the warmer months and in lower foothills and valley habitats during the winter. Over 50 prey species, including mammals, birds, and insects, are known to be taken by goshawks (DeGraaf 1991, Herron et al. 1985, Reynolds et al. 1992). The typical northern goshawk nest site in northeast Nevada is located in aspen stringers near small perennial streams, normally within 100 yards of water, at approximately 7,800 feet in elevation (Fairhurst et al. 2004). 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). Aspen nest trees are mature, and usually are among the largest in a stand (> 10 inches dbh). Whitebark pine and limber pine mixed conifer stands may also provide potential nesting habitat in the project area. Nests are 30 inches or greater in diameter, and comprised of 1.5 inch diameter sticks. Numerous nests (alternate nest sites) may be present within the territory. Northern goshawks in the Bull Run and Independence Mountains begin breeding and nesting activity around March 15. Chicks may begin fledging at the end of June and continue until late July, depending on location (Fairhurst et al. 2004). Fairhurst and others found significant associations between spring temperatures, precipitation, and northern goshawk nesting success (2004). Raptors are most susceptible to disturbance during the nesting season. Northern goshawks are sensitive to human disturbance and activities and may alter their normal activities or abandon a territory altogether (Younk and Bechard 1994). Disturbance during the nesting period can be most detrimental to the species when disrupted foraging patterns or extended periods away from the nest result in increased chick mortality. Seasonal buffers around active nests restrict human activities within a space of sufficient size to protect nesting activity. The recommended seasonal restriction for northern goshawks in the Bull Run and Independence Mountains, based on detailed life history studies, is March 1 through August 30 (Fairhurst et al. 2004). The current overall goshawk population is unknown. In 1985, the known number of goshawk nesting territories in Nevada totaled 152, and approximately 300 nesting pairs were estimated to reside in the state (Herron et al. 1985). Nevada Department of Wildlife biologists conduct surveys for nesting goshawks every three to five years (Bradley 2009). Local and regional population trends for northern goshawks are unknown. Information reviewed by the USFWS indicated that data regarding goshawk population trends is limited, and interpretation of migration or seasonal bird count data is problematic due to low numbers observed, bias in methodology, and irruptive migrations (USFWS 1998). Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) trends for this species are shown to have low credibility for all regions due to small samples or low imprecision (Sauer et al. 2008). In addition to low regional sample size, random events such as drought and weather events tend to increase variability in the data. For example, long-term trends in goshawk reproduction in the Bull Run and Independence mountains of northern Nevada were significantly related to weather, with a stronger influence of temperature than of precipitation (Fairhurst and Bechard 2005). Woodyard and others (2003) noted a decline in total goshawks recorded in surveys conducted in eastern Nevada in 2002 versus those recorded by Medin in 1981-1982; but the authors do mention that their work was conducted during a wet year, whereas Medin conducted surveys during a dry year. During the summer of 2009, 18 potential nest sites on the Jarbidge Ranger District were surveyed (using standard broadcast call protocol) for northern goshawk, four of which were historic nest sites. No responses were recorded, and only four raptor nests were found, none of which was occupied by northern goshawk. One active goshawk nest site was monitored on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, but nest success was not determined (Breckel and Keehn 2009). Habitat was modeled for the Humboldt National Forest Management Indicator Species and Range Suitability/Capability Analysis (USDA FS 2008b) and shows 42,063 acres of nesting habitat in

128 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement the project area. There is an abundance of foraging; however nesting habitat is the limiting factor and that is where discussion will be focused. 3.10.2.3. Management Indicator Species Northern goshawk, greater sage-grouse, and mule deer are the three terrestrial MIS on the Humboldt portion of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Sage-grouse and goshawk were discussed in sections 3.10.2.1.1 and 3.10.2.2.3. 3.10.2.3.1. Mule Deer Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (including all subspecies) are distributed throughout western North America from southern Alaska, south to Baja, Mexico, east to central Canada and the Plains states. The species is a widespread resident of Nevada, with habitats ranging from low- elevation shrublands to upper elevation subalpine communities. Mule deer in Nevada generally summer at higher elevations and migrate to lower woodlands or shrublands in winter to find food and seek cover from winter weather (NatureServe 2009). The mule deer herd in Elko County has experienced an upward trend in recent years. Recruitment to the herd was slightly higher in 2003 and 2004 than from 2001 through 2002. The Area 7 herd estimate was around 11,600 animals in 2004 (NDOW 2004). The estimate for 2008 for hunting units 71-79 and 91 is 12,500 animals, down from 14,000 in 2007 (NDOW 2008). Even with improved fawn recruitment, the herd is still limited from reaching its peak levels that were recorded in 1988. Area 7 herd size is limited by habitat quality, primarily on the summer range, most of which is on the national forest. However, winter range for the portion of the herd that uses hunt units 071-073 has been affected by wildfires. Most of the wildfires that occurred over the past eight years on lower elevation winter range in Elko County have now grown back to cheatgrass (a non-native annual grass that has very little nutritional value for deer). The wildfires in Elko County in the past decade have burned large areas of winter range for mule deer using Hunt Units 071-073. Unless these areas of fire-impacted winter range are restored to native shrubs, primarily sagebrush and bitterbrush, portions of the herd using hunt units 071-073 will be limited from reaching historic levels (NDOW 2008). According to the Humboldt National Forest Management Indicator Species and Range Suitability/Capability Analysis (USDA FS 2008b), there are approximately 1,161,000 acres of mule deer habitat in the project area. 3.10.2.4. Other Species of Concern 3.10.2.4.1. Migratory Birds Executive Order (EO) 13186, signed January 10, 2001, lists several responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. Among them are to support the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions. Additional direction comes from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and USFWS signed January 17, 2001, and another finalized in December 2008 (MOU 2008). The purpose of this MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration between the Forest Service and USFWS, in coordination with state, tribal, and local governments. The MOU identifies specific activities for bird conservation, pursuant to EO 13186 including: strive to protect, restore, enhance, and manage habitat of migratory birds, and prevent the further loss or degradation of remaining habitats on NFS lands. This includes: a) identifying management practices that impact populations of high priority migratory bird species, including

129 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement nesting, migration, or over-wintering habitats, on NFS lands, and b) developing alternatives to minimize impacts to birds and important habitats. Migratory birds use all habitats within the project area during the breeding season when livestock are present. Priority species were identified in the Nevada Bird Conservation Plan (Neel 1999). See table 40 for the list of species. A USGS Breeding Bird Survey Route is located in the project area, and was monitored in 1996, 2006, and 2007 (Sauer et al. 2008). The level of monitoring is insufficient to determine trend data for species observed along the route. However, regional trend data exists for some of the priority species listed in table 40 (Sauer et al. 2008). In the summer of 2009, fixed radius point counts were conducted at 35 locations across the Jarbidge Ranger District in sagebrush, aspen, and riparian habitats. The most common bird recorded was Brewer’s sparrow (being recorded at nearly every point). Other species observed include American robin, cedar waxwing, chipping sparrow, dusky flycatcher, golden eagle, green-tailed towhee, hermit thrush, killdeer, mountain bluebirds, northern flicker, orange- crowned warbler, red-naped sapsucker, ruby-crowned kinglet, turkey vulture, vesper sparrow, western meadowlark, and yellow warbler.

Table 40. Priority Migratory Bird Species and Habitats* Species Nesting Habitat Foraging Habitat Black rosy-finch Cliff/Talus Alpine, sagebrush Brewer’s sparrow Sagebrush Sagebrush Burrowing owl Sagebrush, grassland Sagebrush, grassland Ferruginous hawk Cliff/Talus, pinyon-juniper Sagebrush Golden eagle Cliff/Talus Sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany Gray flycatcher Sagebrush, mountain mahogany Sagebrush, mountain mahogany Lewis’s woodpecker Riparian Riparian, sagebrush, pinyon-juniper Loggerhead shrike Sagebrush Sagebrush Pinyon jay Pinyon-Juniper Pinyon-Juniper, sagebrush Prairie falcon Cliff/Talus Grassland, sagebrush Sage sparrow Sagebrush Sagebrush Short-eared owl Montane meadows Grassland, sagebrush, meadows Swainson’s hawk Cottonwood, riparian Grassland, sagebrush Riparian, mountain mahogany, Virginia’s warbler Riparian, mountain mahogany, pinyon-juniper pinyon-juniper *Neel 1999; Rich et al. 2004, USFWS 2002 3.10.2.4.2. Elk Elk (Cervus canadensis) are native to the districts but were rare to uncommon. In 1989 the Forest completed an environmental assessment to re-introduce elk into the Jarbidge Mountains. Ninety- three elk were released over three sites: 1) Cougar Point near Robinson Hole; 2) along the East Fork of the Jarbidge River; and 3) in the O’Neil Basin (Beck and Peek 2004). In 1998, the Forest, in partnership with several other government agencies and conservation organizations, contracted with the University of Idaho to study elk and grazing by elk and livestock in the Jarbidge Mountains. The primary objective was to develop a carrying capacity model to estimate elk population levels which would not impair rangeland productivity in the Jarbidge Mountains (Beck and Peek 2004). The study also evaluated the effects of grazing by wildlife and domestic livestock on mountain meadows within the district. Beck and Peek (2004) examined the annual productivity of meadows and their use by wildlife and livestock. They evaluated plant production, species richness, and use. They looked at three

130 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement areas which occur in the project area. This study concluded that forbs are a primary food component for elk, mule deer, and domestic sheep. Efforts to reduce forbs and increase grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass, would limit food availability for these animals. In addition, forage production is greatly influenced in the area by drought and weather cycles. Elk tend to forage in meadow or riparian areas which are closer to cover. Elk use these areas early in the summer. The original population objective of 300 animals was reached in 1997. A new management plan was developed by NDOW in 2000 with an objective of 1000 animals. The present population in the Jarbidge Mountains is estimated at about 950 animals (Huebner 2009). Monitoring of elk vegetation utilization on the Jarbidge Ranger District will occur in the summer 2010 in conjunction with NDOW to determine areas of high elk use and foraging area overlap with domestic livestock. In 1991 a Memorandum of Understanding was formed between the Forest Service, NDOW, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) to manage a program introducing 200 elk into the Bruneau River Basin on the Mountain City Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (USDA FS 1992). At the time of the 2003 sampling the elk herd was estimated at 650 head. At the time of the 2009 sampling the elk herd had grown to approximately 1,100 head. Elk are also found on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, though that area is not managed for elk by NDOW. Eighteen elk were observed in 2007 by aerial survey; those elk are not thought to be year-round residents (NDOW 2008). 3.10.3. Environmental Consequences Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all species were analyzed at the scale of the project area. 3.10.3.1. Sage Grouse The analysis area for the sage grouse is the Mountain City, Jarbidge, and Ruby Mountains Ranger Districts and includes leks within 2.0 miles of the project area. According to Connelly and others (2000), sage grouse are sensitive to human disturbance near leks. Connelly and others did not examine disturbance from roads specifically, but identified an area of 0.5 kilometers from a lek as being the most sensitive, and an area of 3.2 kilometers of a lek as being protected from development. For migratory populations of sage grouse it was recommended to protect habitats within 5 kilometers of a lek (2000). The number of leks within 0.5 kilometers of a road within the project area is displayed in table 41.

Table 41. Number of Leks within 0.5 Kilometer of a Road Alt. 5 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt 4. Reduced District Proposed Current No Action Visitor Map Resource Action System Impacts Mountain City/Jarbidge 180 79 46 58 53 Ruby Mountains 69 25 7 14 10 Total 249 104 53 72 63 Direct impacts could include vehicle collisions and disturbance that could potentially lead to nest abandonment. These effects become more likely the more roads that are designated to the FTS in lek areas. Currently cross-country motorized travel is allowed, including in active lek areas, within the most sensitive areas surrounding a lek (0.31 miles).

131 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 42. Total Miles of Road within 0.31 Miles (0.5 km) Lek Disturbance Buffer Alt. 2 Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt 4. District Proposed Reduced Resource No Action Current System Visitor Map Action Impacts Mountain City 18.4 17.3 12.9 15.0 13.8 Ruby Mountains 5.0 5.2 1.7 3.8 2.3 Jarbidge 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.8 1.0 Total 25.3 24.3 14.9 20.6 17.1 To reduce direct effects during the critical lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing season, roads and motorized trails designated to the FTS that are within 0.31 miles (0.5 km) of a lek would have a seasonal closure of February 20 to May 15 under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 (Connelly et al. 2000). The total miles within that 0.31 mile disturbance buffer per district are found in table 42 (not all of which would have a seasonal closure applied if they are existing NFS roads or trails).

Table 43. Seasonal Closures by Alternative (February 20 – May 15) Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 0 9.7 0 5.8 0.8 Ruby Mountains 0 8.3 0 5.4 3.1 Jarbidge 0 4.8 0 4.3 1.4 Total 0 22.8 0 15.5 5.3 Indirect effects are effects to the species habitats. Roads can fragment habitats, create corridors for predators, and increase spread of invasive species. Nesting and brood-rearing habitat is the limiting habitat in the districts and that is where the effects analysis will focus. There are approximately 70,856 acres of suitable/capable nesting habitat on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts and 35,259 acres on the Ruby Mountain Ranger District. The nesting habitat GIS layer is the same used for the Humboldt National Forest Management Indicator Species and Range Suitability/Capability Analysis (USDA FS 2008b). Miles of road within potential nesting habitat are compared by alternative in table 44.

Table 44. Miles of Road within Potential Nesting Habitat Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 27.3 26.8 15.2 17.6 20.9 Ruby Mountains 98.0 99.6 33.9 73.6 64.1 Jarbidge 15.5 13.4 5.7 11.4 9.3 Total 140.8 139.8 54.8 102.6 94.3 The zone of influence for greater sage-grouse was determined to be approximately 200 meters and is another indicator of indirect effects (Trombulak and Frissel 2000). That is routes within habitat would have effects on sage-grouse up to 200 meters. The acres of habitat affected by those roads are compared by alternative in table 45.

132 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 45. Acres within the Zone of Influence (within 200 meter of road in modeled nesting habitat). Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain 25,454 23,350 14,020 19,919 18,968 City/Jarbidge Ruby Mountains 15,509 13,011 5,222 10,480 8,857 Total 40,963 36,361 19,242 30,399 27,825 3.10.3.1.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would have a greater impact on nesting habitat since it allows cross-country motorized travel. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would affect the least amount of acres. Alternative 1 would cause direct and indirect effects by allowing cross-country motorized travel that can disrupt and destroy lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing areas and offers no protection against direct effects with seasonal closures during the most sensitive time periods (lekking, nesting, early brood-rearing) (Connelly et al. 2000). Approximately 25 miles of routes would exist within 0.5 kilometer of a lek without any seasonal protections. Over 140 miles of routes would still occur in suitable nesting habitat, causing disturbance and fragmentation. Over 106,000 acres of suitable nesting habitat could be affected by cross-country motorized travel, and 40,000 acres affected in the zone of influence (200 meters around routes). The existing condition of cross-country travel is an adverse effect on sage-grouse and is one of several factors contributing to species declines. Determination: Allowing the existing condition to continue would likely not contribute further to a trend toward federal listing, so may impact sage grouse but not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). The determination is based on the knowledge that sage-grouse, while declining, are distributed across the Great Basin, and that roads and motorized travel are not the primary factor for current declines. 3.10.3.1.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would cause direct (including road-related mortality) and indirect effects (habitat fragmentation) by allowing travel near sensitive lek areas (within 0.5 km) on 1.5 miles of road without seasonal closures during the lekking season. Approximately 139 miles of route would be open in suitable nesting habitat and over 38,000 acres could be impacted within the zone of influence. Alternative 2 would reduce ongoing direct effects of cross-country travel and disturbance on nearly 23 miles of routes within sensitive leks by application of seasonal closures (February 20-May 15) on currently unauthorized routes. Seasonal closures on these routes would reduce disturbance to grouse during the breeding season and reduce the probability of vehicle collisions (Connelly et al. 2000). The elimination of cross-country travel would improve the quality of nesting and foraging habitat by reducing the amount of trampled vegetation (loss of hiding cover) and bare ground. Many wet meadows that are used for OHV recreation would be allowed to recover and improve the quality of brood-rearing habitat. The 139 miles of route in nesting habitat would contribute to habitat fragmentation, spread of invasive species, and allow for easier predator access to nesting areas. Determination: Because 1.5 miles of route would still be open near leks during the breeding season, Alternative 2 may impact but not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). The determination is based on the knowledge that sage-grouse, while declining, are distributed across the Great Basin, and that roads and motorized travel are not the primary factor for current declines.

133 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

If the MBGR option is selected under Alternative 2, 42,824 acres of habitat on Jarbidge, 123,363 on Mountain City, and 23,527 on Ruby Mountains could be impacted by cross-country motorized travel. However, the average number of trips was estimated to be only 1,040 for mule deer and 140 for elk, for a total of nearly 1,180 trips across the entire project area. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season from August to January, which does not coincide with lekking or nesting critical periods. There would likely be no direct impacts from the MBGR option. Some indirect effects could occur via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Determination: The determination with Alternative 2 with the MBGR option for elk alone or elk and deer would be: May impact but not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). The determination is based on the limited number of trips spread across a large area and the seasonal timing of the impact. 3.10.3.1.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would have only 13 miles of road near lek areas but does not offer the protection of seasonal closures during lekking/nesting (February 20-May 15). As with the Alternative 2 the elimination of cross-country motorized travel would improve the quality of habitat. However, direct effects would continue during the sensitive lekking/nesting/early brood-rearing season, particularly on the 13 miles of route in lek areas. Over 54 miles of route would occur in nesting habitat and over 7,000 acres of habitat could be affected in the zone of influence, the least amount across the alternatives. Roads through nesting habitat would continue to fragment habitat, allow for predator access, and spread invasive species. Determination: Because Alternative 3 would allow for only 13 miles of routes to be open year- round during lekking/nesting season within 0.5 kilometers of leks, this alternative may impact but not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). The determination is based on the knowledge that sage-grouse, while declining, are distributed across the Great Basin, and that roads and motorized travel are not the primary factor for current declines. 3.10.3.1.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would have over 20 miles of road within sensitive lek areas, with 15.5 of those miles having a seasonal closure of February 20-May 15 during lekking season, leaving 5.1 miles within lek areas unprotected. These 5.1 miles of routes could cause direct effects to grouse in the form of direct mortality and disturbance. This level of impact is significantly lessened by the prohibition of cross-country travel. Similar to Alternative 2 and 3, habitat conditions would improve by eliminating cross-country travel. Direct and indirect effects could occur on over 100 miles of route in suitable nesting habitat, and 30,000 acres within the zone of influence. Direct effects could be mortality and noise disturbance, and indirect effects could include spread of invasive species, predator access, and fragmentation. Motorized big game retrieval for elk would be allowed under Alternative 4. Over 42,824 acres of habitat on Jarbidge, 123,363 on Mountain City, and 23,527 on Ruby Mountains could be impacted by game retrieval. Approximately 140 trips for elk could occur. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with lekking or nesting critical periods. There would likely be no direct impacts from big game retrieval. Some indirect effects could occur via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed.

134 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: The determination with game retrieval would be: May impact but not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.1.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would reduce direct effects by allowing for seasonal closures (as does Alternative 2) in sensitive lek areas on 5.3 miles of routes. About 11 miles of routes within sensitive lek areas would not be protected by seasonal closures. Alternative 5 would have 95 miles in suitable nesting habitat and over 34,000 acres in the zone of influence. Cross-country travel reductions would protect and allow for recovery of habitat similar to the other action alternatives. Direct impacts would occur in the 11 miles of routes without seasonal closures, including mortality and noise disturbance. Indirect effects such as spread of invasive species, habitat fragmentation, and predator access would also occur on the 95 miles in suitable habitat. Determination: This alternative may impact but not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). The determination is based on the knowledge that sage-grouse, while declining, are distributed across the Great Basin, and that roads and motorized travel are not the primary factor for current declines.. 3.10.3.2. Bighorn Sheep Direct impacts to sheep can include disturbance that may cause a change in foraging behavior or avoidance of roads. Bighorn sheep have been reported to respond to human disturbance (Hicks and Elder 1979, Leslie and Douglas 1980, MacArthur et al. 1979, 1982, Papouchis et al. 2001, and Smith et al. 1991). MacArthur and others (1979) showed that the heart rate of bighorn sheep varies inversely with distance from a road. MacArthur and others (1982) reported that sheep are affected by a human approaching within 50 meters and Papouchis and others (2001) found that bighorn sheep respond to hikers at an average distance of 200 meters. They also showed that avoidance of routes is greater for high-use (5 to 13 vehicles per hour) versus low-use (1 vehicle per hour) routes. Within the project area, routes which occur in potential bighorn sheep habitat are located on canyon bottoms and do not occur in the high elevation cliff faces where bighorn are located; therefore, disturbance from vehicles is low. Disturbance from existing NFS roads and trails and from the addition of unauthorized routes could cause disturbance. These impacts are expected to be minor as they would likely only occur as sheep travel between the preferred habitat of cliff faces, and because these are existing routes and use levels are not expected to increase. Additionally with the elimination of cross-country motorized travel, overall disturbance would decrease. The areas most sensitive to disturbance are lambing and wintering areas. Lambing areas are typically already located in undisturbed areas and wintering areas are not readily accessible except by snowmobile; therefore, seasonal restrictions would not be of benefit for this species to reduce direct effects. The miles of roads and motorized trails within potential bighorn sheep habit are displayed by alternative in table 46.

Table 46. Roads and Motorized Trails within Potential Bighorn Sheep Habitat (miles) Alt. 5 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 1 Reduced District Proposed Current Visitor No Action Resource Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 721.7 645.1 320.3 515.0 467.7 Ruby Mountains 540.7 554.5 220.7 406.0 396.1 Jarbidge 330.7 294.0 154.9 223.9 217.3 Total 1,593.1 1,493.6 695.5 1,144.9 1,081.1

135 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Habitat fragmentation can decrease the suitability of areas for bighorn sheep. As discussed above, many of the existing routes are in lower elevation areas, in riparian bottoms, and have been in existence for many years; therefore, these routes would be expected to have minor impacts on habitat. Prohibiting cross-country motorized use may benefit bighorn sheep in parts of their habitat that is less rugged, particularly in open sagebrush which is susceptible to this type of use. This prohibition would decrease road proliferation that can lead to habitat fragmentation.

Table 47. Miles of Route within Occupied and Unoccupied Habitat in the Ruby Mountains. Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Alt 4. Habitat Proposed Current Reduced Resource No Action Visitor Map Action System Impacts Occupied 33.0 28.8 17.8 26.2 23.2 Unoccupied 190.0 203.0 84.1 152.5 121.5 Total 223.0 231.8 101.9 178.7 144.7 The zone of influence for bighorn sheep was determined to be approximately 300 meters and is another indicator of indirect effects (Trombulak and Frissel 2000). That is routes within habitat have effects on sheep of up to 300 meters. The acres of habitat affected by those routes are compared by alternative in table 48.

Table 48. Acres within the Zone of Influence (within 300 meter of route in modeled habitat). Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced No Action Action System Map Resource Impacts Mountain City/Jarbidge 214,001 180,828 99,979 153,523 138,876 Ruby Mountains 145,556 107,369 49,905 86,823 73,901 Total 359,557 288,197 149,884 240,346 212,777 Direct effects to bighorn sheep would include direct mortality and noise disturbance affecting foraging behavior. Indirect effects are habitat fragmentation, predator access, and spread of unpalatable and toxic invasive species. The major threat to bighorn populations in the project area is currently disease. Roads do assist the state in monitoring and treating disease-affected bighorn populations in the Humboldt and Ruby Mountains. 3.10.3.2.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would have the highest potential to cause direct and indirect effects by allowing cross-country motorized travel that can disturb and stress bighorn sheep. There are 1,593 miles of route in potential habitat, and 33 miles in occupied habitat in the Ruby Mountains. Across the project area, there are over 358,000 acres affected in the zone of influence. Cross-country travel is particularly detrimental on the Ruby Mountains where the only population of bighorn sheep in the project area is already stressed due to a disease outbreak. Cross-country travel can reduce potential habitat on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts, making it less likely that future populations could establish there. Determination: Since this alternative could directly and indirectly affect bighorn sheep, it may impact but not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.2.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would cause direct effects by designating 28 miles of routes in occupied habitat on the Ruby Mountains. Indirect effects could occur on 1,493 miles of road in potential habitat and

136 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

338,000 acres of potential habitat. Cross-country motorized travel would be eliminated, which would reduce the scale of direct and indirect effects. Determination: Since this alternative could directly and indirectly affect bighorn sheep, it may impact but not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). If MBGR option is selected under Alternative 2, nearly 674, 000 acres could be affected by nearly 1,040 trips a year for deer and elk (140 for elk alone). These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with critical periods. There would likely be no direct impacts from big game retrieval. Some indirect effects could occur via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however, based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Determination: The determination Alternative 2 with the MBGR option for elk or elk and deer would be: May impact but not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.2.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would have the least routes available for motorized travel in potential habitat and the zone of influence. This alternative could cause direct effects by designating 17 miles of route in occupied habitat on the Ruby Mountains. Indirect effects could occur on 695 miles of routes in potential habitat and 211,000 acres of potential habitat. Cross-country travel would be eliminated, which would reduce the scale of direct and indirect effects. Determination: Since this alternative could directly and indirectly affect bighorn sheep, it may impact but not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.2.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 could cause direct effects by designating 26 miles of route in occupied habitat on the Ruby Mountains. Indirect effects could occur on 1,144 miles of route in potential habitat and 270,000 acres of potential habitat. Cross-country travel would be eliminated, which would reduce the scale of direct and indirect effects. Over 629,000 acres could be affected by MBGR of legally taken elk under this alternative. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide critical periods. There would likely be no direct impacts from big game retrieval. Some indirect effects could occur via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Determination: Since this alternative could directly and indirectly affect bighorn sheep, it may impact but not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.2.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 could cause direct effects by designating 23 miles of routes in occupied habitat on the Ruby Mountains. Indirect effects could occur on 1,081 miles of route in potential habitat and 297,000 acres of potential habitat. Cross-country travel would be eliminated, which would reduce the scale of direct and indirect effects. Determination: Since this alternative could directly and indirectly affect bighorn sheep, it may impact but not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT).

137 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.10.3.3. Pygmy Rabbit The influence of roads on pygmy rabbit habitat is not well understood. Direct effects are possible in the form of vehicle collisions and destruction of burrows. Indirect effects to habitat are also created by trampling and fragmenting dense stands of sagebrush and compacting soil by OHV recreation and livestock use (Roberts 2003). Since the pygmy rabbit is a sagebrush obligate, the loss of habitat is probably the most significant factor contributing to pygmy rabbit population declines. Fragmentation of sagebrush communities by cross-country motorized travel could pose a threat to populations of pygmy rabbits (Weiss and Verts 1984), due to their poor dispersal potential. The protection of sagebrush, particularly on floodplains and where high water tables allow growth of tall, dense stands is a vital attribute to the survival of pygmy rabbits (Laurrucea 2007). Most studies for pygmy rabbit revolve around grazing impacts, but it can be extrapolated from those studies that pygmy rabbit would be just as sensitive to motorized vehicles as livestock, if not more so. Thines and others found that pygmy rabbits in the Columbia River Basin avoided grazed areas, and found significantly more burrows in ungrazed areas (2004). Habitats can also be rendered unsuitable for pygmy rabbits when broken shrubs result in open canopy conditions from over concentration of grazers (WDFW 1995). Pygmy rabbits typically use areas with sandy soils and these areas can be targeted for use by off-road vehicles. Additionally, pygmy rabbits are considered very shy and will often not cross an open road to reach suitable habitat (Weiss and Verts 1984). Pygmy rabbit typically remain within 30 meters of their burrows for a majority of their lives (Larrucea 2007). Seasonal closures would likely not benefit this species. Data on pygmy rabbit burrow locations and status are lacking within the project area. The miles of routes within potential pygmy rabbit habitat by alternative are displayed in table 49.

Table 49. Miles of Route within Potential Pygmy Rabbit Habitat Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 587.1 620.8 334.3 306.5 486.8 Ruby Mountains 409.4 419.7 148.1 287.4 254.5 Jarbidge 257.1 254.7 141.9 99.2 199.4 Total 1,253.6 1,295.2 624.3 693.1 940.7 The zone of influence for pygmy rabbit was determined to be approximately 50 meters and is another indicator of indirect effects (Trombulak and Frissel 2000). That is routes within habitat have effects on rabbits of up to 50 meters. The acres of habitat affected by those roads are compared by alternative in table 50.

Table 50. Acres within the Zone of Influence (within 50 meter of route in modeled habitat). Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Alt 4. District Proposed Current Reduced Resource No Action Visitor Map Action System Impacts Mountain City/Jarbidge 38,179 33,242 18,013 27,266 25,699 Ruby Mountains 18,812 15,814 5,744 11,145 9,868 Total 56,991 49,056 23,757 38,411 35,567

138 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.10.3.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would have the highest potential to cause direct and indirect effects by allowing cross-country travel that can disrupt and destroy burrows and cause direct mortality. It can cause indirect effects by destroying burrow and foraging habitat. Alternative 1 would designate 1,253 miles of routes in suitable pygmy rabbit habitat, and affect 56,000 acres in the zone of influence. Determination: Alternative 1 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.3.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would improve on Alternative 1 by eliminating cross-country travel and greatly reducing the direct effects caused from it. Alternative 2 would designate 1,295 miles in pygmy rabbit habitat and affect 55,000 acres in the zone of influence. By eliminating cross-country travel, destruction of burrows and burrow habitat would be significantly reduced. Direct mortality may still occur along designated routes. Indirect effects would be reduced in so far as trampling of vegetation and reducing the quality of foraging habitat. Habitat fragmentation would still occur and could be a barrier to movement. Determination: Alternative 2 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). If the MBGR option is selected under Alternative 2, nearly 199,792 acres of habitat on Mountain City/Jarbidge and 78,218 acres on Ruby Mountains could be affected by nearly 1,180 trips a year for deer and elk. These cross-country motorized trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with the critical breeding periods. There could be direct impacts to burrows and some direct mortality from cross-country travel, though due to the timing and limited number of trips it would be unlikely. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Determination: The determination for Alternative 2 with the MBGR option for deer and elk or elk alone would be: May impact but would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.3.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would have the least miles of route in the zone of influence, and in potential habitat, but does not offer the protection of seasonal closures. Alternative 3 would designate 624 miles of route in pygmy rabbit habitat and 28,000 acres in the zone of influence. By eliminating cross- country travel, destruction of burrows and burrow habitat would be significantly reduced. Direct mortality may still occur along designated routes. Indirect effects would be reduced in so far as trampling of vegetation and reducing the quality of foraging habitat. Habitat fragmentation would still occur and be a barrier to movement. Determination: Alternative 3 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.3.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would eliminate cross-country travel, greatly reducing the chance of direct effects to pygmy rabbit in the form of direct mortality and destruction of burrows. It would designate 693 miles of routes in pygmy rabbit habitat and 39,000 acres in the zone of influence. By eliminating cross-country travel, destruction of burrows and burrow habitat would be significantly reduced. Direct mortality may still occur along designated routes. Indirect effects would be reduced in so

139 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement far as trampling of vegetation and reducing the quality of foraging habitat. Habitat fragmentation would still occur and be a barrier to movement. Motorized big game retrieval would affect over 188,638 acres of habitat on Mountain City/Jarbidge; about 73,174 acres on the Ruby Mountains could be affected by 140 trips a year for retrieval of legally taken elk. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with the critical breeding periods. There could be direct impacts to burrows and some direct mortality from the cross-country travel, though due to the timing and limited number of trips it would be unlikely. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however, based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Determination: The determination with game retrieval would be: May impact but would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.3.5. Alternative 5: Reduce Impacts to Biological, Physical, and Cultural Resources Alternative 5 would eliminate cross-country travel, greatly reducing the chance of direct effects to pygmy rabbit in the form of direct mortality and destruction of burrows. It would designate 940 miles of routes in pygmy rabbit habitat and 45,000 acres in the zone of influence. By eliminating cross-country travel, destruction of burrows and burrow habitat would be significantly reduced. Direct mortality may still occur along designated routes. Indirect effects would be reduced in so far as trampling of vegetation and reducing the quality of foraging habitat. Habitat fragmentation would still occur and be a barrier to movement. Determination: Alternative 5 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.4. Northern Goshawk Literature focusing directly on the effects of roads on northern goshawk is limited. According to much of the literature, including local studies, goshawk are sensitive to human disturbance near nests, especially from March 1 to August 31 (Morrison et al. 2011, Reynolds et al. 1992, Younk and Bechard 1994).

Table 51. Number of Nests Near an Open Road Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City/Jarbidge 181 65 32 57 45 Ruby Mountains 59 10 4 10 4 Total 240 75 36 67 49 Reynolds and others did not examine disturbance from roads specifically, but identified an area of 30 acres (0.12 miles) around the nest as being the most sensitive, an area of 420-acres (0.46 miles) around a nest as being used for fledging, and a foraging area of 5,400 acres (1.64 miles).

140 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 52. Miles of Route within 30-acre (0.12 mile) Nest Disturbance Buffer Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Alt 4. District Proposed Current Reduced Resource No Action Visitor Map Action System Impacts Mountain City 15.8 15.1 7.7 13.0 9.7 Ruby Mountains 1.2 1.9 0.5 1.8 0.5 Jarbidge 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 Total 17.4 17.4 8.2 14.8 23.7 Direct impacts could include vehicle collisions and disturbance that could potentially lead to nest abandonment. These effects become more likely as more routes are added to the FTS in nest areas (Morrison et al. 2011). Currently cross-country is allowed in active nest areas with 19.8 miles of routes within the most sensitive area surrounding a nest (0.12 miles or 30 acres). To reduce direct effects during the sensitive nesting and fledging time periods, routes being added to the FTS within 0.12 miles of a nest (30-acre nest area) would have a seasonal closure (March 1 to June 15) under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. While goshawks stay near their nests until the end of September, they are most vulnerable to disturbance and prone to nest abandonment while establishing territories and incubation. In most cases young have hatched by mid-June (Bechard 2011). The total miles within nest areas by district are found in table 54 (not all of which will have a seasonal closure applied if they are existing NFS roads or trails).

Table 53. Seasonal Closures by Alternative- March 1 to June 15 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 0 29.9 0 19.3 8.2 Ruby Mountains 0 2.3 0 2.3 0 Jarbidge 0 0.9 0 0.2 0.9 Total 0 33.1 0 21.8 9.1 Indirect effects are effects to the species habitats. Nesting habitat is the limiting habitat in the project area and that is where the effects analysis will focus. There are approximately 42,063 acres of suitable/capable nesting habitat in the project area.

Table 54. Miles of Road within Potential Nesting Habitat Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 51.2 48.9 24.8 38.3 33.5 Ruby Mountains 24.0 25.0 13.2 20.9 16.5 Jarbidge 13.5 12.6 6.2 8.5 8.4 Total 88.7 86.5 44.2 67.7 58.4 The zone of influence for goshawk was determined to be 400 meters and is another indicator of indirect effects (Trombulak and Frissel 2000). That is routes within habitat have effects on goshawk of up to 400 meters. The acres of habitat affected by those routes are compared by alternative table 55.

141 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 55. Acres of Potentially Affected Goshawk Nesting Habitat (within 400 meters of Route). Alt. 5 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 1 Reduced District Proposed Current Visitor No Action Resource Action System Map Impacts Mountain City/Jarbidge 15,971 14,758 8,730 12,785 11,588 Ruby Mountains 9,886 5,815 2,858 5,266 3,985 Total 25,857 20,573 11,588 18,051 15,573 3.10.3.4.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would have the highest potential to cause direct and indirect effects by allowing cross-country travel that can disrupt nesting areas located away from roads, and would offer no protection for nest areas during the most sensitive time periods (nesting and fledging) (Morrison et al. 2011, Reynolds et al. 1992, Younk and Bechard 1994). Alternative 1 would authorize 17 miles of route in nest areas, and 88 miles in nesting habitat, with 22,000 acres being affected in the zone of influence. The direct effects could be noise disturbance leading to nest abandonment, and collisions with vehicles (rare but possible). Indirect effects could be a reduction in quality of foraging habitat as cross-country motorized travel causes erosion and damages vegetation, making it potentially unsuitable for many prey species. Determination: Alternative 1 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). This determination is based on the distribution of the population throughout North America, continued presence of the species in the project area despite cross-country travel, and roads and motor vehicle use not being a primary factor contributing to species declines. 3.10.3.4.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would eliminate cross-country travel, offering protection against disturbance for nests located away from roads. The proposed dispersed camping corridors would not impact goshawk habitat or any nests. There would be 17 miles of routes near nesting areas; however 33 miles of seasonal closures would greatly reduce direct effects of nest abandonment and noise disturbance during the nesting season (Bechard 2011, Morrison et al. 2011, Reynolds et al. 1992). Under Alternative 2, there would be 86 miles in nesting habitat, and 22,000 acres affected in the zone of influence. Goshawks can be affected indirectly by habitat fragmentation and prey availability although they frequently nest along roads and use roads as flight corridors for foraging. Determination: Alternative 2 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). This determination is based on the distribution of the population throughout North America, continued presence of the species in the project area despite cross-country travel, and roads and motor vehicle use not being a primary factor contributing to species declines. If the MBGR is selected under Alternative 2, 16,093 acres of nesting habitat on Mountain City/Jarbidge and 6,033 acres on Ruby Mountains could be affected. Within the high impact area of Hunt Units 61 and 72, nearly 7,117 acres of nesting habitat could be impacted. Approximately 149 nests on Mountain City/Jarbidge and 36 nests on the Rubies could potentially be affected. However, due to the limited number of trips spread over a million acres and the seasonal timing of August to January, there would likely be no direct or indirect effects to goshawk. These cross- country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with the critical territory establishment, incubating and hatching periods. Based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed.

142 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: The determination for Alternative 2 with the MBGR option for elk and deer or just elk would be: May impact but would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.4.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would have the least miles of roads in nest areas, the zone of influence, and in potential nesting habitat, and would not offer the protection of seasonal closures during nesting. Alternative 3 would have 8.2 miles of road in nesting areas and 44 miles in nesting habitat. Its impact in the zone of influence is only 14,000 acres. As with Alternative 2, the elimination of cross-country travel would improve the quality of habitat and reduce disturbance to nesting birds. However, direct effects would continue during the sensitive nesting season on the 8 miles of routes without seasonal protections. The direct effects of this action could be nest abandonment. Indirect effects could be impacts to foraging habitat and prey availability. Determination: Alternative 3 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing. 3.10.3.4.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would have 14 miles of routes within sensitive nest areas, and 21 miles of seasonal closures, with 67 miles in nesting habitat and 18,000 acres in the zone of influence. The elimination of cross-country travel would improve habitat quality and reduce disturbance to nesting birds. Seasonal closures would greatly reduce the risk of nest abandonment during territory establishment, incubation and hatching (Bechard 2011, Morrison et al. 2011, Reynolds et al. 1992). Indirect effects could be impacts to foraging habitat and prey availability. Motorized big game retrieval for legally taken elk would affect 16,093 acres of nesting habitat on Mountain City/Jarbidge and 6,033 acres on Ruby Mountains. Within the high impact area of Hunt Units 61 and 72, nearly 7,117 acres could be impacted. Approximately 149 nests on Mountain City/Jarbidge and 36 nests on the Rubies could potentially be affected. However, due to the limited number of trips spread over a million acres and the seasonal timing of August to January, there would likely be no direct or indirect effects to goshawk. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with the critical territory establishment, incubating and hatching periods. Based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Determination: The determination for Alternative 4 would be: May impact but would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MINT). 3.10.3.4.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would reduce direct effects by allowing for seasonal closures in sensitive nest areas and eliminating cross-country travel. This would reduce direct effects such as nest abandonment to goshawk during the most sensitive time period of nesting (Reynolds et al. 1992, Younk and Bechard 1994). Alternative 5 would further reduce disturbance to nesting birds by not adding roads with a high risk level to resources. Alternative 5 would designate 23.7 miles of route within sensitive nest areas, with 9.1 miles of seasonal closure. It would also designate 58 miles in nesting habitat and affect 19,000 acres in the zone of influence. Alternative 5 would leave 14.6 miles of routes unprotected by seasonal closures. Those unprotected routes leave territories in the area at risk for nest abandonment. Alternative 5 could have indirect effects on goshawk by habitat modification and fragmentation and prey availability. Determination: Alternative 5 may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing.

143 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.10.3.5. Mule Deer Mule deer can be directly affected by road disturbance and vehicle collisions. Studies have shown that deer will move away from, or flush, from an approaching person and will usually allow a person in or on a vehicle to get closer than a person on foot (Freedy et al. 1986, Wisdom et al. 2004). Wisdom and others (2004) found that mule deer showed little measurable flight response to experimental OHV treatments but cautioned that deer may well be responding with fine-scale changes in habitat use (i.e. avoidance), rather than substantial increases in movement rates and flight responses. Several studies have found that mule deer avoid areas in proximity to roads. Deer avoid primary roads more than secondary or tertiary roads and avoid roads more in open habitats as opposed to areas with vegetative or topographic cover (deVos et al. 2003). Various studies have shown that mule deer have displacement distances that vary between 200 and 800 meters, depending on the road type and traffic level, and the surrounding habitat (Perry and Overly 1977, Rost and Bailey 1979). One study found that if habitat was available away from the linear road or trail, then deer avoided the disturbance corridor (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). However, when no suitable deer habitat was available away from the road or trail, then deer used the habitat adjacent to the road or trail. Main roads were found to reduce deer use up to 0.5 miles (800 m), whereas secondary and primitive roads reduced deer densities from between 200 to 400 meters in these studies. Additional variables such as the amount and frequency of traffic, and the spatial distribution of roads in relation to deer use, influence the degree of negative effects that roads have on deer use in forested habitats (deVos et al. 2003, Johnson et al. 2000, Perry and Overly 1977). Where disturbance causes deer to avoid areas within preferred habitats, animals may be forced into less preferred or lower quality habitats. Such shifts, particularly if repeated, can result in adverse impacts to the energy balance of individual deer and ultimately can decrease population productivity, especially on winter ranges (deVos et al. 2003). Greater human access can increase opportunities for hunting as well as poaching of deer and elk. During the hunting season, deer may become more wary of humans, and disturbance to deer is greater when being hunted. In New York State, antlered deer were found to have longer flight distances than deer that were not hunted (Jalkotsky et al. 1997). Hunted deer populations tend to have stronger reactions to people on foot than motorized vehicles. This may be due to the fact the deer can detect a vehicle from greater distances rather than getting surprised by quieter humans on foot. Roads and trails can facilitate deer harvest success. Since hunting levels for deer are controlled through hunting zone quotas and tag limits established by NDOW, an increase in hunting opportunity or hunter success is unlikely to impact deer populations (deVos 2003). Hunting limits also take into account estimates of the amount of illegal kill and road kill occurring. One study found that ATVs altered deer feeding and use patterns, and these deer produced fewer young the following year (Yarmaloy 1988). An Arizona study using deer and elk decoys reported that illegal road hunting was widespread (Bancroft in Watson 2005). Eleven of 19 archery elk and deer hunters and 41 of 53 firearms hunters committed violations by attempting illegal take after observing a decoy from their vehicle. Vehicle collisions with deer can contribute considerably to direct deer mortality. Deer are probably the most frequently-killed large mammal along North America’s roads. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety commissioned a study which estimated that more than 1.5 million deer/vehicle collisions occur annually, resulting in more than 29,000 human injuries and 150 deaths. Romin and Bissonette (1996) conservatively estimated that the U.S. national deer road kill in 1991 totaled at least 500,000 deer. Deer road kills vary considerably by region and by season.

144 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

There are little to no data on deer road kills along national forest roads; however roads maintained at a higher standard for passenger vehicle (maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5), where vehicle speeds are greatest, have the most potential to contribute to deer-vehicle collisions. Deer-vehicle collisions on roads and trails which are maintained for high clearance vehicles (maintenance level 2 roads) are probably not appreciable in number due to the lower speeds and the amount of use received by these roads. Several studies indicated that mortality from deer-vehicle collisions differed by sex and age. In Pennsylvania, vehicle-caused mortality was significantly higher for fawns and yearlings than adults; and more adult females were killed than adult males (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). Jalkotzy and others (1997) also cited that female deer in South Dakota were killed more often, except during the fall when male deer mortality was higher. Any of the action alternatives would decrease direct and indirect effects by eliminating cross- country travel. This prohibition will decrease road proliferation that can lead to habitat fragmentation. Roads within critical summer and winter range, movement corridors, and transition areas have the highest impact and that is where the effects analysis is focused.

Table 56. Miles of Road within Mule Deer Habitat Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 1,191.9 1,093.7 592.2 861.9 838.1 Ruby Mountains 571.6 581.8 227.3 406.8 368.5 Jarbidge 384.6 344.6 186.4 274.6 256.4 Total 2,148.1 2,020.1 1,005.9 1,543.3 1,463.0

Table 57. Miles of Seasonal Closures within Mule Deer Habitat On Ruby Mountains (Feb. 20- April 30) Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Closures Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Total 0 30.6 0 20.7 17.8 The zone of influence for deer was determined to be 200 meters and is another indicator of indirect effects (Trombulak and Frissel 2000). That is roads within habitat have effects on deer of up to 200 meters. The acres of habitat affected by those roads are compared by alternative in table 58.

Table 58. Acres within the Zone of Influence (within 200 meter of route in modeled habitat). Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 5 Alt. 1 District Proposed Current Visitor Reduced Resource No Action Action System Map Impacts Mountain City/Jarbidge 215,946 234,740 119,743 165,749 157,772 Ruby Mountains 83,514 84,100 44,705 60,269 83,628 Total 299,460 318,840 164,448 226,018 241,400 3.10.3.5.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would have the highest potential to cause direct and indirect effects by allowing cross-country travel that can disturb and stress deer and fragment critical winter, transition, and summer range. Alternative 1 would have 2,148 miles of road in deer habitat, and no seasonal closures in the Harrison Pass area. It would affect over 299,000 acres in the zone of influence. Without the seasonal closures in the Harrison Pass area deer would be negatively affected at a

145 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement critical period. Since the concern is limited to the Harrison Pass herd, overall Alternative 1 would have a stable trend on mule deer. 3.10.3.5.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would improve on the existing condition. The elimination of cross-country motorized travel would improve the quality of foraging habitat and protect fawning areas by reducing the amount of trampled vegetation and bare ground and reducing human intrusion into critical areas. Under Alternative 2, the deer herd that winters in the Harrison Pass area would be protected from harassment by a seasonal closures (February 20 to April 30). Alternative 2 would designate 2,020 miles of road in deer habitat and 318,000 acres in the zone of influence, but would have 30.6 miles of seasonal closure in the Harrison Pass area on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Alternative 2 would contribute to a stable trend for the deer herds in the project area. If the MBGR were selected under Alternative 2, nearly 674, 000 acres could be affected by about 1,180 trips a year for deer and elk. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season. There could be direct impacts to deer in the form of disturbance, additional stress during the hunting season, and some direct mortality from cross-country travel. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. The addition of game retrieval would contribute to a stable trend for mule deer. 3.10.3.5.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would have the least miles of routes in potential habitat and the zone of influence. The elimination of cross-country travel would improve the quality of foraging habitat and protect fawning areas by reducing the amount of trampled vegetation and bare ground and reducing human intrusion into critical areas. Alternative 3 would provide no protection to mule deer during the winter and early spring in the Harrison Pass area. Alternative 3 would designate 1,005 miles of road in deer habitat and affect 164,000 acres in the zone of influence. Alternative 3 would contribute to a stable trend for the deer herds in the project area. 3.10.3.5.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would improve the quality of foraging habitat and protect fawning areas by reducing the amount of trampled vegetation and bare ground and reducing human intrusion into critical areas by eliminating cross-country travel. Alternative 4 would provide protection during the winter and early spring to the deer in the Harrison Pass area. Alternative 4 would designate 1,543 miles of road in deer habitat and affect 226,000 acres in the zone of influence, and would include 20 miles of seasonal closures in the Harrison Pass area. With MBGR allowed under Alternative 4, over 629,000 acres could be affected by 140 trips a year. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season. There could be direct impacts to deer in the form of disturbance and additional stress during the hunting season and some direct mortality from the cross-country travel. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Alternative 4 would contribute to a stable trend for the deer herds in the project area. 3.10.3.5.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would improve the quality of foraging habitat and protect fawning areas by reducing the amount of trampled vegetation and bare ground and reducing human intrusion into critical areas by eliminating cross-country travel. Alternative 5 would provide protection during

146 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement the winter and early spring to the deer in the Harrison Pass area. Alternative 5 would designate 1,463 miles of road in deer habitat and affect 241,000 acres in the zone of influence, and would have 17 miles of seasonal closures in the Harrison Pass area. Alternative 5 would contribute to a stable trend for the deer herds in the project area. 3.10.3.6. Migratory Birds Species nesting in cliff and talus habitats would not be directly affected by any of the alternatives; however they may be indirectly affected by impacts to their foraging habitat. Direct impacts to migratory birds can include disturbances leading to avoidance, dispersal (flushing), abandonment of nest sites, or mortality from collision or trampling. Ground nesting species may be prone to trampling of nests as vehicles pull off the road to park. However, most species of birds tend to nest away from high disturbance areas and the likelihood of nest trampling from activities adjacent to the road is relatively small. Mortality from collisions is dependent on vehicle speed, weather conditions, road conditions, and in some instances, bird species (as larger game birds, grouse for example, may move slower or take longer to become airborne). Mortality from collisions and trampling has a higher potential to impact young birds, as they may not have the capability to move out of the area. 3.10.3.6.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would have 2,171 miles of route and continue cross-country travel which can cause vehicle related mortality, nest disturbance and destruction on approximately 990,000 acres. The current rates of cross-country travel do not appear to have a measurable impact on the local species abundance; however, this is based only on one Breeding Bird Survey route (Sauer et al. 1999). Under Alternative 1, disturbances to bird species would remain at their current levels and “take” as defined under the Migratory Bird Act could occur in the form of disturbance to nesting migratory birds during the breeding season. Overall, Alternative 1 would still contribute to a stable trend for most species. Under Alternative 1, indirect impacts, those that which alter or remove suitable bird habitats, may also remain at their current levels and have the potential to increase. This is due to the continuance of cross-country travel. Cross-country travel would allow some vehicles access to areas which are not normally visited. Vehicles traveling in these areas may lead to trampling of suitable habitats (nesting and foraging); increased habitat fragmentation; increases in user-created routes; increased disturbances to bird species which may lead to abandonment of nest sites; trampling of nest sites; and increases in the risk of mortality from collision or trampling. Not all habitat types are impacted at the same level by cross-country travel. For example, most cross- country travel occurs within sagebrush or visually open areas and not forested areas. Riparian and meadow areas can be the hardest impacted from cross-country travel, as most people recreate in these areas and meadows are used to navigate through areas. Impacts in riparian areas (including aspen) pose the larger impact to migratory birds utilizing these areas. This is due to the higher amount of use within these areas, both by vehicles and those recreational activities which occur from vehicle access. 3.10.3.6.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would designate 2,042 miles of routes but would greatly reduce the risk of incidental take by eliminating cross-country travel. Many miles of routes being added would have seasonal closures for goshawk, mule deer, and sage-grouse that would benefit in the protection of nesting migratory birds. There would be 85 miles of seasonal closures from

147 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

February 20 to June 15. Alternative 2 would have some risk of incidental take and would contribute to a stable trend for migratory birds. If the MBGR option were selected under Alternative 2, nearly 674, 000 acres could be affected by nearly 1,180 trips a year for deer and elk. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with the critical breeding periods. There could be direct mortality (i.e. incidental take) from the cross-country travel, though due to the timing and limited number of trips it would be unlikely. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. The addition of MBGR option to this alternative would likely not cause incidental take due to seasonal timing and would contribute to a stable trend for migratory birds. 3.10.3.6.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would designate 1,021 miles of routes, but would not have the protections of seasonal closures for goshawk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. This would increase the risk of incidental take during the breeding season. There would be 85 miles less of protection for migratory birds under this alternative. Alternative 3 would have increased risk of incidental take but would still contribute to a stable trend for migratory birds. 3.10.3.6.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would designate 1,567 miles of routes but greatly reduce the risk of incidental take by eliminating cross-country travel. Many miles of route being added would have seasonal closures for goshawk, mule deer, and sage-grouse that would benefit in the protection of nesting migratory birds. There would be 58 miles of seasonal closures from February 20 to June 15. Motorized big game retrieval for legally taken elk under Alternative 4, could affect over 629,000 acres annually. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season, which does not coincide with the critical breeding periods. There could be direct mortality (i.e. incidental take) from the cross-country travel, though due to the timing and limited number of trips it would be unlikely. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Alternative 4 would likely not cause incidental take due to seasonal timing and would contribute to a stable trend for migratory birds. 3.10.3.6.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would designate 1,480 miles of roads and trail but would greatly reduce the risk of incidental take by eliminating cross-country travel. Many of miles of routes being added would have seasonal closures for goshawk, mule deer, and sage-grouse that would benefit in the protection of nesting migratory birds. There would be 32 miles of seasonal closures from February 20 to June 15. Alternative 5 would have some risk of incidental take but would contribute to a stable trend for migratory birds. 3.10.3.7. Elk Elk can be directly affected by road disturbance and vehicle collisions. Studies have shown that elk will avoid areas of human disturbance and high road densities. Naylor and others (2008) found that elk would spend significantly less time foraging in areas of OHV use, both on and off- trail. Christensen (1993), Lyon (1979) and Rowland (2009) found that habitat quality decreases with increased road density, even at 0.6 miles/square mile. Hillis and others (1991) recommended having a block of hiding cover greater than 250 acres and less than 0.5 mile away from open roads; the Jarbidge Wilderness provides such security areas.

148 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The current miles of road and road density in elk habitat are unknown as the modeled habitat for elk is in development by NDOW. Information on delineated occupied habitat, herds, and migration areas also is not available. To delineate herd areas and determine density in occupied habitat based on the limited information available would not provide an accurate assessment. Elk are habitat generalists and a general overview of road density is sufficient for determining impacts.

Table 59. Mean Route Density by Alternative Alt. 5 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4. Alt. 1 Reduced District Acres Proposed Current Visitor No Action Resource Action System Map Impacts Mountain City 516,101 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.8 Ruby Mountains 438,959 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 Jarbidge 245,746 1.7 1.4 0.60 1.2 1.1 As is demonstrated in table 60, approximately 300,000 acres of the project area have a road density of less than 0.5 mile/square mile, well below the point at which road densities begin to have an adverse effect on elk habitat.

Table 60. Open Route Density - Acres by Density Class and District Alt. 5 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt 4. Reduced Miles/Square Miles Proposed Current No Action Visitor Map Resource Action System Impacts Mountain City Ranger District Less than 0.5 56,392 89,412 178,523 103,769 137,333 0.5-1.5 188,149 199,649 247,144 246,891 217,758 1.5-2.5 172,767 157,130 74,085 135,333 120,058 2.5-5 98,164 69,597 16,348 30,107 40,951 5 and above 629 313 0 0 0 Ruby Mountains Ranger District Less than 0.5 141,070 202,464 249,252 214,210 235,908 0.5-1.5 123,617 97,930 119,428 118,772 104,273 1.5-2.5 91,624 74,736 53,769 74,646 65,588 2.5-5 81,393 62,895 16,504 31,311 33,005 5 and above 1,254 934 6 20 185 Jarbidge Ranger District Less than 0.5 97,912 107,594 130,679 113,527 121,305 0.5-1.5 56,044 63,499 80,382 74,611 68,957 1.5-2.5 57,238 54,305 31,190 46,019 47,180 2.5-5 34,188 20,259 3,494 11,589 8,214 5 and above 365 90 0 0 90 Greater human access can increase opportunities for hunting as well as poaching of deer and elk. During the hunting season, elk may become more wary of humans, and disturbance to elk is greater when being hunted, similar to deer (Jalkotsky et al. 1997). Hunted deer and elk

149 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement populations tend to have stronger reactions to people on foot than motorized vehicles. This may be due to the fact the elk can detect a vehicle from greater distances rather than getting surprised by quieter humans on foot. Roads and trails can facilitate harvest success. Since hunting levels for elk are controlled through hunting zone quotas and tag limits established by NDOW, an increase in hunting opportunity or hunter success is unlikely to impact populations (deVos 2003). Hunting limits also take into account estimates of the amount of illegal kill and road kill occurring. Vehicle collisions with elk can contribute considerably to direct mortality. There is little to no data on road kills along national forest roads, however roads maintained at a higher standard for passenger vehicle (maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5), where vehicle speeds are greatest, have the most potential to contribute to vehicle collisions. 3.10.3.7.1. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would allow cross-country travel that would stress elk and could limit their foraging and cause them to avoid an area (Naylor et al. 2008). Under Alternative 1, approximately 813,570 acres would have road densities above 0.5 mile/square mile (with approximately 300,000 acres below 0.5 mile/square mile). With the current populations of elk in the Bruneau and Jarbidge areas being at or above population goals, it does not appear that the existing condition has had a negative impact on elk populations. This alternative would contribute toward stable trends for elk. 3.10.3.7.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would improve on Alternative 1 by eliminating cross-country travel but would have only 399,470 acres of road densities under 0.5 mile/square mile (and 801,329 acres of road densities above 0.5 mile/square mile). By limiting travel to designated routes, elk would not be disturbed to the extent they currently are. In addition, under Alternative 2 there would be 85 miles of seasonal closures from February to June. These seasonal restrictions would also benefit elk by reducing disturbance along designated routes during the calving season. As Alternative 1 does not appear to be having an adverse impact on elk populations, it is reasonable to conclude that Alternative 2 with the elimination of cross-country travel would also contribute toward a stable trend for elk. If the MBGR option is selected under Alternative 2, nearly 674, 000 acres could be affected by nearly 1,180 trips a year for deer and elk. These cross-country trips would occur only during the hunting season. There could be direct impacts to elk by human disturbance and increased stress during the hunting season. Some direct mortality from the cross-country travel is possible, though due to the low speed of OHVs and limited number of trips it would be unlikely. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Considering cross-country travel is currently allowed and current elk populations are at or above population goals, the MBGR option under this alternative would contribute toward a stable trend for elk. 3.10.3.7.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would improve on Alternative 1 by eliminating cross-country travel. Under Alternative 3 there would be 558,454 acres with road densities less than 0.5 mile/square mile (and 642,346 acres with densities above 0.5 mile/square mile). By limiting travel to designated routes, elk would not be disturbed to the current extent they currently are. Under Alternative 3 there are no seasonal restrictions that would benefit elk by reducing disturbance along designated routes during the calving season. As Alternative 1 does not appear to be having an adverse impact on

150 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement elk populations it is reasonable to conclude that Alternative 3 with the elimination of cross- country travel would also contribute toward a stable trend for elk. 3.10.3.7.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would improve on the existing condition by eliminating cross-country travel and would have 431,505 acres of road densities under 0.5 mile/square mile (and 769,299 acres of road densities above 0.5 mile/square mile). By limiting travel to designated routes, elk would not be disturbed to the extent they currently are. In addition, under Alternative 4 there would be 58 miles of seasonal closures lasting from February to June. These seasonal restrictions would also benefit elk by reducing disturbance along designated routes during the calving season. With MBGR, over 629,000 acres could be affected by 140 trips a year. There could be direct impacts to elk by human disturbance and increased stress during the hunting season. Some direct mortality from the cross-country travel is possible, though due to the low rates of speed of OHVs and limited number of trips it would be unlikely. Some indirect effects could occur to foraging habitat via vegetation trampling from OHV use; however based on the limited number of trips spread across a large project area, the quantity of disturbance cannot be meaningfully assessed. Considering cross-country travel is currently allowed and the current elk populations are at or above population goals, Alternative 4 would contribute toward a stable trend for elk. 3.10.3.7.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would improve on Alternative 1 by eliminating cross-country travel and would have 494,547 acres of road densities under 0.5 mile/square mile (and 706,258 acres of road densities above 0.5 mile/square mile). By limiting travel to designated routes, elk would not be disturbed to the extent they currently are. In addition, under Alternative 5 there are several would be 32 miles of seasonal closures lasting from February to June. These seasonal restrictions would also benefit elk by reducing disturbance along designated routes during the calving season. As the existing condition does not appear to be having an adverse impact on elk populations it is reasonable to conclude that Alternative 5 with the elimination of cross-country travel would also contribute toward a stable trend for elk. 3.10.4. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for all alternatives in the project area include wildfire, grazing, recreation, and minerals exploration and mining. Several large wildfires have occurred across the project area affecting thousands of acres of habitat that is still in the process of recovering. The two largest and most recent fires were the Murphy Complex and the East Slide Rock Ridge Fire. 3.10.4.1. Sage Grouse The Murphy Complex affected more sage-grouse than the East Slide Rock Ridge Fire on the Jarbidge Ranger District, since there are few leks and nesting areas on that district. Livestock grazing can affect the quality of nesting and brood-rearing habitat by reducing cover and nutrient content of grasses and forbs (Thines et al. 2004). The analysis of grazing reauthorization is ongoing in the project area. Recently the 2009 record of decision for the Jarbidge Rangeland Management Project was withdrawn with plans for re-release in the next two years. Recreation, minerals exploration and mining can cause direct disturbance to sage-grouse by flushing nesting birds and trampling cover and forage. More routes may increase the amount of recreational disturbance. In addition, sage-grouse is currently a game species in Nevada and more routes may lead to higher hunter success and may also increase the instances of poaching.

151 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Surrounding areas on the BLM, particularly in Idaho are also prohibiting cross-country travel, which will reduce disturbance to sage grouse. In addition, several vegetation management projects are being proposed to improve sage-grouse habitat across Idaho and Nevada. Most of these projects involve prescribed burns and mechanical thinning and removal of pinyon-juniper. The Ruby Pipeline will impact several lekking areas outside of the project area boundaries. However, direct impacts from that project have been mitigated by seasonal restrictions on timing of operations until after the lekking season. Determination: Based on the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, all alternatives may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.4.2. Bighorn Sheep Neither the Murphy Complex nor the East Slide Rock Ridge fires occurred in areas occupied by bighorn sheep, though they affected potentially suitable habitat. Livestock grazing can affect the quality of forage by reducing the nutrient content of grasses and forbs (Thines et al. 2004). In addition it is speculated that interaction with domestic sheep and goats causes disease outbreaks with resulting high mortality rates (Schommer and Woolever 2008). The analysis of grazing reauthorization is ongoing in the project area. Recently the 2009 record of decision for the Jarbidge Rangeland Management Project was withdrawn with plans for re-release in the next two years. Recreation, minerals exploration, and mining can cause direct disturbance to bighorn sheep by noise disturbance and human presence. More routes may increase the amount of recreational disturbance. In addition, bighorn sheep are a game species in Nevada and more routes may lead to higher hunter success and increase the instances of poaching. Other travel management plans are being proposed that would also restrict cross-country travel, in particular the Jarbidge BLM District in Idaho. Restriction on cross-country travel would help further reduce effects to bighorn sheep. Determination: Based on the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, all alternatives may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.4.3. Pygmy Rabbit The Murphy Complex affected more pygmy rabbit habitat than the East Slide Rock Ridge Fire on the Jarbidge Ranger District, since there are no known active burrows on that district. Livestock grazing can affect the quality of habitat by reducing cover and nutrient content of grasses and forbs (Thines et al. 2004). The analysis of grazing reauthorization is ongoing in the project area. Recently the 2009 record of decision for the Jarbidge Rangeland Management Project was withdrawn with plans for re-release in two years. Recreation, minerals exploration, and mining can cause direct disturbance to pygmy rabbits and destroy burrows and fragment sagebrush habitat. More routes may increase the amount of recreational disturbance and would increase habitat fragmentation. In addition, pygmy rabbit are currently a game species in Nevada and more routes may lead to higher hunter success and may increase the instances of poaching. Determination: Based on the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, all alternatives may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT) and would not cross a threshold.

152 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.10.4.4. Northern Goshawk Livestock grazing can affect the quality of nesting habitat in the long term by suppressing regenerating aspen (Newlon 2005). The analysis of grazing reauthorization is ongoing in the project area. Recently the 2009 record of decision for the Jarbidge Rangeland Management Project was withdrawn with plans for re-release in two years. Recreation, minerals exploration, and mining can cause direct disturbance to goshawk by disturbing nesting birds and causing nest abandonment. More routes may increase the amount of recreational disturbance. In addition, goshawk are collected by falconers and more routes, both designated and unauthorized, may lead to more take. Determination: Based on the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, all alternatives may impact but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing (MINT). 3.10.4.5. Mule Deer The two largest and most recent fires were the Murphy Complex and the East Slide Rock Ridge Fire, in which thousands of acres of summer and winter range were affected. Livestock grazing can affect the quality of forage by reducing the nutrient content of grasses and forbs (Thines et al. 2004). The analysis of grazing reauthorization is ongoing in the project area. Recently the 2009 record of decision for the Jarbidge Rangeland Management Project was withdrawn with plans for re-release in two years. Recreation and minerals exploration and mining can cause direct disturbance to deer by noise disturbance and human presence. More routes may increase the amount of recreational disturbance. In addition, deer are a game species and more routes may lead to higher hunter success and increase the instances of poaching. Declining deer populations are not likely the result of the existing road system but loss of habitat to wildfire (NDOW 2008). Eliminating cross-country travel would decrease habitat fragmentation and reduce stress to deer, having a positive effect on the deer population. Under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5, there would be a seasonal closure on routes in the Harrison Pass area (excluding the main Harrison Pass road) in order to reduce stress to that deer herd resulting from harassment from recreation and shed hunters. The closure would last from February 20 to April 30. Based on the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, all alternatives would have a stable trend on the deer population in the project area. 3.10.4.6. Elk Several large wildfires have occurred across the project area affecting thousands of acres of habitat that is still in the process of recovering. Livestock grazing can affect the quality of forage by reducing the nutrient content of grasses and forbs (Thines et al. 2004). The analysis of grazing reauthorization is ongoing in the project area. Recently the 2009 record of decision for the Jarbidge Rangeland Management Project was withdrawn with plans for re-release in two years. Recreation and minerals exploration and mining can cause direct disturbance to elk by noise disturbance and human presence. More routes may increase the amount of recreational disturbance. In addition, more routes may lead to higher hunter success and increase the instances of poaching.

153 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other travel management plans are being proposed that would also restrict cross-country travel, in particular the Jarbidge BLM District in Idaho. Restriction on cross-country motorized travel would help further reduce effects to elk. The existing road system has not impeded the elk population growth, and it is not expected that an increase or decrease in the existing system would affect population trends. Any of the action alternatives would decrease direct and indirect effects by eliminating cross-country travel, and Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would offer protection in certain areas against disturbance during the calving season. Overall all alternatives would have a stable trend on elk. 3.11. Rare Plants

3.11.1 Introduction This section of the EIS addresses the affected environment and the potential impacts of all alternatives on rare plant species, including species on the Intermountain Region (R4) Sensitive Species List (R4 List) for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and additional state of Nevada rare plant species that have the potential to occur within the project area. Plant species of concern within the project area were determined after reviewing the R4 List (August 2009, recently updated June 2011), the Nevada Rare Plant Atlas (Morefield 2001), the Humboldt National Forest Sensitive Plant Field Guide (Anderson et al. 1991), and existing databases including state databases (NNHP 2005). Species evaluated for this project are listed in table 61 and 62. A list of threatened and endangered species was received from the USFWS on February 25, 2009 (File No. 2009-SL-0154), and is on file at the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger District offices for public review. No threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species were identified. 3.11.1.1. Analysis Methodology The following assumptions were made to establish the scope of the botanical analysis required to support an evaluation of this project: • The proposed FTS under all alternatives would not significantly change use patterns on roads that are designated as NFS roads and trails. • Although dispersed camping may occur across the landscape, it tends to be concentrated along roads and motorized trails. • Road maintenance would vary depending on level. Level 3-5 roads would receive more use and maintenance than level 1-2 roads. Level 1-2 roads and motorized trails would not typically receive any maintenance. No future maintenance would be conducted without the appropriate level of environmental analysis for sensitive plant species. • Roads and trails that are not designated would not be restored or reclaimed with this analysis and decision. Any restoration would require additional environmental analysis. • Overland vehicular traffic would be allowed under permit (i.e., grazing and livestock management) and other incidental uses. • Forest Service sensitive plants occur throughout the districts in a variety of habitats. The existing routes have been established for a long period of time. Although the effects of these routes on rare plant populations have never been analyzed, it is likely that some negative impacts have occurred and would continue to varying degrees for the different alternatives. Data from district surveys through 2008 were used along with data from the following databases to determine the locations of known occurrences of sensitive plants: Nevada Natural Heritage Program Occurrence database (NNHP 2005); Natural Resource Information System (NRIS)

154 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (TESP) database; and the Humboldt-Toiyabe Rare Plant database through 2009. Due to the scale of the project, a comprehensive survey of the entire project area was not feasible. Modeling of potential habitat was necessary to account for data gaps in surveys. Predictive computer models were developed using GIS-based habitat attributes to identify potential habitat for meadow pussytoes, Lewis’ buckwheat, and Leiberg clover. For all other species, potential habitat was modeled using elevation and vegetation type. For the moonwort species, locations of springs, seeps, and perennial streams were buffered by 300 feet and used in addition to these parameters to determine potential habitat. Details on these predictive computer models and habitat parameters are provided in the Botany Specialist Report. All potential habitat was buffered by 30 meters to account for the level of precision in GIS attributes used in the modeling. To determine the mileages of routes within modeled potential habitat for each species, the road layers were overlaid with the potential habitat. Because Alternative 1 allows for unrestricted overland travel, occupied and potential habitats for all R4 sensitive plant species were analyzed for potential impacts. Analysis to determine the acreage of occupied habitat impacted by route designation was done by buffering all routes by 30 meters from both edges of the routes and overlaying the buffered routes with occupied habitat. Although effects to plants from vehicle travel on roads have been well documented, no precedence exists for how the distance of a route from individual plants or their potential habitat may affect population trends for sensitive species. The distance of 30 meters from the both edges of all routes was established by the zone botanist as a buffer zone that would account for the following potential impacts: (1) incidental off-road travel experienced when a vehicle may (for various reasons) accidentally leave the road; (2) route-side parking during recreational use; and (3) dispersed camping. 3.11.1.2. Parameters for Establishing Risk Assessment Codes A system of risk assessment was created to evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects of each route on sensitive plant species and their habitats. The proximity of each route and route buffers to documented sensitive plant occurrences, the buffer zones used to estimate the extent of occupied habitat associated with those documented occurrences, and areas of potential habitat were used to develop the Risk Assessment Codes for R4 sensitive species and focal state of Nevada rare plants. The Risk Assessment Code Definitions for sensitive plant species are as follows: • Very Low Risk (0): The road and its buffer do not overlap potential habitat. • Low Risk (1): The road or its buffer overlaps potential habitat but does not overlap the buffer of occupied habitat. • Moderate Risk (2): The road or its buffer overlaps the buffer of occupied habitat but not a point of known occurrence. • High Risk (3): The road or its buffer overlaps a point of known occurrence. 3.11.1.3. Effects Indicators Impacts to sensitive plants will be evaluated by: • Miles and acres of routes through occupied habitat within a 30-meter buffer. • Miles and acres of routes through potential habitat within a 30-meter buffer. 3.11.2. Affected Environment Occupied and potential habitat occurs for 12 Region 4 sensitive plant species on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts (table 61).

155 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 61. Regional Forester’s (R4) Sensitive Species for the Humboldt National Forest (June 2011). Present/Potentially NNHP/NatureServe Species Common Name Present within Ranking Project Area Y/N Antennaria arcuata Meadow pussytoes G2N2S1S2 Y Asclepias eastwoodiana Eastwood milkweed G3G4T3? NNRS3 N Astragalus lentiginosus var. latus Broad-pod freckled milkvetch G5T2N2S2 N Astragalus robbinsii var. Lamoille Canyon milkvetch G5T2T3N2N3S2S3 Y occidentalis Astragalus uncialis Currant milkvetch G2N2S1S2 N Boechera falcatoria Grouse Creek rockcress G1N1S1 N* Botrychium ascendens Upswept moonwort G2G3N2N3S2S1 N* Botrychium crenulatum Dainty moonwort G3N2N3S1S2S3 Y Botrychium lineare Slender moonwort G2N2N2?S1S2S3 N Draba oreibata var. serpentina Snake Range whitlow-grass G4T1N1S1 N Draba pennellii Pennell draba G2N2S2 N Erigeron cavernensis (Syn.E.uncialis Cave Mountain fleabane G3G4N3?S3? N ssp. uncialis ) Eriogonum douglasii var. Sunflower Flats buckwheat G5T1N1S1 Y elkoense Eriogonum lewisii Lewis’ buckwheat G2G3QN2N3S2S3 Y Jamesia tetrapetala Basin jamesia G2N2S2S1 N Lathyrus grimesii Grimes’ vetchling G2N2S2 Y Lewisia maguirei Maguire bitterroot G1N1S1 N Penstemon concinnus Tunnel Springs beardtongue G3N2S2S3 N Penstemon moriahensis Mount Moriah beardtongue G1G2N1N2S1S2 N Penstemon pudicus Bashful beardtongue G1N1S1 N Penstemon rhizomatosus Rhizome beardtongue G1N1S1 N Phacelia inconspicua Inconspicuous scorpion-weed G2N1S1 N Phacelia minutissima Least phacelia G3N2S1S2 Y Poa abbreviata var. marshii Marsh’s bluegrass G5T2N2S1 N Potentilla johnstonii Sagebrush cinquefoil G1NNRS1 N Primula capillaris Ruby Mountain primrose G1N1S1 Y Primula nevadensis (Syn. Primula Nevada primrose G2N2S2 N cusickiana var. nevadense) Silene nachlingerae Nachlinger’s catchfly G2N2S2 Y Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. Jones’ globemallow G2T2NNRS2 N williamsiae Trifolium andinum var. Currant Summit clover G2T1N1S1 N podocephalum Trifolium leibergii Leiberg clover G2N2S1S2 Y NatureServe ranking (NatureServe 2008). Letter designations: G = Global, N = National, and S = Sub-national, T= rank of a subspecies of an otherwise widespread and common species, Q = Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority, NR = not ranked. Number designations: 1 = critically imperiled, 2 = imperiled, 3 = vulnerable, 4 = apparently secure, 5 = secure, ? = Inexact Numeric Rank. N = It has been determined after referring to the Rare Plant Atlas (Morefield, 2001), the Humboldt National Forest Sensitive Plant Field Guide (Anderson et al., 1991), existing databases including state databases (NNHP, 2005) that these plant species do not occur or have the probability of occurring on the project area. Therefore, there will be no impact to the species from the proposed project activities and no further analysis for these species will be conducted. N* = Although not known to occur within the project area, these species are considered to have potential of existing within the project area and were analyzed in detail for this project. Y = Occupied habitat for meadow pussytoes, Lamoille Canyon milkvetch, upswept moonwort, Lewis’ buckwheat, Grimes’ vetchling, least phacelia, Ruby Mountain primrose, Nachlinger’s catchfly, Leiberg clover, Sunflower Flats buckwheat occur within the project area. These species were analyzed in detail.

156 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.2.1 Forest Service Region 4 Sensitive Plant Species 3.11.2.1.1. Meadow Pussytoes Distribution: Meadow pussytoes (Antennaria arcuata) is a rare species that occurs in three widely disjunct regions in the Great Basin and Red Desert (Bayer 1992). It is known from Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and Nevada (Elko County) (Morefield 2001). Throughout its global range, meadow pussytoes is found at elevations ranging from 4,920 to 7,900 feet (Cronquist et al 1994, Mancuso 1996). In Nevada, meadow pussytoes is only known to occur from elevations of 6,200 to 6,500 feet (Morefield 2001). Three of the four known occurrences in Nevada are located in the Sunflower Flats area of the Mountain City Ranger District, including Chipman, Belcher, and Poorman meadows. These occurrences contain more than 5,000 plants on approximately 8 acres. The size of individual occurrences ranges from a single plant to several thousand (Morefield 2001). Two of the occurrences were visited by Forest Service personnel in 2004 and 2005. One additional occurrence is located at Saval Ranch along Mahala Creek (BLM land) and was last visited in 1982 (Morefield 2001). Bio-geographical and genetic evidence suggests that meadow pussytoes was once more widely distributed but that the isolated populations have been separated for a long time (Bayer 1992). The disjunctive and restricted distribution may be a result of its habitat requirements, as well as the preference for soils with high selenium concentration (Bayer 1992). In addition, meadow pussytoes was probably historically more widely distributed with the existing populations representing the margin of the historic range of the species (Bayer 1992). Due to meadow pussytoes’ rarity and habitat, meadow pussytoes has been ranked a G2N2S1 in Nevada (NatureServe 2008). Populations in Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming are small and isolated making them vulnerable to natural extinction events. The plants are restricted to geographically iolated wet areas, such as those that form around springs and seeps (NatureServe 2008). Habitat: Meadow pussytoes occurs in moist basins, alkaline meadows, seeps, and springs that are surrounded by silver sagebrush and grassland associations (Bayer 1992, Cronquist 1994, Morefield 2001). This species can occur on the sides of hummocks created by cattle activity, in moist sloughs, and at the edge of wild hay meadows. Soils associated with meadow pussytoes can be high in salt deposits, periodically disturbed, and seasonally dry. This species is commonly associated with western aster (Bayer 1992). Most of the potential habitat has been surveyed (Morefield 2001). Within the project area, meadow pussytoes is documented on the Mountain City Ranger District. Potential habitat is limited in the Jarbidge Ranger District. There are presently 172 acres of occupied habitat and 31,984 acres of potential habitat for meadow pussytoes within the project area. 3.11.2.1.2. Lamoille Canyon Milkvetch Distribution: Populations of Lamoille Canyon milkvetch (Astragalus robbinsii var. occidentalis) are known to occur only at high elevations of the Ruby and East Humboldt Mountains near Elko, Nevada. Habitat: Lamoille Canyon milkvetch typically is associated with moist to seasonally dry sandy loam soils in seeps, along riparian fringes, near stream banks, or within higher elevation meadow margins at elevations between 6,050 feet and 10,000 feet. Lamoille Canyon milkvetch generally is considered aquatic or wetland-dependent. There are presently 618 acres of occupied habitat and 5,331 acres of potential habitat for Lamoille Canyon milkvetch within the Ruby Mountain Ranger District.

157 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.2.1.3. Grouse Creek Rockcress Distribution: Within Nevada, Grouse Creek rockcress (Boechera falcatoria) is documented from a single location within the southern portion of the Ruby Mountains in Elko County. Grouse Creek rockcress also occurs in Box Elder County, Utah. Habitat: Within Nevada, occupied habitat for Grouse Creek rockcress occurs at 8,600 feet in elevation immediately west of an exposed gravelly ridge-line saddle that is regularly blown clear of snow. There are no known locations within the project area; however, the project area encompasses 55,425 acres of potential habitat for Grouse Creek rockcress. 3.11.2.1.4. Upswept Moonwort Distribution: Upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens) is widely scattered in western North America, including Nevada and California, from southern Nevada to Alaska and across Canada to Newfoundland, Quebec and northern Minnesota (Farrar 2005). The four occurrences within Nevada are documented within the Spring Mountains in Clark County. With the exception of the Santa Rosa Ranger District, potential habitat for upswept moonwort occurs across the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest. Habitat: In Nevada, the habitat is described as the moist ground of spring head areas in deep shade on north-facing slopes often with shooting star or in wet to moist meadows in conifer forests where they grow in moss, grasses, sedges, and rushes from 4,920 to 11,155 feet (Morefield 2001, USDA 2001). However, this small perennial fern is difficult to find and has not yet been systematically surveyed for in Nevada. The sites are usually localized and rare. Upswept moonwort may be found with other moonworts, including dainty moonwort, common moonwort, and Mingan moonwort (Wagner and Wagner 1993). Although there are no known locations on the Mountain City, Jarbidge, or Ruby Mountains Ranger Districts, potential habitat occurs throughout all three districts. The documented occurrence closest to the project area is in Baker County, Oregon. There are 3,171 acres of potential habitat for upswept moonwort within the project area. 3.11.2.1.5. Dainty Moonwort Distribution: Dainty moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) is found in western North America, but occurrences are localized and rare. There are 12 known occurrences in Nevada; six are in the Spring Mountains, one is in the Jarbidge Mountains, and two are in the Ruby Mountains. Dainty moonwort also may occur in Esmeralda, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, and White Pine counties in isolated pockets in many of the higher and wetter mountains (Morefield 2001). Population trends of dainty moonwort are unknown in Nevada (Morefield 2001). Habitat: Habitat for dainty moonwort includes lower montane coniferous forest, wet meadows, marshes, bog-fen habitat types, and springs (Morefield 2001, USDA 2001). Dainty moonwort occurs at relatively high elevations in Nevada (7,900-11,150 feet). There are two known locations on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, which are separated by approximately 28 miles, and one documented location in the most northeasterly portion of the Jarbidge Ranger District. There are no known occurrences on the Mountain City Ranger District. There are presently 80 acres of occupied habitat and 8,184 acres of potential habitat for dainty moonwort within the project area. 3.11.2.1.6. Sunflower Flats Buckwheat Distribution: Sunflower Flats buckwheat (Eriogonum douglasii var. elkoense) is known only from the Sunflower Flats area northeast of Wild Horse State Park in Elko County, Nevada. Habitat: Sunflower Flats buckwheat is typically found on sandy to gravelly flats and slopes in mixed grassland and sagebrush communities (6,400-6,900 feet) where it flowers from May

158 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement through July. There are known locations on the Mountain City Ranger District. There are presently 44 acres of occupied habitat and 228,437 acres of potential habitat for Sunflower Flats buckwheat within the project area. 3.11.2.1.7. Lewis’ Buckwheat Distribution: Lewis’ buckwheat (Eriogonum lewisii) is a small, long-lived perennial from a woody taproot that flowers from June to July and sets seed between early June and the end of August. Lewis’ buckwheat is a Nevada endemic from north-central Elko County and northern Eureka County. This species is documented from 33 sites across approximately 10 geographic areas, including three occurrences in the Jarbidge Ranger District (Elk Mountain, Jarbidge Wilderness, Klondyke area). Between the Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Districts, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest manages 73 percent of the known occurrences of Lewis’ buckwheat (Morefield 2001). Additional potential habitat has been identified based on Coats (1987) geology map (Morefield 2001). Habitat: Lewis’ buckwheat occupies exposed rocky ridges with sagebrush at high elevation from 6,470 to 9,720 feet (Morefield 2001). Habitat for Lewis’ buckwheat is characterized by dry, exposed, shallow, relatively barren and undisturbed, rocky residual soils on convex ridgeline knolls and crests (Morefield 2001). This species is often found on flat to moderately steep slopes. The soil is described as limestone or other carbonate rock types with significant silt or other siliceous component. The species dominates buckwheat carbonate balds with low or black sagebrush, green rabbitbrush, squirreltail, and Indian ricegrass (Morefield 2001) within the mountain sagebrush zone (low- to mid-elevation slopes). Although there is some discussion on the taxonomy of the species, Lewis’ buckwheat is considered a separate species or variety especially given its distinct habitat – high elevation and carbonate-dominated soils (Morefield 2001, Reveal 1985). Lewis’ buckwheat appears closely allied to Great Basin Desert wild buckwheat, with which it may hybridize at lower elevations in areas where the two taxa overlap (Charleston Road Summit) (Smith and Curto 1995). There are known locations on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There are presently 1,757 acres of occupied habitat and 62,332 acres of potential habitat for Lewis’ buckwheat within the project area. 3.11.2.1.8. Grimes’ Vetchling Distribution: Grimes’ vetchling (Lathyrus grimesii) is rare in occurrence. Documented occurrences are limited to northeastern Nevada from the Independence Mountains to south of Jack Creek on west facing slopes and the Bull Run Mountains. Habitat: Grimes’vetchling is found on talus slopes of Schoonover formation, on barren, steep, and shale slopes, in dry, open, shallow, silty clay soils usually overlaid by thin scree of reddish to yellowish brown gravel, stone, and clay in barren patches. In Nevada, Grimes’ vetchling can be found at elevations between 6,080 and 8,360 feet (Morefield 2001). Grimes’ vetchling is known to occur on the Mountain City Ranger District. There are presently 1,298 acres of occupied habitat and 388,369 acres of potential habitat for Grimes’ vetchling within the project area. 3.11.2.1.9. Least Phacelia Distribution: Least phacelia (Phacelia minutissima) is known from Elko and Eureka counties in Nevada, and from Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (Morefield 2001, NatureServe 2008). Within Nevada, an estimated 28,000 individuals of least phacelia that constitute between 30 and 39 occurrences have been documented in an area of approximately 49 hectare (115+ac) (Morefield 2001). Occurrences are located within the Jarbidge and Independence Ranges. Least phacelia populations exhibit highly aggregated patterns across spatial scales (Johnson 2004). More plants

159 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement were observed at each of three monitoring sites in 2004 than in 1997, but populations of annual plants can fluctuate greatly between years due to climatic factors. Least phacelia exhibits meta population dynamics. This may be the result of seed dispersal characteristics or the differences in micro-site conditions. Plants can be found growing separately, or in dense, mat-like patches (Johnson 2004). Habitat: Least phacelia grows at elevations of 6,240 feet to 8,900 feet in Nevada but extends down to 5,000 feet in Idaho. Least phacelia occurs in vernally or ephemerally saturated, summer- drying, sparsely vegetated and partially shaded to fully expose riparian areas of bare soil or on mud banks in meadows (Morefield 2001). However, several sites occur in dense stands of corn lily. Riparian areas occupied by least phacelia usually are flanked by sagebrush-steppe or willow, aspen, and cottonwood species. Microsites for least phacelia include dry creek beds, mud banks of small gullies, wet meadows, the bottoms of shallow ditches or water channels, and the edges of springs (Morefield 2001). Individuals of least phacelia may grow separately or in dense patches that may become mat-like. This may be the result of seed dispersal characteristics or the differences in microsite conditions. Species that commonly grow in association with least phacelia include false hellebore, mule’s ear, and aspen (Atwood 1997, Morefield 2001). There are presently 3,228 acres of occupied habitat and 14,916 acres of potential habitat for least phacelia within the Mountain City Ranger District. 3.11.2.1.10. Ruby Mountain Primrose Distribution: Ruby Mountain primrose (Primula capillaris) is endemic to the Ruby Mountains of southern Elko County, Nevada. Habitat: Ruby Mountain primrose generally grows in subalpine meadow openings on moist, seasonally saturated, slowly creeping, dark brown loam or sandy loam soils derived from glacial till. Ruby Mountains primrose is documented to occur at elevations that range from 8,890 feet to 10,370 feet on steep north to northeast aspects, particularly just below bedrock constrictions in the soil flow that have resulted in extra churning and steepening of the soil and lowered vegetation cover. There are presently 46 acres of occupied habitat and 159,845 acres of potential habitat for Ruby Mountain primrose within the Ruby Mountain Ranger District. 3.11.2.1.11. Nachlinger Catchfly Distribution: Nachlinger’s catchfly (Silene nachlingerae) occurs in high-elevation ranges of east central Nevada. There are 18 known occurrences mapped in Elko, Nye, and White Pine counties in Nevada, two of which are within the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Habitat: Nachlinger’s 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’s catchfly 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 in size from year to year. There are approximately 13 acres of occupied habitat and 72,337 acres of potential habitat for Nachlinger’s catchfly within the Ruby Mountain Ranger District. 3.11.2.1.12. Leiberg Clover Distribution: Leiberg clover (Trifolium leibergii) is documented from four disjunct areas in Oregon and Nevada. In Nevada, the species is found in the Independence and Jarbidge Mountains of Elko County (Morefield 2001). There are approximately 22 known occurrences in Nevada (Morefield 2001) that contain an estimated total of over 175,000 individuals and occupy over 74 acres (Anderson 1996, Morefield 2001, Smith and Curto 1995). Because the

160 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement determination of individuals is difficult, population numbers should be considered rough estimates (CPC 2004). All of the occurrences in Nevada are within the Jarbidge (5 occurrences) and Mountain City (14 occurrences) Ranger Districts in active grazing allotments or within private in-holdings of these districts (3 occurrences). Extensive surveys in the Mountain City Ranger District have been conducted, but surveys have not covered all potential habitats (Morefield 2001, Smith and Curto 1995). Within Oregon, more than 20 occurrences of Leiberg clover have been documented (NatureServe 2008). Habitat: Leiberg clover occurs on barren volcanic outcrops at an elevation range of 6,560-7,800 feet (Morefield 2001). Soils that support Leiberg clover consist mainly of dry, shallow gravel of crumbling volcanic outcrops, tuffaceous hillsides, and shaley talus slopes (CPC 2004). Within Nevada, Leiberg clover is found on Jarbidge ryholite (Smith and Curto 1995). Leiberg clover occurs on flat to steep tops and upper slopes, sometimes on sides or toe slopes that generally have northeast, southeast, or southwest aspects. Associates of Leiberg clover include little sagebrush. Leiberg clover is found in sparse mountain mahogany and Rocky Mountain juniper vegetation types (Morefield 2001, Smith and Curto 1995). In the Independence Mountain populations, Leiberg clover was documented growing with Grimes’ vetchling, another Forest Service sensitive species. There are presently 1,107 acres of occupied habitat and 142,686 acres of potential habitat for Leiberg clover on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. 3.11.2.2. State of Nevada Rare Plant Species. The State of Nevada Rare Plant Species are displayed in table 62. Only those present within the project area were analyzed for this project.

Table 62. State of Nevada Rare Plant Species. NNHP/NatureServe Present within Species Common Name Ranking6 project area Y/N Astragalus lentiginosus var. Scorpion milkvetch Watch/ G5T3? S3? Y scorpionis Starveling Astragalus jejunus var. jejunus N milkvetch Osgood Mountains Astragalus yoder-williamsii At-risk /G3N3S3S1 N milkvetch Draba sphaeroides Ball whitlow-grass Watch/ G2G3S2S3 Y Erigeron latus Broad fleabane At-risk / G3S1 Y Holmgren Eriogonum holmgrenii At-risk/G1N1S1 N buckwheat Steamboat Mimulus ovatus At-risk/G1G2QN1N2S1S2 N monkeyflower

3.11.2.2.1. Scorpion Milkvetch Distribution: Scorpion milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. scorpionis) is fairly wide ranging in Nevada and has a more limited distribution in Utah, where it occurs only in western Juab County (Barneby 1989). In Nevada, scorpion milkvetch is known from the eastern and central counties of Nevada, mostly from the Ruby Mountains and White Pine and Grant Ranges in Elko and White Pine counties, the Monitor Range in Eureka County, and the Wassuk Range in Mineral County (Barneby 1989). There are over 50 known occurrences across central Nevada.

6 Same as rankings for table 64.

161 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

On the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, scorpion milkvetch is known to occur only within an area of less than 2.5 square miles. Habitat: Scorpion milkvetch is a perennial forb that occupies sagebrush and montane zones. It occurs from cool dry sagebrush slopes in the upper foothills through brushy canyons, aspen woodland, and moist mountain meadows to treeless crests below and near timberline from 6,070 to 11,155 feet (Barneby 1989). Currently, there are four known locations, all of which are within relatively close proximity to one another within a discrete, centrally located area of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Scorpion milkvetch has not been documented on the Mountain City or Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There are presently 83 acres of occupied habitat and 438,965 acres of potential habitat for Scorpion milkvetch within the project area. 3.11.2.2.2. Ball Whitlow-grass Distribution: Ball whitlow-grass (Draba sphaeroides) is a wide ranging species over central Nevada and is endemic to Elko County in the Jarbidge and Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range (Holmgren et al. 1997). Habitat: Ball whitlow-grass occurs on stream banks, loose scree slopes, rocky limestone, calcareous soil in pinyon-juniper, and in cracks and crevices of rock outcrops. Ball whitlowgrass typically grows at elevations between 7,870 feet and 10,500 feet (Holmgren et al. 1997). Ball whitlowgrass is documented from the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. The project area encompasses 89 acres of occupied habitat and 732,481 acres of potential habitat for Ball whitlowgrass. 3.11.2.2.3. Broad Fleabane Distribution: Broad fleabane (Erigeron latus) is a wide ranging species over central Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon. It can be found locally in the Wildhorse Reservoir area and the Independence Range between 6,200-6,450 feet. Habitat: Broad fleabane typically occurs in shallow, relatively barren, vernally saturated, otherwise dry, gravelly to sandy soils or bedrock on flats and slopes of volcanic scablands or benches that are mostly rhyolitic or basaltic in composition. The vegetation types associated with broad fleabane include sagebrush steppe and juniper zones with little sagebrush and big sagebrush (NNHP 2005). There are 68 acres of occupied habitat and 256,443 acres of potential habitat for broad fleabane in the Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Districts. 3.11.3. Environmental Consequences Route-based motorized vehicle travel and associated road maintenance may adversely impact rare plant species that grow in the vicinity of routes and trails by reducing the quality or extent of their habitats. Potential direct effects to plant species from vehicle travel along roads include the crushing and killing of individual plants that grow within their footprints. The potential indirect effects of motorized vehicle use on routes and trails are numerous. Vehicle use can alter the physical and chemical environment by increasing dust deposition, increasing soil compaction, increasing light exposure (by decreasing vegetation cover), changing the pattern of run-off and sedimentation, and altering soil nutrient levels (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). In addition, vehicle use on roads and motorized trails may lead to the loss and fragmentation of occupied habitat (Kwak et al. 1998, Wilcove et al. 1998), alteration of vegetation communities, the loss of pollinators, changes in seed set, disruption of the seed bank (Kwak et al. 1998), decreased plant vigor, the loss of individual plants, increased weed density and distribution, and the spread of disease (Wilcove et al. 1998).

162 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The role of route use on the introduction and spread of invasive non-native plants may be particularly damaging to populations of sensitive plants. Travel routes often function as invasion corridors for the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive species (Forman and Alexander 1998, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Disturbance of soil surfaces and vegetation can set the stage for weed establishment. Non-native plants can spread quickly and affect the abundance and distribution of native plant species. With the exception of the spread of invasive plant species, research does not indicate a difference in the overall effects to these habitats and populations if off-road travel were restricted to any given season. However, as shown by Taylor and others, the threats posed by the introduction of invasive weed seeds can almost double during the hunting season because the seeds of most native and non-native plant species mature just prior to or during late summer and early fall and remain ready for dispersal throughout the winter months. As such, limiting cross-country travel to the hunting season may not be an effective minimization measure for managing the overall direct and indirect impacts to populations of sensitive plants. The magnitude of direct and indirect impacts of road and motorized trail use on sensitive plants depends on numerous factors, including but not limited to the type of road or trail, its current condition, the level and timing of use, the type and frequency of maintenance, the proximity of sensitive plant species to the road or trail, the life form of the plant (for example, herb, shrub or tree), and the timing of flowering and seed dispersal relative to road use. The complexity of these factors makes the analysis of potential impacts to particular species of sensitive plant species particularly challenging. This analysis focuses mainly on the acreage of occupied and potential habitat that may be subject to direct and indirect effects and considers those acreages in the context of baseline data for each species. Relative to the other alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 4 and the application of the MBGR option to Alternative 2 would result in dramatically higher affected acreages for both occupied and potential sensitive plant species habitat due to the cross-country travel components within each design. The impacts to the habitats and populations of sensitive plant species through soil compaction (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), habitat fragmentation (Kwak et al. 1998, Wilcove et al. 1998), proliferation of dispersed camping, and spread of invasive weeds (Wilcove et al. 1998) would be commonalities between these alternatives. In comparison to Alternative 1, indirect impacts for Alternatives 2 (without the MBGR option), 3, and 5 would decrease since cross-country motorized travel, except for permitted activities, would cease. However, the threat of impacts through future noxious weed invasion still exists for those routes not being added to the FTS unless access to them is barred and they are reclaimed. The total acreages of all R4 sensitive plant species within the project area that are subject to the direct and indirect effects discussed above range from slightly more than 3,500 in occupied habitat to nearly 450,000 in potential habitat under the MBGR option. These acreages would remain the same for MBGR of elk or elk and deer combined, but the average number of potential trips would be lower for elk than for elk and deer combined (140 for elk only vs. 1,180 for elk and deer combined).

163 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 63. Summary Determinations for Region 4 Sensitive Plant Species with Mitigation Measures Applied7. Present within Alt. 2 w/ Common Species Project Alt. 1 Alt. 2 MBGR Alt. 3 Alt.4 Alt. 5 Name Area Option Y/N Antennaria Meadow Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) arcuata pussytoes Astragalus Lamoille robbinsii var. Canyon Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) occidentalis milkvetch Boechera Grouse Creek N MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) falcatoria rockcress Botrychium Upswept N MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) MI (NT) ascendens moonwort Botrychium Dainty Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) crenulatum moonwort Eriogonum Sunflower douglasii var. Flats Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) elkoense buckwheat Eriogonum Lewis’ Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) lewisii buckwheat Lathyrus Grimes Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) grimesii vetchling Phacelia Least Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) minutissima phacelia Ruby Primula Mountain Y MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) capillaris primrose Silene Nachlinger’s MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT)* MI (NT) Y nachlingerae catchfly Trifolium MI (NT)* MI (NT)* MI (NT) MI (NT) Leiberg clover Y MI (NT) MI (NT)* leibergii Effects determination •WN: will not affect this species. •MI (NT): May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability the populations of this species •MI (T): May impact individuals or habitats and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations. 3.11.3.1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Protocols The impacts of existing travel routes and their associated activities on documented occurrences of sensitive plant species on the Mountain City, Jarbidge, and Ruby Mountains Ranger Districts is unknown, and the lack of data on population trends of sensitive plant species introduces a high degree of uncertainty into the assessment of the potential impacts of the alternatives. A mitigation strategy that incorporates monitoring and a stepwise approach to addressing impacts is required to ensure that impacts to sensitive plant species would not exceed those assessed in this document. The strategy outlined in appendix B would be implemented to mitigate the potential

7 * The effects determinations for these species under these alternatives rely very heavily on complete implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Appendix B. However, application of the recommended measures over all areas proposed for MBGR may not be practicable unless additional funding became available, outside resources were used to accomplish the mitigation, or the acreage of the MBGR area were reduced from what is presented in this document.

164 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement impacts of this project. The mitigation measures and monitoring protocols outlined in appendix B would be implemented the first season after the decision is made on this project. At the minimum level, monitoring would be employed to determine effects on sensitive species. If monitoring results indicated that impacts could lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability of populations of R4 sensitive plants, measures listed in the intermediate level would be implemented. If these were ineffective, measures at the advanced level would be implemented. The appropriateness of any particular measure beyond the minimum level would be assessed jointly by the Northeast Zone botanist and district or forest employees with expertise in the measure, would be based on site specific conditions, and may require additional environmental analysis. Because MBGR greatly increases the acreage over which monitoring and mitigation would be required, the mitigation strategy in appendix B takes a different approach to areas within the 30 meter buffer of NFS routes and those outside that area but within the 1.0 mile wide area for each alternative that incorporates MBGR. These differences represent an attempt to decrease the area requiring monitoring while focusing efforts on those areas subject to the greatest impacts from MBGR. Potential effects to areas within the 30-meter buffer of NFS roads would be mitigated as shown in appendix B for high risk, moderate risk, and low and very low risk species. For areas outside the 30-meter buffer but within the 1-mile MBGR corridor, mitigation would be as described in the last row of appendix B. Hunting data would be tracked annually. Surveys of occupied R4 species habitat would occur annually within the three units with the highest harvest rates, every other year within the two units with the next highest harvest rates, and every third year within the two remaining units with the lowest harvest rates. Based on impacts, a qualified specialist would classify individual populations to the appropriate risk level, and monitoring and mitigation would be implemented for the corresponding risk level as outlined in appendix B. Restricting road maintenance in occupied habitat is critical. In most situations where populations of sensitive plant species have high risk routes, individual plants often grow between wheel tracks and on the shoulders of the routes. Re-grading the soil surface in any of these situations would eliminate potentially key members and likely result in a loss in viability of local populations. Soil disturbance caused by road maintenance would also increase erosion from wind and water and change hydrology for these populations and create the same threats to their viability. Restricted use during critical periods such as muddy conditions, flowering periods, and seed development would also minimize the effects of high risk routes. Establishing baselines and the respective monitoring frequencies and durations must be implemented if the effects of routes, at all risk levels, and associated activities are to be reduced in future mitigations. 3.11.3.2 Meadow Pussytoes Threats: The limited amount of genetic diversity within the species compared to other species of pussytoes (Bayer 1992) increases the threats to this species. Genetic diversity is dependent upon the ratio of male and female plants within a population. If a population only has one gender, the only means of reproduction is through vegetative propagation. This can create whole communities that are genetically identical and highly susceptible to local extirpation caused by climatic conditions and epidemics. Also, limited habitat makes meadow pussytoes vulnerable to habitat degradation or loss (Mancuso 1996). “Meadow pussytoes had been under consideration for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act from 1975 to 1996. Based on the absence of significant downward population trends, and survey work in Wyoming [which only has 20 known occurrences from a single county], where most populations are known, meadow pussytoes was not recommended for federal listing” (Mancuso 1996). However, Nevada represents one of three disjunct areas and the population trends have never been known (Morefield 2001). Livestock grazing and trampling, water diversions and impoundments, and resulting long-term hydrology

165 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement alterations, hay mowing, competition with invasive weeds, mineral extraction developments (Morefield 2001) are also effects common to populations of this species. Meadow pussytoes appears to decrease in areas with tall or dense vegetation cover. Colonies within BLM exclosures have declined or been locally extirpated where grazing has been prevented and the vegetation is notably denser and taller. High vegetation cover may also promote greater water retention in the soil, creating microsites too wet for meadow pussytoes. Several Wyoming colonies have also declined over time where shrubs have replaced the graminoid plant community. In Wyoming, meadow pussytoes is often found with small leaf bentgrass in hummocky habitats. Small leaf bentgrass generally replaces meadow pussytoes on drier hummock tops and on wetter soil sites. Changes in soil moisture retention capacity, either through increased vegetation density or soil compaction, may favor small leaf bentgrass at many sites (Fertig 1996, NatureServe 2008). Although this species was not recommended for federal listing in 1996 (Mancuso 1996), Nevada represents one of three disjunct areas occupied by this species, and its population trends have never been known (Morefield 2001). This species is of limited genetic diversity (Bayer 1992) and is currently classified as critically imperiled by NatureServe.

Table 64. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for meadow pussytoes by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 172 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 31,948 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 1 23.2 70 1,490 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 1 23.2 66 1,369 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 13 154.0 460 13,000 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 1 23.2 44 897 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 11 154.0 367 13,115 Alternative 5: Reduced 1 23.2 57 1,190 Resource Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.2.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only 23.2 acres of occupied habitat and 1,490 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer of all routes under Alternative 1, all populations of meadow pussytoes within the 172 acres of occupied habitat and 31,984 acres of potential habitat across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of this species, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. 3.11.3.2.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of meadow pussytoes that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 121 acres relative to Alternative 1 (table 64).

166 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option would increase the affected area to 154 acres and 13,000 acres in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.2.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of meadow pussytoes that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 593 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 64). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.2.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the acreage of occupied habitat of meadow pussytoes that may be affected by 130.8 and increase the acreage of potential habitat that may be affected by 11,625 when compared to Alternative 1 (table 64). Individuals or habitats of meadow pussytoes would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.2.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would not change the acres of occupied habitat potentially affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 300 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 64). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.3. Lamoille Canyon Milkvetch Threats: Habitat outside the wilderness area is vulnerable to recreational use and development, livestock grazing and trampling that result in long-term habitat degradation, road construction and maintenance, and possible mineral exploration and development. Potential habitat for this plant occurs throughout the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. There is no predictive computer model for Lamoille Canyon milkvetch; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report were used to determine the effects.

167 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 65. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Lamoille Canyon milkvetch by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 618 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 5,331 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 4.4 113.4 10.1 617 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 4.4 97.1 12.7 346 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 25.0 321.0 345.0 2,508 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 3.1 69.7 7.3 187 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 20.0 321.0 252.0 2,336 Alternative 5: Reduced 3.5 78.4 7.8 212 Resource Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only 135.5 acres of occupied habitat and 617 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer of all routes under Alternative 1, all populations of Lamoille Canyon milkvetch within the 618 acres of occupied habitat and 5,331 acres of potential habitat across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of this species and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. 3.11.3.3.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 16.4 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 272 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 65). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option would increase the affected area to 321 acres and 2,508 acres in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.3.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat of Lamoille Canyon milkvetch that may be affected by 43.8 acres and would decrease the acreage of potential habitat that may be affected by 430 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 65). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species.

168 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.3.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 208 acres and increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 1,719 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 65). Individuals or habitats of Lamoille Canyon milkvetch would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.3.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 35.1 acres and would decrease the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 405 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 65). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.4. Grouse Creek Rockcress Threats: Identified risks include grazing and trampling by livestock and wildlife, competition from invasive weeds, road maintenance, fuel treatments, recreation, and mining activities. Potential habitat for this plant occurs throughout the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. There is no predictive computer model for Grouse Creek rockcress; therefore the parameters found in the Botany Specialist Report would be used to determine the effects. Until recently it was believed that this species occupied less than 200 acres in a small area of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. Currently there is a debate between experts as to the proper identification of the individuals within those occurrences. For the purposes of this analysis, acreages containing those populations were considered as potential habitat for this species until more information can be gathered.

Table 66. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Grouse Creek rockcress by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 0 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 55,425 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0 0 35.5 1,151 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0 0 34.6 832 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 0 12 256.0 6,129 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0 0 16.3 391 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 0 12 316.0 5,743 Alternative 5: Reduced 0 0 21.0 503 Resource Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.4.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only approximately 1,151 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer of all routes under Alternative 1, all 55,425 acres of potential habitat across the Ruby Mountains

169 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ranger District would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use (table 66). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of Grouse Creek rockcress, but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations. 3.11.3.4.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of Grouse Creek rockcress that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 319 acres less than Alternative 1 (table 66). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitats of Grouse Creek rockcress because the presence of routes and trails in potential habitat but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 6,129 in potential habitat. Determination: It may impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.4.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of Grouse Creek rockcress that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 760 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 66). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 3 may impact individuals or habitats of Grouse Creek rockcress but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.4.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of Grouse Creek rockcress that may be affected and would increase the acreage of potential habitat that may be affected by 4,978 acres compared to Alternative 1 (table 66). Individuals or habitats of Grouse Creek rockcress would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 4 is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Grouse Creek rockcress. 3.11.3.4.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of Grouse Creek rockcress that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 648 acres compared to Alternative 1 (table 66). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitats of Grouse Creek rockcress because the presence of routes and trails in potential habitat but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species.

170 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.5. Upswept Moonwort Threats: Identified risks to upswept moonwort include noxious weeds, mechanical vegetation treatments and fuels reduction activities, prescribed fire, reforestation, effects associated with travel routes (see cumulative effects section), grazing and stock trampling, catastrophic fire, changes in vegetation from the lack of fire, fire suppression activities, recreational activities including off-road vehicles, trails/hikers, camping, mining, flooding, hydrologic alterations, and collection (USDA FS 2001). Small populations are more vulnerable to random events. Several springs within the project area have been modified, and activities from livestock and recreation have altered the vegetation and soil. Some springs and associated riparian areas have also been colonized by invasive weeds. The extent of the degraded springs is unknown. Although above ground populations of moonworts are subject to impacts from activities such as fire, grazing, herbicides, and timber harvest, it is believed that these plants are actually fairly resilient and will usually recover following disturbance (Johnson-Groh and Lee 2002). Because reproduction and juvenile recruitment occur below ground, protecting the below ground environment, in particular the mycorrhizal relationship between fungi and moonworts, is critical to overall survivorship of these ferns (Johnson-Groh and Lee 2002, Johnson-Groh et al. 2002). Activities that reduce shading, alter soil moisture, or disrupt the organic matter could affect the mycorrhizal community. In Nevada, moonwort species are often found in seeps and springs and associated meadow complexes. These areas are often visited by recreation users and can be popular destinations. The impacts from livestock grazing and water developments have changed the vegetation, soil properties, and available water in these systems. Disturbance in riparian areas can facilitate the introduction of invasive species. The same types of impacts are also created by road maintenance, fuel treatments, and mining activities. There are no known occurrences of upswept moonwort within the project area. Potential habitats for these species occur throughout the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There is no predictive computer model for moonwort species; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report were used to determine the effects.

Table 67. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for upswept moonwort by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 0 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 3,171 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0 0 35.4 179 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0 0 34.2 50 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 0 0 86.0 415 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0 0 15.4 33 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 0 0 61.0 364 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource 0 0 30.2 39 Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer

171 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.5.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only 179 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer of all routes under Alternative 1, all 3,171 acres of potential habitat for this species would continue to be vulnerable to the impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of this species, but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. 3.11.3.5.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of upswept moonwort that may be affected and would decrease the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 129 acres relative to Alternative 1 (table 67). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitats of upswept moonwort but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option would increase the amount of potential habitat affected to 415 acres. Determination: This alternative may impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.5.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would not change the acres of occupied habitat of upswept moonwort that may be affected and would decrease the acres of potential habitat that may be affected by 146 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 67). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 3 may impact individuals or habitats of upswept moonwort but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.5.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of upswept moonwort that may be affected and would increase the acreage of potential habitat that may be affected by 185 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 67). Individuals or habitats of upswept moonwort would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: Although individuals or habitats of upswept moonwort would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in potential habitat, no occupied habitat would be affected and the implementation of Alternative 4 is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.5.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of upswept moonwort that may be affected and would decrease the acreage of potential habitat by 140 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 67). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitats of upswept moonwort but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species.

172 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.6. Dainty Moonwort Threats to dainty moonwort are the same as for upswept moonwort. In Nevada, moonwort species are often found in seeps and springs and associated meadow complexes. These areas are often visited by recreation users and can be popular destinations. The impacts from livestock grazing and water developments have changed the vegetation, soil properties, and available water in these systems. Disturbance in riparian areas can allow for the introduction of invasive species. The same types of impacts are created by road maintenance, fuel treatments, and mining activities.

Table 68. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for dainty moonwort by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 80 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 8,184 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0.3 5.6 31.6 1,101 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0.3 5.6 30.5 706 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 3.0 10.0 756.0 4,974 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0.3 5.6 16.9 406 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 3.0 10.0 568.0 4,613 Alternative 5: Reduced 0.3 5.6 21.6 513 Resource Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.6.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only 5.6 acres of occupied habitat and 1,101 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer of all routes under Alternative 1, all populations of dainty moonwort within the 80 acres of occupied habitat and 8,184 acres of potential habitat for this species would continue to be vulnerable to the impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of this species, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for populations of dainty moonwort. 3.11.3.6.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would not change the acreage of occupied or potential habitat of dainty moonwort that may be affected when compared with Alternative 1 (table 68). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 10 and 4,974 in occupied and potential habitat, respectively. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species.

173 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.6.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would not change the acreage of occupied or potential habitat of dainty moonwort that may be affected relative to Alternative 1 (table 68). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.6.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat of dainty moonwort that may be affected by 4.4 acres and would increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 3,512 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 68). Individuals or habitats of dainty moonwort would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.6.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would not change the acreage of occupied or potential habitat that may be affected when compared to Alternative 1 (table 68). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.7. Sunflower Flats Buckwheat Threats: Identified risks include grazing and trampling by livestock and wildlife, competition from invasive weeds, road maintenance, fuel treatments, recreation, and mining activities. Potential habitat for this plant occurs throughout the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There is no predictive computer model for Sunflower Flats buckwheat; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report would be used to determine the effects. This species has a global ranking of G5T1S1 and is considered “critically imperiled” range-wide. Due to the wide range and magnitude of threats to this species, it should be considered as a candidate for future federal listing as a threatened or endangered species. The viability of this species is questionable and should be closely monitored.

Table 69. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Sunflower Flats buckwheat by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 44 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 228,437 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0.6 8.9 541.0 12,620 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0.6 8.8 493.8 11,090 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 4.5 44.0 1,069.0 128,012 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0.6 8.8 268.6 6,002 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 3.4 44.0 853.0 123,060

174 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 69. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Sunflower Flats buckwheat by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 44 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 228,437 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 5: Reduced 0.6 8.8 392.5 8,808 Resource Impacts 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.7.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only approximately 8.9 acres of occupied habitat and 12,620 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer under Alternative 1, all 44 acres of occupied habitat and 228,437 acres of potential habitat across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use (table 69). Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of Sunflower Flats buckwheat, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations. 3.11.3.7.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 0.1 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 1,530 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 69). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 44 and 128,012 in occupied and potential habitat respectively. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species 3.11.3.7.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 0.1 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 6,618 acres compare with Alternative 1 (table 69). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.7.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 35.1 acres and increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 110,440 acres compared to Alternative 1 (table 69). Individuals or habitats of Sunflower flats buckwheat would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat.

175 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Sunflower Flats buckwheat. 3.11.3.7.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 0.1 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 3,812 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 69). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Sunflower Flats buckwheat. 3.11.3.8. Lewis’ Buckwheat Threats: Seventy-six percent (76%) of the known sites have evidence of anthropogenic impacts (Morefield 2001). Mineral exploration and development have occurred near known sites. In the Independence Mountains, exploration activities have impacted sites through exploration road construction (Anderson 1996). Due to the ridge-line habitat, several sites are bisected or impacted by routes (Morefield 2001). Communication sites are also located on the high-elevation ridge-lines as seen at the Pennsylvania Hill site. Ridge-lines can also serve as convenient sites for staging and fire suppression activities. The sites in the Klondyke area were impacted by a wildland fire in 1992. Construction of fire lines and access routes were created through the known site. Activities associated with livestock grazing have also impacted sites on the Forest (Anderson 1996, Morefield 2001, Smith and Curto 1995). Due to the sparse vegetation, herbivory damage from livestock is low, but the ground disturbance from concentrative activities or bands of sheep can be substantial. Sheep herding will also occur on ridge-lines. Placement of salt blocks in several sites including the Klondyke area has impacted plants and habitat (Anderson 1996). Recreational activities such as OHV use and dispersed camping and parking for hunting also represent a threat to this species through soil disturbance and compaction. Lewis’ buckwheat sites are also small and isolated at high-elevations making them susceptible to local extinction events. Potential habitat for this plant occurs throughout the Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Districts. Results from the predictive computer model for Lewis’ buckwheat were used to determine effects (Botany Specialist Report).

Table 70. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Lewis’ buckwheat by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 1,757 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 62,332 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 10.3 239 153 3,568 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 9.9 229 143 3,239 Alternative 2: Proposed Action with 47.0 727 672 44,569 MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 4.8 113 58 1,353 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 46.0 737 532 23,635 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource 7.3 171 101 2,314 Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer2 0.5 mile buffer

176 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.8.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only approximately 239 acres of occupied habitat and 3,568 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer under Alternative 1, all 1,757 acres of occupied habitat and 62,332 acres of potential habitat across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of Lewis’ buckwheat, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations. 3.11.3.8.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 10 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 329 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 70). Determination: Implementation of Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitats of Lewis’ buckwheat because the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 727 and 44,568 in occupied and potential habitat respectively. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Lewis’ buckwheat. 3.11.3.8.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 126 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 2,215 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 70). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Lewis’ buckwheat. 3.11.3.8.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 1,182 acres and increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 33,927 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 70). Individuals or habitats of Lewis’ buckwheat would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Lewis’ buckwheat. 3.11.3.8.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 68 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 1,254 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 70). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Lewis’ buckwheat.

177 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.9. Grimes’ Vetchling Threats: Identified risks include mineral exploration and development, slope destabilization and erosion caused by routes and other disturbances, road maintenance, concentrated trampling by livestock or feral horses, fire hazards and/or competition with invasive weed species, and declines in insect pollinator populations (Morefield 2001). Recreational activities such as OHV use and dispersed camping and parking for hunting also represent a threat to this species through soil disturbance and compaction. Potential habitat for Grimes’ vetchling exists throughout the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There is no predictive computer model for Grimes’ vetchling; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report would be used to determine the effects.

Table 71. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Grimes’ vetchling by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 1,298 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 388,369 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 1.8 37.6 919 21,692 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 1.5 26.9 835 18,707 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 14.8 149.0 1,114 185,293 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0.9 113.0 425 9,427 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 15.1 166.0 876 117,054 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource 0.9 13.5 631 14,121 Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.9.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only approximately 37.6 acres of occupied habitat and 21,692 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer under Alternative 1, all 1,298 acres of occupied habitat and 388,369 acres of potential habitat across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of this species, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for Grimes’ vetchling. 3.11.3.9.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 10.7 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 2,985 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 71). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Grimes’ vetchling. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 149 and 185,293 in occupied and potential habitat respectively.

178 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Grimes’ vetchling. 3.11.3.9.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 0.9 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 12,265 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 71). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Grimes’ vetchling. 3.11.3.9.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 129 acres and increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 95,362 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 71). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Grimes’ vetchling. 3.11.3.9.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 24.1 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 7,570 acres when compared with Alternative 1 (table 71). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Grimes’ vetchling. 3.11.3.10. Least Phacelia Threats: Threats to least phacelia in Nevada include mineral exploration and development, livestock trampling and grazing, water developments and diversions, and competition with invasive weeds (Morefield 2001). On the Mountain City Ranger District, negative impacts are associated with mining and wholesale filling of entire drainages with mine tailings (Smith and Curto 1995). Researchers have also noted that there was evidence of long term and ongoing negative impacts to least phacelia by livestock trampling. Continuous trampling can lead to compaction of soils, which reduces water infiltration and increases erosion (Smith and Curto 1995). Least phacelia populations can be detrimentally affected by surface shear and vertical soil displacement (Smith and Curto 1995) which sometimes result from recreational activities. These riparian and spring areas can be invaded by aggressive native or exotic plants that may adversely affect the least phacelia populations. Impacts from grazing have been noted throughout the range of least phacelia, and heavy grazing has been shown to reduce the vigor of this species (Atwood 1997). Potential habitat for this least phacelia occurs throughout the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There is no predictive computer model for least phacelia; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report would be used to determine the effects. The analysis of potential effects to this species is complicated by a lack of sufficient data to determine population trends and an appropriate threshold for impacted acres. Because this species is typically found in small, discrete micro-sites that can be separated by great distances,

179 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement impacts to a population may dramatically increase the risk for local extirpation. There is also insufficient data to develop population trends or an appropriate threshold for impacted acres.

Table 72. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for least phacelia by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 3,228 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 14,916 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 9.6 340 63.0 1,724 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 11.3 258 59.5 1,400 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 72.2 1,739 1,029.0 9,646 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 5.3 124 39.3 956 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 64.7 1,840 815.0 9,430 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource 6.7 154 46.9 1,130 Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.10.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only 340 acres of occupied habitat and 1,724 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer of all routes under Alternative 1, all populations of least phacelia within the 3,228 acres of occupied habitat and 14,916 acres of potential habitat across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of least phacelia, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations. 3.11.3.10.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would increase the acres of occupied habitat potentially affected by 1.7 but decrease in potential habitat by 82 when compared to Alternative 1 (table 72). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 1,739 and 9,646 in occupied and potential habitat respectively. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.10.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 216 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 768 acres when compared with Alternative 1 (table 72).

180 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 73. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Ruby Mountain primrose by alternative within the project area.

181 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.11.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are no acres of occupied habitat and 1,861 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer under Alternative 1, all 46 acres of occupied habitat and 159,845 acres of potential habitat across the Ruby Mountains Ranger District would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of Ruby Mountain primrose, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations. 3.11.3.11.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 1,241 acres when compared with Alternative 1 (table 73). Determination: Implementation of the proposed alternative may impact individuals or habitats of Ruby Mountains primrose because the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat and is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 8 and 4,894 in occupied and potential habitat respectively. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Ruby Mountain primrose. 3.11.3.11.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 1,514 acres when compared with Alternative 1 (table 73). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 3 may impact individuals or habitats of Ruby Mountains primrose because the presence of roads and trails in potential habitat but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.11.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 8 acres and increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 3,033 acres relative to Alternative 1 (table 73). Individuals or habitats of Ruby Mountain primrose would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Ruby Mountain primrose. 3.11.3.11.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 1,492 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 73). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitats of Ruby Mountains primrose because the presence of roads

182 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and trails in potential habitat but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.12. Nachlinger Catchfly Threats: Construction and maintenance of the Cave Mountain electronic site has impacted plants and habitat of Nachlinger’s catchfly. Other impacts include OHV and dispersed recreation at the Cave Mountain electronic site (Holland 1999). There is no predictive computer model for Nachlinger’s catchfly; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report were used to determine the effects.

Table 74. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Nachlinger’s catchfly by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 3.7 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 72,337 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0 0 24.6 832 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0 0 23.6 563 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 1 12 328.0 4,492 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0 0 12.1 286 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 1 12 230.0 4,188 Alternative 5: Reduced 0 0 14.3 339 Resource Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.12.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are no acres of occupied habitat and 617 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer of all routes under Alternative 1, all populations of Nachlinger’s catchfly within the 13 acres of occupied habitat and 72,337 acres of potential habitat across the Ruby Mountains Ranger District would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of Nachlinger’s catchfly, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. 3.11.3.12.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of Nachlinger’s catchfly that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 269 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 74). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of the proposed alternative may impact individuals or habitats of Nachlinger’s catchfly but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 12 and 4,492 in occupied and potential habitat respectively.

183 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.12.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of Nachlinger’s catchfly that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 546 acres when compared with Alternative 1 (table 74). The analysis of potential effects to this species is complicated by a lack of sufficient data to determine population trends and an appropriate threshold for impacted acres. Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 3 may impact individuals or habitats of Nachlinger’s catchfly but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.12.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 1 acres and increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 3,356 acres when compared to Alternative 1 (table 74). Individuals or habitats of Nachlinger’s catchfly would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.12.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would not change the acreage of occupied habitat of Nachlinger’s catchfly that may be affected and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 493 acres compared to Alternative 1 (table 74). Determination: Because no occupied habitat would be affected, implementation of Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitats of Nachlinger’s catchfly because the presence of routes and trails in potential habitat but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. 3.11.3.13. Leiberg Clover Threats: Identified threats include off-highway vehicles, cattle trails through habitat, recreation, mineral exploration, and possible threats to native pollinators (CPC 2004, Morefield 2001). Grazing may not be a major threat because Leiberg’s clover grows and sets seed early in the year, and also because it grows in areas where cattle forage is sparse (CPC 2004). However, grazing may impact Leiberg clover through trampling and livestock trailing through populations (CPC 2004, Smith and Curto 1995). Because occupied Leiberg clover sites are small and isolated, the sites may be subject to random extinction events. Potential habitat for this plant occurs throughout the Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Districts. Results from the predictive computer model for Leiberg clover were used to determine effects (Botany Specialist Report).

184 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 75. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for Leiberg clover by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat

(acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat

(acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 2.4 48.8 196 4,837 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 1.3 22.9 179 3,943 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 14.8 343.0 426 44,713 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0.7 7.9 62.8 1,251 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 11.3 407.0 319 39,290 Alternative 5: Reduced 0.7 7.9 126 2,719 Resource Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.13.1. Alternative 1: No Action Although there are only 48.8 acres of occupied habitat and 4,837 acres of potential habitat within a 30 meter buffer under Alternative 1, all 1,107 acres of occupied habitat and 142,686 acres of potential habitat across the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts would continue to be vulnerable to the direct and indirect impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. Determination: Implementation of Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitats of Leiberg clover, and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations. 3.11.3.13.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 25.9 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 894 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 75). Determination: Implementation of Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitats of Leiberg clover because the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat and is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of this species. Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres to 343 and 44,713 in occupied and potential habitat respectively. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Leiberg clover. 3.11.3.13.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 40.9 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 3,586 acres when compared with Alternative 2 (table 75). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Leiberg clover.

185 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.13.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the area of occupied habitat that may be affected by 358 acres and increase the area of potential habitat that may be affected by 34,453 acres compared with Alternative 4 (table 75). Individuals or habitats of Leiberg clover would continue to be impacted due to the presence of roads and trails in occupied and potential habitat. Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Leiberg clover. 3.11.3.13.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the extent of occupied habitat that may be affected by 40.9 acres and would decrease the extent of potential habitat that may be affected by 2,118 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 75). Determination: The application of mitigation measures described in appendix B could reduce impacts so that this alternative may impact individuals or habitats but is not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the populations of Leiberg clover. 3.11.3.14. Scorpion Milkvetch Threats: Scorpion milkvetch is widespread throughout the state and is known to colonize disturbances including road sides and two-track routes. The habitats have been impacted by livestock grazing, pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush, road development and maintenance, and OHV use throughout the range of this species. Potential habitat for scorpion milkvetch occurs throughout the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. There is no predictive computer model for scorpion milkvetch; therefore the elevation and vegetation community parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report were used to determine the effects.

Table 76. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for scorpion milkvetch by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 83 (acres) Routes through Occupied Habitat Routes through Potential Habitat Potential Habitat within 30 Meter Buffer within 30 Meter Buffer 438,965 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0.2 5.8 576 18,093 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0.2 3.0 365 13,454 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 1.6 8.0 586 116,489 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0.2 3.0 225 5,335 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 1.6 8.0 410 109,239 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource 0.2 3.0 372 8,678 Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.14.1. Alternative 1: No Action All populations of scorpion milkvetch within the 83 acres of occupied habitat as well as the 438,965 acres potential habitat would continue to be vulnerable to the impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use.

186 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.14.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would reduce the acreage of occupied habitat of scorpion milkvetch that may be affected by 2.8 acres. It also would reduce the affected acreage within potential habitat by 4,639 acres compared to Alternative 1 (table 76). Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected acres by 22.2 and 247,360 in occupied and potential habitat, respectively. 3.11.3.14.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would reduce the acreage of occupied scorpion milkvetch habitat potentially affected by 2.8 acres compared with Alternative 2. It also would reduce the affected area within potential habitat by 12,758 acres (table 76). 3.11.3.14.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the acreage of occupied habitat of scorpion milkvetch that may be affected by 8.2 acres and would increase the acreage of potential habitat that may be affected by 162,654 acres compared with Alternative 1 (table 76). However, the threat of impacts through future noxious weed invasion still exist for those routes not being added to the travel management plan unless access to them is barred and they are reclaimed. 3.11.3.14.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the acreages of occupied habitat and potential habitat of scorpion milkvetch that may be affected by 2.8 acres and 9,415 acres, respectively, when compared with Alternative 1 (table 76). 3.11.3.15. Ball Whitlow-grass Potential habitat for ball whitlow-grass occurs throughout the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There is no predictive computer model for ball whitlow-grass; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report will be used to determine the effects.

Table 77. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for ball whitlow-grass by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 89 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 732,481 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0.6 12.7 211 8,055 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0.2 2.2 206 4,802 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 4.3 5.1 724 43,913 with MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0.1 2.2 82.8 1,997 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 5.3 5.1 523 39,667 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource 0.2 2.2 123 2,944 Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer 2 0.5 mile buffer 3.11.3.15.1. Alternative 1: No Action All populations of ball whitlow-grass within the 89 acres of occupied habitat and the 732,481 acres of potential habitat would continue to be vulnerable to the impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use.

187 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.15.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the acreages of occupied and potential habitat of ball whitlow-grass that may be affected by 10.5 acres and 3,253 acres, respectively, compared with Alternative 1 (table 77). Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected areas by 30.3 acres and 107,228 acres in occupied and potential habitat, respectively. 3.11.3.15.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the acreages of occupied and potential habitat of ball whitlow-grass that may be affected by 10.5 acres and 6,058 acres, respectively, compared with Alternative 1 (table 77). However, the threat of impacts through future noxious weed invasion still exists for those routes not being added to the travel management plan unless access to them is barred and they are reclaimed. 3.11.3.15.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 5 would increase the acreages of occupied habitat and potential habitat of ball whitlow-grass that may be affected by 30.3 acres and 93,695 acres, respectively, when compared with Alternative 1 (table 77). However, the threat of impacts through future noxious weed invasion still exists for those routes not being added to the travel management plan unless access to them is barred and they are reclaimed. 3.11.3.15.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impact Alternative 5 would decrease the acreages of occupied and potential habitat of ball whitlow-grass that may be affected by 10.5 acres and 5,111 acres, respectively, when compared with Alternative 1 (table 77). However, the threat of impacts through future noxious weed invasion still exists for those routes not being added to the travel management plan unless access to them is barred and they are reclaimed. 3.11.3.16. Broad Fleabane Threats: Other threats include grazing and trampling by livestock and wildlife, competition from invasive weeds, road maintenance, fuel treatments, recreation, and mining activities. Potential habitat for this plant occurs throughout the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. There is no predictive computer model for broad fleabane; therefore the parameters listed in the Botany Specialist Report will be used to determine the effects.

Table 78. Affected acres of occupied and potential rare plant habitat for broad fleabane by alternative within the project area.

Occupied Habitat 68 (acres) Routes through Routes through Potential Habitat Occupied Habitat Potential Habitat 256,443 (acres) Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Alternative 1: No Action1 0.8 17.2 11.8 14,728 Alternative 2: Proposed Action1 0.8 16.8 11.7 13,003 Alternative 2: Proposed Action with 11.7 44.6 580.0 143,204 MBGR Option2 Alternative 3: Current System1 0.2 3.0 8.3 7,427 Alternative 4: Visitor Map2 9.3 44.6 475.0 137,532 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource 0.8 16.8 11.7 10,428 Impacts1 1 30-meter buffer2 0.5 mile buffer

188 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.3.16.1. Alternative 1: No Action All populations within the 68 acres of occupied habitat of broad fleabane and the 256,443 acres of potential habitat would continue to be vulnerable to the impacts of cross-county motor vehicle use. 3.11.3.16.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would decrease the acreages of occupied and potential habitat of broad fleabane that may be affected by 0.4 acres and 1,725 acres, respectively, when compared with Alternative 1 (table 78). Alternative 2 with the MBGR option applied would increase the affected areas by 33.8 acres and 180,696 acres in occupied and potential habitat, respectively. 3.11.3.16.3. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would decrease the acreages of occupied and potential habitat of broad fleabane that may be affected by 14.2 acres and 7,301 acres, respectively, when compared with Alternative 1 (table 78). 3.11.3.16.4. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would increase the acreages of occupied and potential habitat of broad fleabane that may be affected by 33.8 acres and 172,904 acres, respectively, when compared with Alternative 2 (table 78). 3.11.3.16.5. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would decrease the acreages of occupied and potential habitat that may be affected by 0.4 acres and 4,300 acres, respectively, when compared with Alternative 1 (table 78). 3.11.4. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for sensitive plant species encompasses the entire Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts, including private and other public lands that lie within the district boundaries. Activities that may contribute to cumulative effects to sensitive plant species include dispersed camping, livestock grazing, the installation and operation of water diversions and impoundments, hay mowing, mineral extraction, and climate change. Dispersed camping can affect R4 sensitive plants directly and indirectly (Holland 1999). Individual plants can be crushed by foot traffic and the placement of campers and other equipment, killed during the removal of vegetation when clearing the site, and smothered by the placement of tents. This activity can create indirect effects by compacting soil, which damages the root zone of plants, inhibits water infiltration, changes in the pattern of run-off and sedimentation, and changes in the soil nutrients (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Dispersed camping can also increase dust deposition on leaves which can decrease proper physiological function, increase light which some species cannot tolerate, and disrupt pollinators, seed set, and seed banks (Kwak et al. 1998, Morefield 2001) which decreases recruitment of successive generations. Dispersed camping can also introduce and spread invasive weeds which can out- compete individuals and even displace whole populations of sensitive plant species (Taylor et al., Wilcove et al. 1998). There are many effects on R4 Sensitive plant species associated with livestock activity. Individuals can be grazed upon or killed by crushing hooves (Atwood 1997, Morefield 2001). The placement of salt blocks can increase the salinity of soils to the point of being inhospitable for plants. Salt block locations as well as water features can increase soil compaction which; damages the root zone of plants, inhibits water infiltration, changes in the pattern of run-off and

189 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement sedimentation, and changes in the soil nutrients (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Grazing and movement of livestock can also increase dust deposition on leaves which can decrease proper physiological function, increase light which some species cannot tolerate, and disrupt pollinators, seed set, and seed banks, (CPC 2004, Kwak et al. 1998, Morefield 2001) which decreases recruitment of successive generations. Livestock can also introduce and spread invasive weeds which can out-compete individuals and even displace whole populations of R4 sensitive plant species (Morefield 2001, Taylor et al., Wilcove et al. 1998). The installation of water diversions and impoundments within R4 sensitive species habitats can kill individual plants or whole populations through the removal and/or piling of soil. The operation of such features can divert water from areas where it is essential for some sensitive plant species and relocate it to other areas where increased water can destroy other sensitive plant species that are intolerant of higher soil moisture levels. (Morefield 2001) Some species prefer conditions like those found in hay meadows. The mowing of these areas can directly affect these species through the removal of individuals or whole populations (Morefield 2001). Mowing also increases light levels and decrease soil moisture for which some R4 Sensitive species may be intolerant. This activity can also disrupt the pollinators that are critical for seed production which would decrease the recruitment of successive generations of Sensitive plant species. Mineral extraction and the associated activities can affect R4 sensitive plants directly and indirectly (Morefield 2001, Smith and Curto 1995). Individual plants can be crushed by foot traffic and the placement of equipment or killed during the removal of vegetation when clearing the site. In some situations wholesale filling of entire drainages with mine tailings can kill individual plants or destroy whole populations by burying them under tons of rock. Mining activities can also increase dust deposition on leaves which can decrease proper physiological function, increase light which some species cannot tolerate, and disrupt pollinators, seed set, and seed banks (CPC 2004, Kwak et al. 1998, Morefield 2001) which decreases recruitment of successive generations. This activity can also introduce and spread invasive weeds which can out-compete individuals and even displace whole populations of sensitive plant species (Morefield 2001, Taylor et al., Wilcove et al. 1998). There is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the distribution of many plant species and their habitats in various ways (Abbott and Le Maitre 2010, Anderson and Ferree 2010, Yates et al. 2010). For R4 sensitive plant species that cannot effectively disperse to other areas or adapt quickly enough, climate change could result in loss of habitat and cause populations to be more vulnerable to stochastic events and local extirpation than they already are. 3.11.4.1. Cumulative Effects Common to All Sensitive Plant Species In the past, livestock grazing, mineral exploration and mining, fuel treatments, and road maintenance often impacted occupied and potential habitat for sensitive plant species. Currently, best management practices are used to protect these areas. Best management practices for road maintenance, mineral exploration and mining projects, fuels projects, and livestock grazing include avoidance of occupied habitats, cleaning of vehicles to reduce risk of spreading invasive species, and reduced utilization of sensitive areas. Through site-specific environmental analysis, impacts to sensitive plant occupied habitat have been avoided in past projects and will continue to be a condition of authorization for future projects. When compared to Alternative 1, cumulative impacts from implementation of any of the action alternatives would be reduced since cross-country motorized travel, except for permitted activities and MBGR if authorized, would no longer continue. The threat of impacts from unauthorized use

190 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement of undesignated routes still exists if those routes are not reclaimed or access to them is not otherwise barred. 3.11.4.2. Meadow Pussytoes Meadow pussytoes occupied habitat occurs on about 165 acres of the Mountain City Ranger District; potential habitat occurs on about 31, 984 acres. The distribution of meadow pussytoes habitat in meadow settings makes it vulnerable to activities that center around meadows, seeps, and springs. Protecting the viability of these resources is of great importance to the continuing sustainability of the ecological goods and services of the area. The acres of impacted occupied habitat would remain constant under all alternatives. Alternative 3 would reduce the possibility of effects to potential habitat over Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could be expected to expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of meadow pussytoes and an overall reduction in occupied habitat. This could also be true under Alternative 2 (with the MBGR option) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could be reduced from the cross-country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but it could still have an incremental impact on the amount and distribution of meadow pussytoes occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the acres or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.3. Lamoille Canyon Milkvetch Lamoille Canyon milkvetch occupied habitat occurs on about 618 acres of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, as does about 5,331 acres potential habitat. The distribution of habitat in meadow settings makes it vulnerable to activities that center around meadows, seeps, and springs. Protecting the viability of these resources is of great importance to the continuing sustainability of the ecological goods and services of the area. With the exception of Alternative 4, the acres of affected occupied habitat remain constant. The effects to potential habitat would be reduced under Alternative 3 when compared to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of Lamoille Canyon milkvetch and an overall reduction in occupied habitats. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.4. Grouse Creek Rockcress Grouse Creek rockcress potential habitat occurs on about 55,425 acres of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District; no occupied habitat occurs on the district. Since there would be no direct effects to individuals or populations there would be no cumulative effects from any alternative. Cumulative impacts to potential habitat are likely to occur. 3.11.4.5. Upswept Moonwort Potential habitat for upswept moonwort occurs in about 3,171 acres of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District. There is no occupied habitat on the districts. The distribution of potential

191 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement habitat in wet meadows, marshes, bogs fens in conifer forest, and near seeps and springs makes it more vulnerable as many activities occur in those types of areas. Since there is no occupied habitat for upswept moonwort on the three ranger districts, there would be no cumulative effects to this species. Cumulative effects to potential habitat may occur, but as these are typically areas protected by best management practices related to projects occurring around water resources, effects are predicted to be minor. Some use of undesignated routes may continue if they are not reclaimed or otherwise physically closed. Signage, enforcement, and education may reduce this use as compliance becomes more common place. 3.11.4.6 Sunflower Flat Buckwheat About 44 acres of occupied Sunflower Flat buckwheat occurs on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts as does an estimated 228,437 acres of potential habitat. The distribution of habitat in sandy to gravelly flats and slopes makes it vulnerable to many activities. With the exception of Alternative 4, the impacted acres in occupied habitat remain relatively constant through all the alternatives. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of Sunflower Flat buckwheat and an overall reduction in occupied habitat. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time, occupied habitat could decrease from the cross- country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but could still have an incremental impact on the acres and distribution of Sunflower Flat buckwheat occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.7. Lewis’ Buckwheat About 1,420 acres of occupied Lewis’ buckwheat exists on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts as does an estimated 63,332 acres of potential habitat. The distribution of habitat on ridgelines, knolls, and crests in shallow barren soil makes it vulnerable to many activities. With the exception of Alternative 4, the impacted acres in occupied habitat remain relatively constant through all the alternatives. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could b expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of Lewis’s buckwheat and an overall reduction in occupied habitats. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could be reduced from the cross- country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but could still have an incremental impact on the acres and distribution of Lewis’ buckwheat occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat.

192 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.4.8. Grimes’ Vetchling About 1,298 acres of occupied Grimes’ vetchling occurs on the Mountain City Ranger District as does an estimated 388,369 acres of potential habitat. The distribution of habitat on ridgelines, knolls, and crests in shallow barren soil makes it vulnerable to many activities. With the exception of Alternative 4, the impacted acres in occupied habitat remain relatively constant through all the alternatives. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of Lewis’s buckwheat and an overall reduction in occupied habitats. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could be reduced from the cross- country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but could still have an incremental impact on the acres and distribution of Grimes’ vetchling occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.9. Least Phacelia About 3,228 acres of least phacelia occupied habitat and an estimated 14,916 acres of potential habitat occurs on the Mountain City Ranger District. The distribution of habitat in meadows, seasonally wet areas, and along riparian areas makes it vulnerable to many activities. With the exception of Alternative 4, the impacted acres in occupied habitat remain relatively constant through all the alternatives. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of least phacelia and an overall reduction in occupied habitats. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could decrease from the effects of cross-country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but could still have an incremental impact on the acres and distribution of least phacelia occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.10. Ruby Mountain Primrose About 46 acres of occupied Ruby Mountain primrose habitat occurs on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District with an estimated 159,845 acres of potential habitat. The distribution of habitat in moist, seasonally saturated, loam and sandy loam on generally steep slopes provides some protection from many activities. In the past, these areas might have been impacted by livestock or mineral exploration. Because of their location, however, road construction, maintenance, or recreation activities would have a minor impact on the species. There would be no impact or very little impact to occupied habitat any alternative. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat; however, the location and setting of the habitat is not conducive to motor vehicle use.

193 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.11. Nachlinger Catchfly Nachlinger catchfly potential habitat can occur on about 72,337 acres of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District; about 3.7 acres of occupied habitat occurs on the district. The distribution of potential habitat in crevices, cracks in bedrock, or scattered cobbles on open barren ridgelines provides a level of protection from both the location of roads and cross-country travel. Since there would be no effect to occupied habitat from any alternative, no cumulative effects would be associated with this species. 3.11.4.12. Leiberg Clover About 1,107 acres of occupied Leiberg clover habitat occurs on the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts as does an estimated 142,686 acres of potential habitat. The distribution of habitat on barren hillsides and talus slopes provides some protection to this species. With the exception of Alternative 4, the amount of impacted area in occupied habitat remains relatively constant through all alternatives. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of Leiberg clover and an overall reduction in occupied habitat. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could be reduced from the cross- country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but could still have an incremental impact on the acres and distribution of Leiberg clover occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.13. Scorpion Milkvetch Scorpion milkvetch habitat can occur almost anywhere on the Ruby Mountain Ranger District. As a result, nearly all activities conducted on the district have the potential to impact scorpion milkvetch habitat. Three non-motorized trails would be open for hikers, bicycling, and stock use. These uses can impact scorpion milkvetch habitat and individual plants when the trails intersect occupied and potential habitat. Alternative 3 would decrease the possibility of effects to potential habitat over Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of scorpion milkvetch and an overall reduction in occupied habitats. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could be reduced from the cross- country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but it could still have an incremental impact on the acres and distribution of scorpion milkvetch occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat.

194 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.4.14. Ball Whitlow Grass About 89 acres of occupied and an estimated 732, 481 acres of potential ball whitlow-grass habitat occurs on the three ranger districts. The distribution of habitat along streambanks, in rocky areas, in pinyon habitat, loose scree slopes, and on calcareous (containing lime or being chalky) soils makes it vulnerable as many other activities occur in these areas. Nearly all activities conducted on the districts have a potential to impact ball whitlow-grass habitat in one way or another. All of these activities would continue under all alternatives. With the exception of Alternative 4, the impact to occupied habitat would remain relatively constant through all the alternatives. Under Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could expand into occupied habitat over time. This could result in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of ball whitlow-grass and an overall reduction in occupied habitats. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could be reduced from the cross- country motorized travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may take longer but it could still have an incremental impact on the amount and distribution of ball whitlow-grass occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the acres or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.11.4.15. Broad Fleabane The Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts contain an estimated 256,443 acres of potential and 68 acres of occupied broad fleabane habitat. The distribution of habitat in shallow, relatively barren, vernally saturated, gravelly to sandy soils or on bedrock flats and slope in volcanic scablands and benches makes it vulnerable as many activities occur in these types of areas. With the exception of Alternative 4, the impacted acres in occupied habitat remain relatively constant through all the alternatives. With Alternative 1, unauthorized routes could increase over time resulting in more direct and indirect impacts to populations of broad fleabane and an overall reduction in occupied habitats. This could also be true under the MBGR option (Alternative 2) and Alternative 4 which has the MBGR component for elk only. Over time occupied habitat could be reduced from the cross- country travel allowed under MBGR. Because of the reduced numbers of trips and vehicles when compared to Alternative 1, habitat loss may be slower but could still have an incremental impact on the amount and distribution of broad fleabane occupied habitat. When the action alternatives are considered in combination with other ongoing cumulative effects, there would be little expected change to the amount or distribution of occupied or potential habitat. 3.12. Noxious Weeds

3.12.1. Introduction The Chief of the Forest Service has determined that invasive species are one of four significant threats to forests and rangelands (USDA Forest Service 2004b). Noxious weed seed is easily transported and dispersed by wind, livestock, wildlife, recreation, and motor vehicles. Roads and trails are a major contributing factor in the proliferation of invasive plants into natural areas in the arid and semi-arid landscapes of the American West (Gelbard and Belnap 2003). Once

195 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement established, the plants spread quickly after major disturbances, such as fire. Noxious weeds produce seeds that can persist in the soil for several decades. The presence of these invaders affects many other resources, such as soil, wildlife habitat, and sensitive plants. 3.12.1.1. Analysis Methodology To predict the risk of noxious weed spread from roads, the Forest used GIS coverages of all routes and known weed infestations on the districts. A buffer of 25 percent was applied around each infested area. This buffer was based on the estimated spread of the infested sites and the tendency for people to park off the main track of a road. These areas were determined to be “high-risk” for weed infestation as related to travel routes. A buffer of five miles was mapped around each infestation point to identify the area that is at “medium-risk” for spread of weeds. 3.12.1.2. Effects Indicators The environmental effects from the expansion of noxious weeds will be measured by: • Miles of motorized trails through known infestations or high-risk areas. • Miles of motorized trails through medium-risk areas. 3.12.2. Affected Environment There are 47 plant species designated as noxious by the state of Nevada (NAC 2008). Table 79 lists some of the noxious and invasive weed species known to occur on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts and estimates of the potential rate of spread for each species and/or their estimated annual seed production per plant. The rate of spread depends upon their reproduction mechanism or the amount of disturbance to a site. Table 80 lists the species that occur on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. Existing routes present a high risk for the spread of noxious and invasive weed species. On the Mountain City Ranger District, there are 98.4 miles of roads and motorized trails through high- risk areas and 920.0 miles through medium-risk areas. On the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, there are 30.7 miles of roads and motorized trails through high-risk areas and 549.0 miles through medium-risk areas. On the Jarbidge Ranger District, there are 35.9 miles of roads and motorized routes through high-risk areas and 264.5 miles through medium-risk areas. It is particularly important to control or prevent weed invasions along transportation corridors. These areas are typically disturbed sites and are more susceptible to noxious weed establishment (DiTomaso 2000). Disturbance is a precursor to many invasions by noxious weeds (Glover 2011).

Table 79. Annual Rate of Spread or Annual Seed Production for Selected Invasive Weeds. Maximum Annual Rate of Spread or Common Name Scientific Name Maximum Annual Seed Production Black Henbane Hyoscyamus niger 10,000+ seeds/plant6 Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare 5,000+ seeds per plant4 Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 10-12%1 Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 14%1 Dalmatian Toadflax Linaria dalmatica 8-29%6 Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa 16%6 Hoary Cress / Whitetop Cardaria draba 1,200-4,800 seeds per plant2 Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula 10-12%6 Taeniatherum caput- Medusahead medusae 12%6 Musk Thistle/Nodding Plumeless Thistle Carduus nutans 12-22%1 Scotch Cottonthistle Onopordum acanthium 12-20%6 / 8,400-40,000 seeds per

196 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 79. Annual Rate of Spread or Annual Seed Production for Selected Invasive Weeds. Maximum Annual Rate of Spread or Common Name Scientific Name Maximum Annual Seed Production plant5 Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa 140,000 seeds/plant6 Yellow Starthistle Centaurea solstitalis 13-17%6 1 Duncan et.al. 2004, 2 Stougaard et.al. 1999, 3 Mitich, Larry W. 1998, 4 Graham, et.al. Undated. 5 Young and Evans 1969, 6Duncan and Clark, 2005. The noxious weed infestations on the Mountain City Ranger District are found mostly in scattered concentrations along the most traveled roads and motorized trails and along streams. These infestations occur at the lower elevations often near or in riparian areas and routes that intrude into the canyons or valleys. There are 17 different weed species known to exist on this district within approximately 6,146 acres of infestation. Higher elevation and sloped areas tend to be mostly free of infestations. Unlike the Ruby Mountain Ranger District, the terrain on the Mountain City Ranger District does not usually provide extensive terrain barriers. This district has more of a rolling hilly topography allowing for spread outward from roads and trails. The most common weed species on this district include Canada thistle, bull thistle, and yellowspine thistle (table 80).

Table 80. Invasive Weeds Known to Occur on the Mountain City Ranger District* Common Name Scientific Name Acres Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 1,874.7 Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare 1,614.2 Yellowspine Thistle Cirsium Ochrocentrum 1,108.7 Nodding Plumeless Thistle/Musk Carduus nutans 595.8 Thistle Scotch Cottonthistle Onopordum acanthium 370.8 Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 212.2 Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula 199.5 Curly Dock Rumex crispus 103.0 Hoary Cress/Whitetop Cardaria draba 34.3 Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusea 12.2 Gypsyflower Cynoglossum officinale 11.1 Black Henbane Hyoscyamus niger 3.9 Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa 2.9 Broadleaf Pepperweed Lepidium latifolium 1.4 Yellow Star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis 1.1 Dalmatian Toadflax Linaria dalmatica 0.1 Forb, annual n/a 0.1 Total Acres 6,146.0 *2010 TERRA Database The Ruby Mountains Ranger District covers the largest area and has 6,270 acres of weed infestation. This district also has the highest diversity of weeds with 22 known species. Scotch cottonthistle and Canada thistle are the most common weeds found on the district (table 81). The Ruby Mountains Ranger District is comprised of two separate but closely aligned mountain ranges, the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range extending from northeast to the southwest. This topography explains some of the distribution of weeds. The acreage of weeds is higher on the west side of the mountain ranges. The high elevations (up to 11,300 feet) of the mountains provide a formidable barrier to roads and motorized trails and the spread of many infestations. An exception to this barrier is the lower elevation Harrison Pass area. Harrison Pass

197 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement is one of the more heavily infested areas on the Ruby Mountains. This area has many NFS roads and unauthorized routes and terrain that allows for extensive cross-country travel. The Pass also provides a route for some weed species to move over the terrain barrier. There are some differences as to presence and significance of weed species between the east and west, and between the East Humboldt Range and the Ruby Mountain Range. As would be expected weed infestations are most significant at lower elevations, near streams, along the more heavily traveled roads. Roads and streams in canyons provide access for weed species to penetrate deep into interior of the ranges in various locations.

Table 81. Invasive Weeds Known to Occur on the Ruby Mountains Ranger District* Common Name Scientific Name Acres Scotch Cottonthistle Onopordum acanthium 3,073.7 Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 1,985.1 Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula 488.5 Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare 357.1 Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 88.4 Gypsyflower Cynoglossum officinale 73.4 Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusea 66.1 Curly Dock Rumex crispus 47.6 Forb, annual n/a 25.9 Nodding Plumeless Thistle/Musk Thistle Carduus nutans 23.0 Yellowspine Thistle Cirsium Ochrocentrum 13.2 Butter and Eggs Linaria vulgaris 12.8 Dyer’s Woad Isatis tinctoria 6.7 Elk Thistle Cirsium foliosum 2.7 Spotted Knapweed Centaurea biebersteinii 2.1 Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa 1.9 Poison Hemlock Conium maculatum 1.0 Hoary Cress/Whitetop Cardaria draba 0.5 Lesser Burdock Arctium minus 0.5 Broadleaf Pepperweed Lepidium latifolium 0.2 Hardheads Acroptilon repens 0.1 Dalmatian Toadflax Linaria dalmatica 0.1 Total Acres 6,270.6 *2010 TERRA Database The Jarbidge Ranger District has the least acreage and fewest species of reported weed infestations. Weed locations tend to be close to routes, mostly in lower elevations and tend to be more isolated. However, the area of reported infestations has increased significantly from 888 acres in 2008 to 4,166 acres in 2010 (72% increase). This increase is due in part to changes in reporting procedures. However, wildfire and increased public visitation have been a significant factor. Yellowspine thistle was found on this district in 2008 and has the highest individual weed species acreage of about 512 acres. After the East Slide Rock Ridge fire in 2008, the areas infested with yellowspine thistle have increase to 2,648 acres. Most of this increase is located in the northern portion of the district. After yellowspine thistle, the most prevalent species on this district is Canada thistle followed by cheatgrass (table 82). In past years, the Jarbidge Wilderness has been resistant to weed intrusion due to the lack of roads, lower use and visitation, topographic barriers and climatic conditions associated with higher elevations and slopes.

198 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 82. Invasive Weeds Known to Occur on the Jarbidge Ranger District* Common Name Scientific Name Acres Yellowspine Thistle Cirsium ochrocentrum 2,648.6 Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 1,235.8 Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 232.7 Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare 34.2 Hoary Cress / Whitetop Cardaria draba 9.0 Nodding Plumeless Thistle/Musk Carduus nutans 5.8 Thistle Total Acres 4,166.0 *2010 TERRA Database The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest uses an Integrated Pest Management System that includes inventory and mapping of weed locations. When weeds are found, treatment may include mechanical, biological, and or herbicide applications. The majority of weed species on the districts are treated with herbicides. Regardless of which alternative is selected, there will be no change in the current level of noxious weed management. Known infestations will continue to be treated with herbicides and other methods as permitted under current management direction. Inventory and mapping efforts will continue to identify new locations of noxious weeds for treatment. However treatments will have to be prioritized given the miles of NFS road and the number of mile proposed for designation. This prioritization may result in missed new emerging weed populations. 3.12.3. Environmental Consequences Table 83 is a comparison of the alternatives in relation to miles of road and motorized trail through high and medium-risk areas.

Table 83. Comparison of Alternatives in Relation to Miles of Road and Motorized Trail Through High and Medium Risk Areas. Miles of Roads and Miles of Roads and Total Miles of Roads Alternative Motorized Trails in Motorized Trails in and Motorized Trails High-risk Areas Medium-risk Areas Mountain City Ranger District Alternative 1: No Action 1,203.0 98.4 920.0 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 1,104.5 96.6 993.5 Alternative 3: Current System 599.1 90.0 496.6 Alternative 4: Visitor Map 874.8 87.5 773.7 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts 846.5 93.3 738.8 Ruby Mountains Ranger District Alternative 1: No Action 582.0 30.7 549.0 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 591.1 30.5 558.7 Alternative 3: Current System 232.2 19.1 213.1 Alternative 4: Visitor Map 141.4 23.4 388.2 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts 375.2 24.2 350.7 Jarbidge Ranger District Alternative 1: No Action 389.6 35.9 264.5 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 349.0 33.4 282.4 Alternative 3: Current System 188.9 29.4 140.4 Alternative 4: Visitor Map 277.1 32.5 218.3 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts 260.1 30.8 204.7

199 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 84 is a comparison of the alternatives with respect to the MBGR near high risk areas. The data is listed in acres with a 1.0 or 0.50 mile buffer. Motorized big game retrieval may authorize the use of motorized vehicles to retrieve a legally harvested and tagged elk or mule deer within a limited distance of 0.5 mile either side of a designated road or motorized trail within the project area. Motorized big game retrieval is an element of Alternative 4 and an option under Alternative 2. Based upon big game tags and harvest results, it was estimated that the likely number of trips cross-country for MBGR would be 140 for elk and 1,040 for deer within the project area. Motorized big game retrieval for both species would result in 1,180 trips and would increase the potential for spread and introduction of weed species under Alternative 2 if this option is selected. If MBGR for elk only is selected under Alternative 4 or Alternative 2 with the MBGR option, then there about 140 trips annually, a significant reduction in the potential for weed spread and introduction due to authorized cross-country travel. Vehicles can pick up large numbers of seeds, especially when driven off-trail, and under wet conditions (Montana State University 2011).

Table 84. Acres in High Noxious Weed Areas near Motorized Routes MBGR Route Buffers (1.0 mile buffer – 0.50 mile buffer) Mountain City Ruby Mountains Jarbidge Alternative Ranger District Ranger District Ranger District Alternative 1: No Action 6,328 4,754 4,470 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 6,182 4,443 4,420 Alternative 4: Visitor Map 6,241 4,360 4,193 3.12.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, motor vehicles would continue to be allowed to travel cross-country on approximately 990,000 acres, which increases the risk of transporting seed into non-infested areas. Noxious weed seeds could be transported to remote areas of the districts where infestations could go unnoticed and untreated for long periods. It is important to identify and treat new infestations of noxious weeds quickly in order to control the populations and limit their spread. Alternative 1 would greatly impact the current spread of noxious weeds by making uninfested areas susceptible to the spread of noxious weeds. Management and control of infestations would be difficult given the vast amount of acreage open to cross-country travel. This alternative has the highest potential to spread noxious and invasive weeds by allowing unrestricted cross-country motorized travel. Alternative 1 would leave 26.5 miles of unauthorized roads and motorized trails open for use across high risk weed areas. This alternative includes 165 miles of roads and motorized trails in high-risk areas and 1733.5 miles in medium-risk areas. Continued motor vehicle use on all these routes has the potential to spread weeds out of the high risk weed infestation areas and along the rest of the FTS. Under Alternative 1, existing travel management direction would remain in place. Vehicle class would have no effect on the spread of noxious weeds. Regardless of vehicle size, noxious weed seeds can still become attached to the vehicle and spread into non-infested areas. 3.12.3.2. Common to All Action Alternatives The action alternatives would restrict motor vehicles to designated roads and motorized trails, consistent with the Travel Management Rule. These alternatives would prohibit cross-country motorized vehicle travel eliminating one of the major methods of spreading noxious weeds into non-infested areas. This restriction is a significant improvement over Alternative 1 and would reduce potential infestations from occurring in uninfested areas.

200 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

All action alternatives would prohibit the use of motor vehicles off designed routes except in special circumstances, by permit or special vehicle types (aircraft/snowmobile/watercraft). Regardless of vehicle size, noxious weed seeds can still become attached to the vehicle and spread into non-infested areas.

Table 85. Miles of Roads and Motorized Trails in High and Medium Risk Areas by Alternative Road and Road and Total Miles Motorized Trails in Motorized Trails in Alternatives of Road and High-Risk Areas Medium Risk areas Motorized Trails (miles) Areas (miles) Alternative 1: No Action 2,171 165.0 1,733.5 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 2,042 160.5 1,834.6 Alternative 3: Current System 1,021 138.5 850.1 Alternative 4: Visitor Map 1,567 143.4 1,380.2 Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts 1,480 148.3 1,294.2 3.12.3.3. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 would designate 22 miles of unauthorized routes in high risk weed areas, a 3 percent reduction from Alternative 1. The risk of spread from the high risk area is further reduced because of the prohibition of use inconsistent with the designation. Motor vehicle use along NFS roads and motorized trails would be allowed to continue, but the areas of potential spread would be slightly reduced when compared to Alternative 1. The MBGR option would allow cross-country motorized travel to retrieve a harvested big game animal. Under this option, an ATV may be allowed to travel cross-country increasing the risk of transporting seed into non-infested areas. Noxious weed seeds could be transported to and from harvest locations within 0.50 mile of designated roads and motorized trails. Table 85 indicates that as many as 15,045 acres across the three ranger districts could be impacted from cross- country motorized use in high risk areas related to MBGR activities. 3.12.3.4. Alternative 3: Current System Alternative 3 would not add any new routes to the FTS. About 138.5 miles of existing NFS roads passing within high risk areas would remain open. Treatment in these areas would continue according to the existing integrated weed management plan. Reducing the miles available for motor vehicle use would decrease the potential spread from motor vehicles. When compared to the Alternative 1, the total reduction in miles of road and motorized trails in the high risk weed areas is 17 percent. 3.12.3.5. Alternative 4: Visitor Map Alternative 4 would represent a 14 percent reduction of roads and motorized trails designated for use when compared to Alternative 1. This reduction would maintain many of the roads and motorized trails open in Alternative 3 and add an additional 5 miles. Motor vehicle use could still spread weeds from the high risk centers; those weeds would be spread to potentially fewer places because less unauthorized routes would remain open when compared to Alternative 1. Treatment would continue under the integrated weed management plan. This alternative would allow cross-country motorized travel to retrieve a legally taken elk. Under this alternative, an ATV may be allowed to travel cross-country increasing the risk of transporting seed into non-infested areas. Noxious weed seeds could be transported to and from harvest locations within 0.50 mile of designated roads and motorized trails. Table 85 indicates that as

201 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement many as 14,794 acres across the three ranger districts could be impacted from cross-country motorized use in high risk areas related to MBGR activities. 3.12.3.6. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts Alternative 5 would represent an 11 percent decrease in the miles of road and motorized trail open for use in high risk areas when compared to Alternative 1. The areas would continue to be monitored and treated under the integrated weed management plan. 3.12.4. Cumulative Effects Rangeland Uses: Seeds from noxious weeds can become attached to the hair of wild horses, wildlife species, and livestock or be consumed by these animals. As the animals travel around the district, the seeds can fall off the animals or be excreted in feces and can establish at new locations. Impacts from livestock on the spread of noxious weeds have been addressed in the Jarbidge Rangeland Management EIS and will be addressed in the Mountain City EIS and Ruby Mountains EIS when completed. The Ruby Mountains Ranger District has the only wildhorse territory. The territory is located at the southern tip of the Ruby Mountains and wraps around both the east and west sides of the range. The area is dominated by pinyon-juniper and associated vegetation. Few streams or water sources are present with topography at lower elevation and generally more gentle slopes. The territory has a gravel county road around and partially through it. This road was historically used by the Pony Express and traveled by foot, livestock, and wagons related to the settlement of the West. In recent years, the road is used mostly for local motorized transportation related to ranching, mining, and recreation uses. In 2005, a gather was conducted on the Cherry Springs Wildhorse Territory reducing the population of wild horses in the project area by 35 head. The territory has a plan that allows for an appropriate management level (AML) between 40 and 68 head of horses that contribute to the spread of noxious and invasive species. Recreation: Recreation can also affect the spread of noxious weeds. Seeds can become attached to people and domesticated horses in the same manner as wild horses and livestock. Dispersed camping sites, trails, and other ground disturbing activities provide an open environment for establishment of weeds. The Ruby Mountains and Mountain City Ranger Districts receive the majority of recreation use. The Jarbidge Ranger District is the more remote and least visited. Extensive wilderness areas exist on the Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts that influence the access and type of recreation use. The Mountain City Ranger District has no wilderness, more access, and gentler topography. As a result, motor vehicles used for recreation activity can travel further from designated routes increasing the opportunity to spread invasive species. . Mineral Exploration and Mining: Mining and mineral exploration can affect the spread of noxious weed by disturbing the ground that can serve as a seed bed for weeds and invasive plant species. Seeds and vegetative materials can be attached to vehicles and equipment and then be transported and spread to other locations. Best management practices are incorporated into plans of operations to control the spread of weeds. These measures include washing vehicles and equipment, inventory and mapping of weed locations, on-site herbicides application, and restoration of native plant cover. The majority of current and recent mining and exploration activities have been on the Mountain City Ranger District. Historically, mining began in the late 1800s and has continued ever since. Since 1980, extensive ground disturbance has been mostly in the Independence and Bull Run Mountain ranges. Limited activity has been scattered throughout other parts of the district. There are new mining projects in the planning phase and these activities will use existing or will have

202 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement new road construction associated with them. Recent projects were often near known weed populations. On the Jarbidge Ranger District, from 1909 until the 1930s, the town of Jarbidge was a mining boom town. Underground workings were common throughout the canyon. For the most part, mining in the West Fork of the Jarbidge River ended by the 1930s and the district has seen very little mining activity since then. Exploration projects in 2006 and 2007 had no new road construction. These two projects occurred in Jarbidge town and on Bear Creek Summit and were not located in areas of known weed populations. 3.13. Road Management

3.13.1. Affected Environment Every year, roads on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are selected and maintained based upon concern for public safety, environmental impacts, and volume of use. Forest-wide, about 75 percent of current NFS motorized trails are maintenance level 2 motorized trails, which mean they are suitable for high-clearance vehicles. While road maintenance budgets vary yearly, the 2009 targets for the Forest are illustrative. In 2009, the Forest planed for 10 miles of road decommissioning; 4 miles of improvements, and 83 miles of maintenance of maintenance level 2 roads and 4 miles of improvement and 496 miles of maintenance for higher maintenance level roads (passenger vehicles). The breakdown of road maintenance on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts generally reflects that of the FTS (table 86).

Table 86. Distribution of Motorized Trails on Ranger Districts by Maintenance Level (ML). ML5 ML4 ML3 ML2 ML 1 Mountain City 0.0 75.6 38.7 440.9 52.5 Ruby Mountains 14.6 1.3 15.0 248.6 92.0 Jarbidge 0.0 28.1 21.7 196.8 0.6

On an annual basis, the districts maintain a portion of the maintenance level 3 roads, the primary access motorized trails, to a standard that provides safe and comfortable travel in a passenger vehicle (table 87). The districts manage all other NFS roads to provide access into the remote areas of the districts as primitive four-wheel drive routes. These roads were constructed at low cost and typically require little or no maintenance. Table 87. Primary Travel Routes on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Maintained to Provide Safe and Comfortable Travel in a Passenger Vehicle. (Maintenance is conducted by County or Forest Service Road Crews under Forest Road Agreements). Road Number Road Name Length Mountain City Ranger District 56226 Penrod 5.4 56929 Poorman Creek 3.9 56930 Haystack/Waterlog 15.0 56931 McDonald Creek 18.0 56935 Sagehen 2.7 56936 California Creek 14.1 56960 Merritt Creek 3.9 Ruby Mountains Ranger District 57041 Krenka Creek 2.4

203 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 87. Primary Travel Routes on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Maintained to Provide Safe and Comfortable Travel in a Passenger Vehicle. (Maintenance is conducted by County or Forest Service Road Crews under Forest Road Agreements). Road Number Road Name Length 57099 Battle Creek 2.3 57099 Clover Creek 2.5 57660 Lamoille Canyon 12 Jarbidge Ranger District 58074 Pole Creek Canyon Creek 6.4 58074 Cottonwood, The Pockets, Pole Creek 28.0 58081 Three Creek/Canyon Creek 3.5 58285 Slide Creek 2.2 58308 Chalk Basin 5.0 The Forest has no plans at this time to change the overall character of the existing FTS, which is a low-density system of mostly primitive, lower maintenance level roads. The Forest concentrates both maintenance and improvements on the higher maintenance level, passenger vehicle roads. However, all roads are evaluated to ensure they are not causing unacceptable environmental effects. 3.13.2. Environmental Consequences Environmental impacts to road management would be significant if the alternatives resulted in an increased need to expend limited road maintenance resources to maintain the districts’ transportation systems. 3.13.2.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives The districts use road maintenance funds and the road maintenance crew to maintain the primary access routes. This budget is finite, and the districts do not expect any increases. The districts receive the services of the Forest road crew for twelve working days annually on each of the three ranger districts. Consequently, the district rangers and their staffs make hard decisions every year as to where to work the road crew. The district priorities are the maintenance of routes that receive the most use or that have been damaged by flooding or heavy rains. High-clearance, four-wheel drive roads and motorized trails make-up the majority of the routes on the districts. This vehicle class is highly compatible with the road geometry and native surface routes on the three ranger districts. Speeds are slow on these routes and encounters with other vehicles are rare in most areas because of the distribution and traffic volume. These routes receive very little maintenance, and the districts do not expect that to change with the selection of the any of the alternatives. This does not mean that the districts do not monitor the conditions of the roads. If a road or motorized trail is causing environmental impacts or is unsafe for the public, the districts would assess the need for the route and make a determination on whether to repair or close the route. This, however, does not indicate an added burden on the already limited road maintenance resources. Given the current and projected level of road maintenance, the districts should be able to provide a similar level of maintenance for the FTS under all alternatives. Accordingly, none of the alternatives has direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the districts’ ability to manage the FTS on the districts.

204 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.14. Public Health and Safety

3.14.1. Affected Environment Safe travel for all users on NFS roads and motorized trails that cross the districts is a concern that was identified when developing the proposed action. The districts considered the types of proposed roads and motorized trails, the types of vehicles traveling on the roads and motorized trails, the speeds at which vehicles can safely travel, and the times of year the routes are open. At present, most roads and motorized trails on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountain, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts are open to both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles. Road and motorized trail conditions off the main routes are generally rough and require slow speeds (<10 mph) in high-clearance vehicles. Main roads receive the majority of use during the summer and fall (June and October). This use is associated with Forest administration, recreation travel, and utilization of the NFS lands. The districts are not aware of any multi-vehicle accidents occurring on current NFS roads. 3.14.2. Environmental Consequences The environmental effects on public health and safety are addressed by a qualitative discussion on the potential effects of the proposed action. 3.14.2.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects under any alternative because of the low speeds and low traffic volumes. The inherent risk of traveling on NFS roads and motorized trails is not increased under any of the action alternatives and may decrease under Alternative 1. The districts do not anticipate that use of the roads and motorized trails in any of the action alternatives would increase the risk of multiple vehicle accidents. As for single vehicle accidents, the district expects that the prohibition on cross-country travel under the action alternatives would reduce the risk of accidents associated with traveling across steep terrain and uneven ground. All of the roads and motorized trails analyzed under Alternative 2 have very low traffic volume and travel speeds are kept low because of rough conditions. There is no increased risk of accident under any of the action alternatives because the use of these routes is not expected to change with designation. There is no expectation of increased traffic on NFS roads and motorized trails near the communities in close proximity to NFS lands as there are very few proposed additions to the FTS in these locations. As a result, noise from vehicles using the NFS roads and motorized trails is not expected to change. 3.15. Climate Change

The Forest Service is currently investing in considerable research and study of the potential effects of forest management on climate change. Past Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell organized, and current Chief Tom Tidwell has continued, an agency-wide response to climate change and direction for the agency to concentrate on 16 priorities for action. While many of these priorities and much of this information is generally not applicable at the project level, much of this research has been consulted. On January 16, 2009, the Washington Office of the Forest Service released guidance to Forest Service units regarding the incorporation of climate change science into project-level NEPA documents (USDA FS 2009e). This guidance document directs that units should consider two kinds of climate change effects. First, where appropriate, units may consider the effect of a

205 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement project on climate change. Second, where appropriate, units may consider the effect of climate change on a proposal. This latter category may include the effect of changed snowfall regimes on special use permit issuance for ski areas or the effect of rainfall changes on reforestation following a timber sale. Because potential changes in climate will have no effect on the designation of motorized routes, this second category of effects was not considered further. 3.15.1. Affected Environment The Atmospheric-Ocean General Circulation Model (AOGCM) projects a general warming with the magnitude projected to increase almost linearly over time. Warming in the United States is projected to exceed 2ºC (3.6ºF) by nearly all models and to exceed 4ºC (7.2ºF) by more than 5 AOGCMs out of 21 by the turn of the next century (Christensen et al. 2007). Christensen and others (2007) indicate that by the turn of the next century, December through January temperatures in Western North America could increase 3.7ºC (6.7ºF) and precipitation increase by 7 percent based on the 50 percentile probability on a normal distribution bell curve. June through August temperatures are projected to increase 3.6ºC (6.5ºF) and precipitation decrease 4 percent. This much of a temperature increase would probably move the transitory snow line to near 6,000 feet based on an adiabatic lapse rate of 250 feet per 1ºF (half way between dry and usual saturated above freezing lapse rate). The following projected climate changes in the hydrologic cycle are presented in Climate Change and Water – Perspective from the Forest Service (USDA FS 2008c): • Warmer air temperatures • Warmer stream and reservoir water temperatures • More rain and less snow with earlier snowmelt • Earlier spring runoff with larger flood peaks. • Less summer stream flow with smaller headwater stream networks • More precipitation in the Pacific Northwest with greater inter-annual variability • More intense storms with more flooding and extreme winds • More evapotranspiration. • Drier vegetation and soils. • More severe droughts. • Increased wildfires and area burned. Peak Flow: Increased rain-on-snow events would increase extreme runoff contributing to more severe flood events. Peak flows from snow melt would occur earlier in the spring. High discharges from intense summer thunderstorms would also increase. Base Flow: Increased rainfall over snowfall, warmer winter temperatures, and the increase in the transitory snow zone will result in lower snow packs. The onset of earlier spring snowmelt will shift the bulk of the hydrograph to earlier in the season. This will result in less summer stream flow and an increase in intermittent and spatially intermittent stream flow (less perennial stream miles). Water Quality: Higher peak flows resulting from rain on snow events and high intensity summer thunderstorms could result in increased surface and channel erosion. Temperature: Higher air temperatures and decreased summer stream flows would result in higher water temperatures. 3.15.2. Environmental Consequences Agency direction defines the emission of GHG as the direct climate change effect of a project. Further, the interaction of emissions with atmospheric concentrations of GHG such that they impact the climate is defined as the potential indirect climate change effect.

206 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under this definition, there would be no direct effect associated with any of the alternatives. These alternatives do not authorize the emission of GHG; the action alternatives do not limit the emission of GHG; and the action alternatives are unlikely to change the emission of GHG as compared to Alternative 1. The GHG emissions from motorized travel would not be directly affected by the designation of routes. The action alternatives may have a slight beneficial effect on climate change by restricting motorized vehicles to designated routes and protecting biological and physical resources from damaging traffic. Forest Service direction on climate change consideration notes, “[i]t is possible, and in some projects likely, that proposals may meet the Agency’s mission while also enhancing the resilience or adaptive capacity of resources to the potential impacts of climate change. For example, projects designed to restore the health, resilience, and productivity of forested ecosystems may also improve the capability of the stands or landscape to withstand climate change stresses” (USDA FS 2009c). While these proposed actions are not specifically designed to reduce the emission of GHG, they may have a slight benefit associated with enhancing the resilience and productivity of ecosystems present within the project area. Regarding indirect effects, Agency direction states, “[b]ecause greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). Also, because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects based on individual projects” (USDA FS 2009e). Alternatives 2 and 3 would not have measurable indirect effects as compared with Alternative 1. 3.15.3. Cumulative Effects Because the proposed actions of this project would have no quantifiable direct or indirect effect on climate change, there are no anticipated cumulative effects.

207 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.16. Specifically Required Disclosures

Several of the laws and executive orders listed in chapter 1 require project-specific findings or other disclosures. They apply to all alternatives considered in detail in this FEIS. 3.16.1. Legislative and/or Regulatory 3.16.1.1. National Forest Management Act This decision is consistent with the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended). 3.16.1.2. Endangered Species Act Bull trout and LCT are known federally listed species that occur in the project area. No other known federally endangered or threatened species are known to reside in the project area. After a preferred action is identified, a biological assessment will be completed and submitted to the USFWS and described in the FEIS. 3.16.1.3. National Historic Preservation Act Cultural resource surveys have been conducted on NFS land on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project area. In conducting these surveys, the Forest is complying with a survey protocol developed in conjunction with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. The opportunity to discuss known or suspected cultural resources in or near the project area was also encouraged during scoping. 3.16.1.4. Clean Water Act Designation of roads and trails made as a result of this analysis would be in accordance with standards, guidelines, and direction contained in the Forest Plan, best management practices, and applicable FSM and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) direction. 3.16.1.5. Clean Air Act Emissions and fugitive dust expected from implementation of any of the action alternatives would be of short duration and are not expected to exceed state of Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards (46 FR 43141). 3.16.1.6. Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forestland No prime farm land or range land would be adversely affected by the action alternatives. Forestland would maintain its long-term productivity. 3.16.2. Executive Orders 3.16.2.1. Executive Order 11593 (Cultural Resources) Executive Order (EO) 11593 directs federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the nation. The work accomplished in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project meets the intent of this executive order. 3.16.2.2. Executive Order 11644 (Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands) National direction for travel planning, specifically off-road use of motor vehicles on federal lands, is provided by EO 11644 as amended. Section 3(a) of EO 11644 directs the Forest Service

208 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement to promulgate regulations that provide for designation of trails and areas for off-road motor vehicle use. The regulations require that designation of these trails and areas be based upon protection of NFS resources, promotion of public safety, and minimization of conflicts among uses of NFS lands. Section 9(b) was added to EO 11644 when it was amended by EO 11989. Section 9(b) specifically authorizes the Forest Service to adopt the policy to designate those areas or trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use and to close all other areas and trails to that use. 3.16.2.3. Executive Order 11989 (Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands) Executive Order 11644, as amended, provides direction for federal agencies to establish policies and procedures to control and direct the use of OHVs on public lands in order to: 1) protect the resource of those lands; 2) promote the safety of all users of those lands; and 3) minimize conflicts among various users of those lands. In response, the Forest Service developed regulations at 36 CFR 216, 219, and 295. Under these regulations, OHV use can be restricted or prohibited to minimize: 1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; 2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; or 3) conflicts between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation. Each of the action alternatives analyzed in this FEIS makes substantial improvements in reducing redundant roads and motorized trails and minimizing resource impacts and use conflicts as required by 36 CFR 212.55 and EO 11644. 3.16.2.4. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. A floodplain is defined as “the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of off shore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a 1 percent or greater of flooding in any given year.” Forest Plan standards and guidelines identify floodplains as a process group within riparian management areas. Where possible, the districts avoided designating unauthorized roads or trails within the floodplains of rivers or streams. Exceptions would include low water crossings. 3.16.2.5. Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long-term and short-term adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are discussed in detail in reference to riparian areas and meadows. Where possible, the districts avoided designating unauthorized roads or trails located in wetlands. 3.16.2.6. Executive Order 12962 (Recreational Fishing) Executive Order 12962 directs federal agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. Section 1 of the EO directs federal agencies to evaluate effects on aquatic ecosystems and recreational fisheries, develop and encourage partnerships, promote restoration, provide access, and promote awareness of opportunities for recreational fishery resources. The effects of this project on freshwater resources were evaluated during the analysis. With the application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including those for riparian areas, no significant adverse effects to freshwater resources would occur. 3.16.2.7. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the issue of environmental justice, which concerns adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations.

209 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

During the course of this analysis, none of the alternatives considered resulted in any identifiable effects or issues specific to any minority or low-income population or community. The agency considered all public input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social/economic characteristics. Examination of community composition, as required under EO 12898, found no minority or low-income communities to be disproportionately affected under any of the alternatives. This was not raised as an issue during scoping. 3.16.2.8. Executive Order 13007 (American Indian Sacred Sites) Executive Order 13007 directs federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. This action would not prevent American Indian religious practitioners from accessing or using sacred sites. 3.16.2.9. Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies taking actions that have or are likely to have a negative impact on migratory bird populations to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an agreement to conserve those birds. Each of the project alternatives was reviewed to determine if migratory birds would be affected by project operations. Potential effects are disclosed in the Wildlife section. The alternatives for this project would be consistent with other federal and state environmental laws and executive orders. These laws and orders have been met to the extent practicable, and the effects have been analyzed and documented. 3.16.2.10. Executive Order 13443 (Hunting Opportunities/Game Species) The purpose of EO 13443, signed in 2007, is to direct federal land management agencies to facilitate expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitats. The selected alternative provides ample hunting opportunities and provides a range of motorized and non‐motorized hunting opportunities taking into account the various methods of hunting. 3.16.3. Civil Rights U.S. Department of Agriculture civil rights policy requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) of policies, actions, or decisions that will affect federally conducted and federally assisted programs and activities. A civil rights impact analysis facilitates the identification of the effects of eligibility criteria, methods of administration, or other agency-imposed requirements that may adversely and disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries based on their membership in a protected group. Protected groups include multiples of similarly situated persons who may be distinguished by their common race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetics, political beliefs, or receipt of income from any public assistance program. During the course of this analysis, none of the alternatives considered resulted in any identifiable effects or issues specific to any minority or low-income population or community. The agency considered all public input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social/economic characteristics. Examination of community composition, as required under EO 12898, found no minority or low-income communities to be disproportionately affected under any of the alternatives.

210 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.17. Short-Term Uses and Long-term Productivity

The National Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of “the relationship between short- term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). Allowing continued motorized travel over most of the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Districts under the No Action Alternative allows motor vehicle use to occur over the largest possible area in the short term. However, as detailed in the effects analysis contained in this chapter, long-term productivity would be harmed. Impacts would occur to wildlife, soils, fish, cultural, and vegetation. The action alternatives reduce resource impacts although to differing degrees. Since the motor vehicle use map requires annual updates, nothing limits future choices to meet the challenge of providing for motorized recreation while protecting resource values and other uses of the national forest. According to the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), all renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. Short-term uses, and their effects, are those that occur annually or within the first few years of project implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue producing goods and services long after the project has been implemented. The action alternatives have the potential to improve long-term productivity by reducing the area subject to damage from cross-country motor vehicle use. Once closed, vehicle damage to these areas will fade and vegetative productivity will be enhanced. 3.18. Unavoidable Adverse Effects

All alternatives carry the risk of unavoidable adverse effects. Under Alternative 1, motor vehicle users could create new roads and motorized trails in areas open to cross-country travel. Compared with Alternative 1, the action alternatives reduce impacts to resources by closing about 960,000 acres to motor vehicle travel. However, where motorized roads and motorized trails are designated, some unavoidable effects to resource values and other Forest uses would occur. For motorized recreation opportunities, the action alternatives carry unavoidable effects associated with restricting motor vehicle use to designated routes. This would eliminate the authorized use of undesignated roads and motorized trails and limit access to some locations, particularly when seasonal restrictions are in effect. 3.19. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or road.

211 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Designating roads and motorized trails for use or changing those designations from motorized to non-motorized use is not considered irreversible or irretrievable because they are not permanent features of the landscape. The Forest Service could change the designations in the future or implement projects to revegetate these roads and motorized trails and areas. No irreversible or irretrievable effects to motorized recreation are anticipated due to the ability to update the motor vehicle use map annually, allowing correction of problems or changing conditions that emerge. No new roads are proposed within the roadless areas and motorized trails are neither an irreversible or irretrievable commitments of roadless resources.

212