U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Francisco and Smoky Allotments
PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Tonopah Field Office
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 7 2.0 Background ...... 8 2.2 Analysis Setting ...... 8 2.3 Climate ...... 9 2.4 Livestock Management ...... 9 2.5 Riparian and Wetland Resources, and Water Quality ...... 10 2.5.1 Riparian and Wetland Resources ...... 10 2.5.2 Water Quality ...... 11 2.5 Upland Vegetation Resources ...... 11 2.5.1 Dominant Ecological Sites of the Francisco and Smoky Allotments ...... 12 2.6 Wildlife ...... 15 2.6.1 Migratory Birds/Birds of Conservation Concern ...... 16 2.6.2 Mule Deer and Pronghorn ...... 19 2.7 Special Status Species ...... 21 2.7.1 Sand Cholla ...... 22 2.7.2 Eastwood Milkweed...... 22 2.7.3 Bats ...... 22 2.7.4 Desert Bighorn Sheep ...... 23 2.7.5 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 24 3.0 Resource Management Plan Objectives ...... 28 3.2 Tonopah Resource Management Plan ...... 29 3.2.1 Livestock Grazing Management ...... 29 3.2.2 Special Status Species ...... 29 3.2.3 Wildlife Habitat Management...... 30 3.2.4 Riparian Habitat ...... 30 3.2.5 Vegetation ...... 31 3.3 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment ...... 31 3.3.1 Livestock Grazing (LG) Objective ...... 31 3.3.2 Vegetation (VEG) Objectives ...... 31 3.3.3 Special Status Species (SSS) Objectives ...... 32 4.0 Francisco Allotment (00075) Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation ...... 32 4.2 Allotment Setting and Overview ...... 32 4.2.1 Historic Permitted AUMs and Allotment Management ...... 33 4.2.2 Monitoring History on the Francisco Allotment ...... 35 4.3 Francisco Allotment Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation ...... 36 4.3.1 Standards for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area ...... 36 5.0 Smoky Allotment (00074) Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation ...... 55 5.2 Allotment Setting and Overview ...... 55 5.2.1 Historic Permitted AUMs and Allotment Management ...... 56 5.2.2 Current Permitted Use and Livestock Grazing Management ...... 57
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 2
5.2.3 Monitoring History on the Smoky Allotment ...... 58 5.3 Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation ...... 60 5.3.1 Standards for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area ...... 60 6.0 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 83 7.0 Literature Cited ...... 84 8.0 Appendices ...... 88 9.0 Maps ...... 122
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 3
List of Tables Table 1 Francisco and Smoky Acreage ...... 8 Table 2 List of Dominant Plant Species Observed Within the Allotments ...... 14 Table 3. Mammalian Wildlife Species found in the Smoky and Francisco Allotments ...... 15 Table 4. Common Avian Species Found in Francisco and Smoky Allotments ...... 17 Table 5. Mule Deer Habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments ...... 19 Table 6. Estimate of adult mule deer for Area 16 & 17 herds (Units 173 and 161) ...... 19 Table 7. Pronghorn Habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments ...... 20 Table 8. Estimate of adult Pronghorn Antelope for the Area 16 and 17 herds ...... 21 Table 9. Pronghorn Antelope Habitat Rating in Regards to Vegetative Cover for Forbs, Grasses, and Shrubs ...... 21 Table 10. Desert bighorn sheep Habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments ...... 23 Table 11. Estimate of adult desert bighorn sheep for Area 16 and 17 heards ...... 23 Table 12. GRSG Habitat on BLM Lands by Allotment ...... 25 Table 13. Lek Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories ...... 25 Table 14 Nesting/Early Brood Rearing Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories ...... 26 Table 15. Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories .. 27 Table 16. Riparian Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories 27 Table 17. Winter Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories ...... 28 Table 18. Francisco Allotment Acreage Summary ...... 33 Table 19. Summary of Range Improvement Projects in the Francisco Allotment ...... 33 Table 20. Francisco Allotment Active Permitted AUMs ...... 34 Table 21. Actual Use for the Francisco Allotment ...... 34 Table 22. Key Management Area and Associated Range Types ...... 36 Table 23 Summary of Percent Ground Cover for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment .... 37 Table 24. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Soil Stability Rating From Ecological Site Reference in the Francisco Allotment ...... 38 Table 25. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Percent Canopy Gap Intercept Data in the Francisco Allotment ...... 38 Table 26. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in Francisco Allotment for 2017...... 39 Table 27 Summary of Percent Ground Cover for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment .... 41 Table 28. Percent Foliar Cover of Dominate Plant Species for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment ...... 42 Table 29. Plant CommunityComposition by Foliar Cover for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment ...... 43 Table 30. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in the Francisco Allotment for 2017...... 46 Table 31. Mule Deer Habitat within the Francisco Allotments ...... 48 Table 32. Data Pertaining to Mule Deer Habitat in the Francisco Allotment from the AIM Plots ...... 48 Table 33. Pronghorn Habitat within the Francisco Allotment ...... 49 Table 34. Pronghorn Antelope Habitat Data for the Francisco Allotment ...... 49 Table 35. Pronghorn habitat rating in regards to vegetative cover for forbs, grasses, and shrubs (Yoakum 1980) ...... 49 Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 4
Table 36. Desert bighorn sheep Habitat within the Francisco Allotment ...... 50 Table 37. Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat in the Francisco Allotment ...... 51 Table 38 Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat in the Francisco Allotment 51 Table 39 Data Pertaining to Big Horn Sheep Habitat in the Francisco Allotment from AIM Plots ...... 54 Table 40. Smoky Allotment Acreage Summary ...... 55 Table 41. Summary of Range Improvement Projects and Cooperative Agreements in the Smoky Allotment ...... 55 Table 42. Smoky Allotment Active Permitted AUMs ...... 57 Table 43. Actual Use for Smoky Allotment ...... 58 Table 44. Key Management Area and Associated Range Types ...... 59 Table 45 Summary of Percent Ground for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment ...... 61 Table 46. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Soil Stability Rating From Ecological Site Reference in the Smoky Allotment ...... 62 Table 47. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Percent Canopy Gap Interceprt Data in the Smoly Allotment ...... 62 Table 48. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in Smoky Allotment for 2016...... 63 Table 49 Summary of Percent Ground for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment ...... 66 Table 50. Percent Foliar Cover of Dominate Plant Species for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment ...... 67 Table 51. Plant CommunityComposition by Foliar Cover for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment ...... 68 Table 52. Riparian Condition Ratings for the Smoky Allotment in 2016 ...... 71 Table 53. Summary of Riparian Condition Ratings for the Smoky Allotment in 2016 ...... 71 Table 54. Wetland Condition Ratings for the Smoky Allotment in 2016 ...... 71 Table 55. Water Quality Results in the Smoky Allotment ...... 72 Table 56. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in Smoky Allotment for 2016...... 73 Table 57. Mule Deer Habitat within the Smoky Allotment ...... 75 Table 58. Data Pertaining to Mule Deer Habitat in the Smoky Allotment ...... 75 Table 59. Pronghorn Habitat within the Smoky Allotment ...... 76 Table 60. Pronghorn Antelope Habitat Data for the Smoky Allotment ...... 76 Table 61. Pronghorn habitat rating in regards to vegetative cover for forbs, grasses, and shrubs (Yoakum 1980) ...... 77 Table 62. Desert bighorn sheep Habitat within the Smoky Allotment ...... 77 Table 63. Data Pertaining to Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat in the Smoky Allotment ...... 78 Table 64. Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat in the Smoky Allotment ...... 79 Table 65. Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat in the Smoky Allotment ..... 80 Table 66. Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 83
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 5
List of Charts Chart 1. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 4 Francisco Allotment ...... 44 Chart 2. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 8 Francisco Allotment ...... 44 Chart 3. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 11 Francisco Allotment ...... 45 Chart 4. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 4 Smoky Allotment ...... 69 Chart 5. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 8 Smoky Allotment ...... 69 Chart 6. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 11 Smoky Allotment ...... 70
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 6
1.0 Introduction
In 1997, in accordance with 43 CFR 4180 2(b), the Nevada Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adopted rangeland health standards and guidelines for livestock grazing management, which were developed in coordination with the Resource Advisory Councils (RACs). Standards for rangeland health and guidelines for management of livestock are the result of the Bureau’s grazing administration regulations (43 CFR 4100), which became effective August 21, 1995. The purpose of developing standards and guidelines is to ensure that the BLM’s administration of the public lands preserves currently healthy rangelands and restores healthy conditions to those areas that are not meeting standards. Standards and guidelines provide specific measures of rangeland health and identify acceptable or best management practices. The authority for these standards and guidelines is found in 43 CFR 4180. When developing the standards and guidelines, Nevada’s RACs developed multiple sets of standards and guidelines for areas across Nevada. The RAC for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area developed land health standards and guidelines for much of Southern Nevada Basin and Range and Sonoran Basin and Range. The Tonopah Field Office falls entirely within the Mojave- Southern Great Basin Area including the Smoky and Francisco Allotments. The following provides a brief overview of the assessment, evaluation, and determination process and the associated documents that the BLM uses to meet these requirements. Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA) – The preliminary step in the process, the RHA is the compilation and summarization of all available data and information to compare the current resource conditions in the allotment to the applicable Nevada rangeland health standards and Resource Management Plan (RMP) objectives. The RHA does not state conclusions as to whether or not the standards are achieved. Evaluation Report (ER) – The ER is the analysis of the assessed data to the applicable Nevada rangeland health standards. This document contains the rationale for whether or not the standards are achieved and identifies RMP objectives. When the standards are not met, the evaluation also discloses if trends in resource conditions indicate that significant progress toward meeting the standards is occurring. Determination Document (DD) – A DD is required when the ER finds that rangeland health standards are not achieved and identifies the “causal factors” that led to not meeting the standards. Ideally, the determination document is completed prior to or in conjunction with, the completion of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. This ensures the development of adequate alternatives to address the grazing-related causal factors for not achieving the standards and the timely implementation of the corrective management actions. This document serves as the RHA and ER for the Francisco and Smoky Allotments, which are covered by the Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC standards. The approved standards for rangeland health for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area RAC that will be evaluated in this assessment for the Francisco and Smoky Allotments are as follows:
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 7
Standard 1. Soils: Watershed soils and stream banks should have adequate stability to resist accelerated erosion, maintain soil productivity, and sustain the hydrologic cycle. Standard 2. Ecosystem Components: Watersheds should possess the necessary ecological components to achieve state water quality criteria, maintain ecological processes and sustain appropriate uses. Riparian and wetlands vegetation should have structural and species diversity characteristic of the state of stream channel succession in order to provide forage and cover, capture sediment and capture, retain, and safely release water (watershed function). Standard 3. Habitat and Biota: Habitats and watersheds should sustain a level of biodiversity appropriate for the area and conducive to appropriate use. Habitats of specials status species should be able to sustain viable populations of these species. As applicable, the DD will be completed prior to the completion of the NEPA phase of this grazing permit renewal process. 2.0 Background
2.2 Analysis Setting
The Francisco and Smoky Allotments are located in the Battle Mountain District (BMDO), Tonopah Field Office (TFO). The two allotments are in Nye County and the communities of Round Mountain, Hadley, and Carvers are within or adjacent to the allotments (map 1). Both allotments are located in the Big Smoky Valley, where elevations range from 5,500 feet in the valley bottoms to 7,100 feet on the valley benches at the U.S. Forest Service boundary. The Francisco and Smoky Allotments are separated by Nevada State Route 376 (SR 376), with the Francisco Allotment to the south/west and the Smoky Allotment to the north/east of the highway. The southern boundary of the Francisco Allotment is bordered by fenced private lands and public lands in the Smoky Allotment that are separated from the main part of the Smoky Allotment. The southern boundary of the Smoky Allotment is unfenced and contiguous with the San Antone Allotment. Both Francisco and Smoky Allotments are predominately public lands. Table 1 below, outlines the ownership of the land acreage in the Francisco and Smoky Allotments.
Table 1 Francisco and Smoky Acreage1
BLM Total Allotment % BLM Acres Acres Francisco 16,896 98 16,896 Smoky 125,247 100 125,247
1 Acreages based on BLM Rangeland Administration System Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 8
2.3 Climate
The climate associated with these allotments is typical of the Basin and Range Ecological Region and characterized as having generally hot/dry summers and cold/wet winters. However, the past 10 years have frequently seen warmer than average summers and drier than average winters. Annual total precipitation can be highly variable with a few years receiving above average precipitation while most years receive below average precipitation. The closest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station, Smokey Valley (267620), is located between the Francisco and Smoky Allotments in Carvers, NV. Over a 10 year period of 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2017, this station shows average annual precipitation was 6.04 inches with the highest average monthly precipitation occurring in the months of December (0.91) and October (0.72) (appendix 1). The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is one of the first and most highly used drought indices, which is based on a simplified soil water balance and is a measure of the departure of average soil moisture conditions. A PDSI value between -.5 and 0.5 represents near normal soil moisture conditions, with positive/negative values representing wet/dry conditions. The magnitude of PDSI gives an indication as to the severity of the departure from normal conditions. PDSI> 4 represents very wet conditions, while PDSI<-4 represents an extreme drought. Charts for PDSI for the allotments can be found in appendix 1.
2.4 Livestock Management
In 1978 Congress affirmed through the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) that, The Secretary of the Interior… shall update, develop (where necessary), and maintain on a continuing basis thereafter, an inventory of range conditions and records of trends of range conditions on the public rangelands, and shall categorize or identify such lands on the basis of the range conditions and trends thereof. In order to comply, BLM developed and finalized, through a collaborative process, the Final Grazing Management Policy, which introduced Rangeland Program Summaries (RPS) and the selective management category process for allotment prioritization. This policy was implemented March 5, in 1982 through Washington Office Instruction Memorandum1982-292. The categorization process ranked allotments into either an improve (I), maintain (M), or custodial (C) management category based on an analysis of the allotment’s current range conditions, resource potentials, presence of resource use conflicts or controversies, opportunity for positive economic return, the present management situation, and other criteria as appropriate. The 1997 Tonopah Resource Management Plan (RMP) established the Francisco and Smoky Allotments as “I” category allotments
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 9
2.5 Riparian and Wetland Resources, and Water Quality
2.5.2 Riparian and Wetland Resources
Of the two allotments, only the Smoky Allotment contains riparian and wetland resources. No riparian or wetland resources are present within the Francisco Allotment. To meet Standard 2, riparian and wetland sites must exhibit a properly functioning condition. In addition, Standard 2 of the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area requires that State water quality criteria be achieved. Riparian and wetland functioning conditions are discussed in section 5.3.2.2.1.2, and section 5.3.2.2.1.3 addresses water quality. The Smoky Allotment includes approximately 4.6 miles of perennial streams, 1.2 miles of ephemeral streams, and 1.1 miles of human-altered stream reaches, these streams are all on public land. Approximately 12.1 acres of springs and wet meadows were assessed in the allotment.
Proper Functioning Condition Assessments
Riparian and wetland areas are the transition zones between aquatic systems and adjacent uplands, reflecting vegetation and physical characteristics that indicate water availability at or near the ground surface. Healthy riparian and wetland areas provide many important resource values, such as enhancing water quality and availability, providing wildlife habitat, affording recreation opportunities, and others. These areas also attract livestock due to water availability, high forage production, and shade. Riparian areas2, or lotic systems, are characterized by actively moving water. These sites are comprised of perennial and intermittent streams, but not ephemeral systems. The BLM uses the protocol in Technical Reference 1737-15, Proper Functioning Condition Assessment for Lotic Areas, as its primary method for assessing riparian conditions (Dickard et al. 2015). Wetland areas, or lentic systems, are characterized by relatively still water. These sites are comprised of springs, seeps, meadows, and ponds. The BLM uses the protocol in Technical Reference 1737-16, A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas, as its primary method for evaluating wetland conditions (Prichard et al. 2003). Riparian and wetland areas are assessed against their potential, the highest ecological status attainable in the present climate (Dickard et al. 2015). Where site potential has been modified by human activity or natural events, such as a road being routed along a stream or a wildfire changing a riparian plant community, the site is assessed against this altered potential. The assessment considers various aspects of the site’s geomorphology, hydrology, and vegetation to determine its functional condition. Most of the lotic riparian areas on the allotments are found in Type III valley type (Rosgen 1996), which are common in the Great Basin. Type III valleys are moderately steep and are primarily
2 The term riparian area is also used in conjunction with lentic systems (instead of distinguishing between a riparian and wetland area), but for the purpose of this document the distinction between these areas is made.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 10 depositional in nature and characterized by alluvial fans. Many of the delineated reaches are Rosgen stream types A, B and C, but other types are also found on the allotments, where the valleys are less confined and the channels less entrenched. The presence of riparian areas depends on adequate streamflow and water table levels for significant periods. Streamflow originates as rainfall and snowmelt runoff, and as ground-water discharge through springs, seeps, or channel inflow. Snowmelt dominates spring runoff and is probably most responsible for channel forming processes since small, common, flood flows associated with snowmelt carry the greatest amount of sediment over time. However, convective summer storms can cause significant rapid changes because they result in some of the most intensive flows. In addition to providing base flow in streams, ground water is also the water source for lentic wetland systems, such as isolated springs, seeps, and meadows that are not part of a stream system. Plant communities in riparian and wetland areas are different from adjacent uplands, and are a key factor in determining riparian and wetland functioning condition. Sites on the allotments can be dominated by woody species (e.g., willow, woods’ rose, cottonwood, and etc.), or herbaceous species (e.g., sedges, rushes, forbs, and grasses). The soils, hydrology, and species characteristics will affect the potential vegetative community of a site, so the appropriate vegetation at one site is not necessarily appropriate at another.
2.5.3 Water Quality
To achieve the water quality goals of Standard 2 for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area, State of Nevada water quality standards must be achieved. Following mandates in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality: (1) designates beneficial uses for waterbodies, (2) establishes water quality standards applying to all surface waters, and standards applying to specific beneficial uses and specific water bodies, (3) assesses the quality of the waters, and (4) determines whether water quality standards are being achieved and beneficial uses supported. State water quality standards are found in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). Standards applicable to the Smoky Allotment are discussed in section 5.3.2.2.1.3.1.
2.5 Upland Vegetation Resources
The vegetation descriptions given here are general in nature and are based on site potential as described in the dominant Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) established by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) within the Francisco and Smoky Allotments (map 2). Three general groups of vegetation are within the allotment(s) based on topography, annual precipitation regimes, and soil type. These sites are generally characterized as greasewood bottoms, sagebrush steppe, and salt desert shrub land. The valley bottoms in the Smoky Allotment (5,500 to 5,650 feet) consist of saline and/or sodic silts and loam soils with annual precipitation ranging from 4 to 8 inches. As a result, salt tolerant drought resistant shrubs including black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosus) are the dominant shrubs. The herbaceous vegetative
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 11 communities commonly include basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), alkali sacaton (Sporabolus airoides) and inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). The lowest portions of the valley bottoms of the Smoky Allotment (5,400 to 5,500 feet) are open playas, comprising approximately 5,000 acres of the allotment. Within both allotments, mid-valley bottoms to lower valley benches (5,650-5,800 feet) consist of saline and/or sodic silts and loam soils, with annual precipitation ranging from 5 to 8 inches. The vegetative community is characterized by a shrub component dominated by shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), bud sagebrush (Picrothamnus desertorum), and winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata). The dominant herbaceous species are Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), James’ galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii) and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides). The common forbs include, globemallow (Sphaeralcea spp.), princesplume (Stanleya pinnata), and desert primrose (Oenothera spp.). The upper valley benches (5,800 to 7,000 feet) have gravelly loam and silty loam soils with precipitation ranging from 8 to 10 inches annually. Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata ssp. Wyomingensis), and black sagebrush (Artemesia nova) serve as the dominant shrubs while, Indian ricegrass and needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata) are dominant herbaceous species. Additionally, single leaf pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) are scattered throughout the plant community. Across the majority of the elevations in both allotments invasive plant species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) are found scattered to common in presence. Disturbances such as, wildfire, drought, livestock, and mineral exploration and development can lead to the introduction and spread of these and other invasive species.
2.5.1 Dominant Ecological Sites of the Francisco and Smoky Allotments
Ecological Site Shallow Calcareous Loam 8-10” P.Z. (R028XY011NV)
This ecological site occurs on summits and side slopes of lower piedmont slopes and low hills on all exposures. Slopes range from 2 to 50 percent, but slope gradients of 2 to 15 percent are most typical. Elevations are 5,000 to 6,500 feet. The soils in this site area are typically shallow and well drained. They usually have a hardpan or restrictive layer within the main rooting depth. Most of these soils are high in calcium carbonates, especially in the subsoil. Soil textures are generally loams to gravelly loams. The available water holding capacity is very low to low, water intake rates are slow to moderate and run is slow to medium. The plant community is dominated by black sagebrush, Indian ricegrass, and needle-and-thread. Potential vegetative composition is about 50 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs and 45 percent shrubs.
Ecological Site Saline Meadow (R029XY002NV)
This ecological site occurs on alluvia flats, lake plains, and axial stream floodplains. Slope gradients of 0 to 2 percent are typical. Elevations are 3,500 to 5,500 feet. Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 12
The soils in this site are deep to very deep and are usually calcareous. Surface soils are typically l0 inches, or more, thick and medium to fine textured. These soils are moderately to strongly saline and sodic in the upper profile with soil reaction and salinity decreasing with depth. The soils are poorly to somewhat poorly drained and are normally poorly aerated. Permeability is slow to moderately slow. There is often a water table near the surface for short periods in the early spring that usually stabilizes at depths below 40 inches during the early summer. Capillary rise of groundwater enhances soil moisture during the growing season. Additional moisture is received on this site as run-in from higher landscapes or as overflow from adjacent streams. The plant community is dominated by alkali sacaton, inland saltgrass and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus). Potential vegetative composition is about 85 percent grasses, 10 percent forbs, and 5 percent shrubs.
Ecological Site Saline Bottom (R029XY004NV)
This site occurs on alluvial flats, lake plains, and axial stream floodplains. Slopes range from 0 to 4 percent. Elevations are 3,000 to 5,500 feet. The soils that characterize this site have formed in mixed alluvium and are usually deep to very deep. Surface soils are less than 10 inches thick and are medium to moderately-fine textured. These soils are normally strongly saline and sodic in the upper profile with soil reaction with salt and sodium usually decreasing with depth. The soils are mostly poorly to somewhat poorly drained and have a seasonally high water table at depths of 20 to 60 inches. Additional moisture is received on this site during the winter and early spring months as run-in from higher landscapes or by occasional brief overflow from adjacent streams. Wetting of these soils dilutes their salt and sodium concentrations and the degree of salinity and alkalinity may fluctuate widely through the year. The plant community is dominated by basin wildrye, alkali sacaton, and black greasewood. Potential vegetative composition is about 85 percent grasses, 10 percent forbs and 5 percent shrubs.
Ecological Site Loamy 5-8” P.Z. (R029XY017NV)
This ecological site occurs on piedmont slopes and alluvial plains on all exposures. Slopes range from 0-30 percent, but slope gradients of 2 to 8 percent are most typical. Elevations are 4,400 to 6,500 feet. The soils of this site are typically very deep and well drained. Some soils have a restrictive layer below the main plant rooting depth. Surface soils are usually gravelly or very gravelly and have less than 20 percent clay. Surface soils are moderately to strongly alkaline, non-saline to slightly saline, and non-sodic to very slightly sodic. Water intake rates are moderate, available water capacity is very low to low, and runoff is medium. There may be a thin crusting on the soil surface layer. The penetration resistance of moist surface soils is expected to be extremely low to moderate.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 13
Potential native vegetation is dominated by shadscale, bud sagebrush and Indian ricegrass. Other important species are galleta, winterfat and bottlebrush squirreltail. Potential vegetative composition is about 45 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs, and 50 percent shrubs.
Ecological Site Sodic Dunes (R029XY018NV)
This site occurs on partially stabilized sand dunes. Slopes range from 0 to 30 percent, but slope gradients of 2 to 8 percent are typical. Elevations are 3,000 to about 5,500 feet. The soils of this site are windblown fine sands, typically more than 40 inches in depth. The soil profile is excessively drained and available water capacity is low. Underground water occurs within the rooting depth of black greasewood. Because of rapid intake and deep percolation of water, surface runoff is very low. The extremely loose and unstable surface soils and low fertility of these soils are not favorable to uniform stands of grass. These soils are extremely susceptible to wind erosion. The plant community is dominated by black greasewood and Indian ricegrass. Other important species on this site are needle and thread and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). Potential vegetative composition is about 30 percent grasses, 10 percent forbs and 60 percent shrubs.
Ecological Site Cobbly Loam 5-8 P.Z. (R029XY036NV)
This ecological site occurs on lower piedmont slopes and alluvial flats of basin floors on all aspects. Slopes range from 2 to over 30 percent, but slope gradients of 2 to 15 percent are typical. Elevations are 4,500 to about 5,500 feet. Soils of this site are shallow to deep and well drained. These soils have formed in mixed alluvium from volcanic rocks. Surfaces are stoney or very cobbly with loam textures. Subsoils may have a restrictive layer within the main rooting depth. Water intake rates are moderate, available water capacity is moderate, runoff is medium to slow and soils are well drained. Potential native vegetation is dominated by spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), and Indian ricegrass. Bailey’s greasewood (Sarcobatus baileyi), shadscale, Nevada ephedra (Ephedra nevadensis), and galleta are other important species. Potential vegetative composition is about 20 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs, and 75 percent shrubs.
Table 2 List of Dominant Plant Species Observed Within the Allotments
Common Name Scientific Name Species Code Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides ACHY Thurber's needlegrass Achnatherum thurberianum ACTH7 desert madwort Alyssum desertorum ALDE bristly fiddleneck Amsinckia tessellata AMTE3 little sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ARAR8 black sagebrush Artemisia nova ARNO4
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 14
Common Name Scientific Name Species Code big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ARTR2 Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis ARTRW8 milkvetch Astragalus spp. ASTRA fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens ATCA2 shadscale saltbush Atriplex confertifolia ATCO mustard Brassica spp. BRASS2 cheatgrass Bromus tectorum BRTE yellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus CHVI8 tapertip hawksbeard Crepis acuminata CRAC2 tansymustard Descurainia spp. DESCU saltgrass Distichlis spicata DISP squirreltail Elymus elymoides ELEL5 Nevada ephedra Ephedra nevadensis EPNE Spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa GRSP basin wildrye Leymus cinereus LECI4 buckwheat Eriogonum spp. ERIOG rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa ERNA10 Great Basin woollystar Eriastrum sparsiflorum ERSP3 stickseed Hackelia spp. HACKE clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum LEPE2 beardtongue Penstemon spp. PENST spiny phlox Phlox hoodii PHHO longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia PHLO2 bud sagebrush Picrothamnus desertorum PIDE4 James’ galleta Pleuraphis jamesii PLJA Sandberg's bluegrass Poa secunda POSE Bailey’s greasewood Sarcobatus baileyi SABA14 greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus SAVE4 tall tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum SIAL2 globemallow Sphaeralcea spp. SPHAE seepweed Suaeda spp. SUAED
2.6 Wildlife
The Smoky and Francisco Allotments provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife. A few of the more common mammalian wildlife species found in the Smoky and Francisco Allotments are listed in table 3
Table 3. Mammalian Wildlife Species found in the Smoky and Francisco Allotments
Common Name Scientific Name Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 15
Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Pronghorn Antelope Antilocapra americana American Badger Taxidea taxus Coyote Canis latrans Bobcat Lynx rufus Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
Various other small mammals (mice, voles, ground squirrels, chipmunks, kangaroo rats, woodrats, shrews, and gophers) also inhabit the Smoky and Francisco allotments. Common reptiles that have been observed and documented within these allotments include: Great Basin Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus bicinctores), Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Desert Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), Northern Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana), Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), Great Basin Whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), Gopher Snake (Pituophis cateniferer), and Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus). Fish species include Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), Big Smoky Valley Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus lariversi) and the Big Smoky Valley Tui Chub (Gila bicolor ssp. 8).
2.6.2 Migratory Birds/Birds of Conservation Concern
Migratory birds are protected and managed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et. seq.) and Executive Order 13186. Under the MBTA nests (nests with eggs or young) of migratory birds may not be harmed, nor may migratory birds be killed. The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” The USFWS list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) for 2008 is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. Bird species considered for the BCC include:
Nongame birds Gamebirds without hunting seasons Subsistence-hunted nongame birds in Alaska ESA candidate, proposed and recently delisted species
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 16
The overall goal of the BCC is to identify accurately, migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities. Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in the United States with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. The Francisco and Smoky Allotments fall into Great Basin Region 9. Of the 28 species listed, 16 occur or could potentially occur within the allotments.
Table 4. Common Avian Species Found in Francisco and Smoky Allotments
Common Name Scientific Name American Coot Fulica Americana American Kestrel Falco sparverius Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Gadwall Anas strepera Great Egret Ardea alba Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Northern Pintail Anas acuta Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Willet Tringa semipalmata Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Cassin’s Finch Haemorhous cassinii Common Raven Corvus corax Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena MacGillivray’s Warbler Geothlypis tolmiei Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus Sage Sparrow Artemisiospiza nevadensis Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Violet-green Sparrow Tachycineta thalassina Virginia’s Warbler Leiothlypis virginiae Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Brewers Sparrow Spizella breweri Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 17
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysateos Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Red Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 18
2.6.3 Mule Deer and Pronghorn
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), are the big game species that reside within the boundaries of the Smoky and Francisco Allotments. Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) uses the terms year-round habitat, winter range, summer range, agricultural habitat, crucial winter range, and crucial summer range to delineate seasonal mule deer and pronghorn antelope habitat. BLM’s definition of crucial habitat is the following: “Habitat on which a species depends on for survival; there are no alternative ranges or habitats available.”
Mule Deer
NDOW classifies the habitat for mule deer as winter range, crucial winter range, summer range, year-round, and agricultural habitat. Within the allotments, winter range consists of more xeric, lower elevation areas containing sagebrush or pinyon-juniper communities. Summer range characteristics are more mesic, higher elevation areas containing sagebrush, sagebrush steppe, pinyon-juniper, or grassland vegetative communities. No summer range exist in the allotments (map 3). Mule deer generally migrate between the summer and winter ranges from October to November and April to May (Cox, et al. 2009). The mule deer year-round habitat occurs in the lowland riparian, salt desert shrub and greasewood vegetative communities. Table 5 shows approximate BLM acres of mule deer winter range, and crucial winter range habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments.
Table 5. Mule Deer Habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments Winter Range 8,479 Crucial Winter Range 8,449
Mule deer in the Smoky and Francisco Allotments fall within Hunt Units 161 and 173, which are part of the overall Area 16 and 17 herds that incorporate units 162, 163, 164, 171, and 172 as well. The majority of the Smoky Allotment falls within Hunt Unit 161, Area 16 herd; the portion of the allotment west of SR 376, falls within Hunt Unit 173, Area 17 herd. All of the Francisco Allotment falls within Hunt Unit 173, Area 17 herd. The 2017 and 2018 population estimates for Area 16 and 17 are listed in Table 6.
Table 6. Estimate* of adult mule deer for Area 16 & 17 herds (Units 173 and 161)
Mule Deer 2017 Population Estimate Mule Deer 2018 Population Estimate
Area 16 - 4,100 Area 16 - 4,300 Area 17 - 4,200 Area 17 - 4,000
* Estimates - Values generated from computer models that reconstruct age and sex classes based on sampled herd composition, harvest data, and population demographic variables. The confidence limits around these estimates may be as high as + or - 20%. Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 19
Forage areas are vegetation stands used by deer for grazing or browsing which do not fit the definitions of thermal or hiding cover. This definition assumes that optimum forage areas do not constitute optimum cover areas, although plant species that provide forage at one season often are used primarily for cover at other seasons. For example, big sagebrush and bitterbrush forage may satisfy survival or maintenance needs in fall and winter but are used primarily for cover in spring, when forb and grass species are available to meet maintenance and production requirements. A proportion of 40 percent cover to 60 percent forage appears to be consistent with studies conducted (Leckenby et al. 1982). Food habitat studies in Nevada revealed the mule deer's dietary composition of browse species ranged from 60 percent in the spring to 90 percent in the winter. Forb use ranged from 20 percent to greater than 50 percent in the spring, to less than 5 percent use in the winter. Grass use was found to be from 1 percent in the summer to a high of 15 percent in the spring (Tueller et al. 1979). Mule deer prefer the leaders of browse species such as bitterbrush, serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), and sagebrush. Healthy riparian areas and wetland areas are essential components of quality mule deer habitat because proper functioning riparian systems can provide high quality forage, protection from predators, and thermal cover (Carson and Peek 1987). The ability to provide high quality forage and “hiding cover” from predators makes riparian areas critical to fawn-rearing success (Leckenby et al. 1982). Livestock grazing has the potential to change both food and cover available to mule deer. Although precipitation and environmental extremes are the most important factors affecting mule deer nutrition and fawn survival in the intermountain west, ecoregion habitat conditions impacted by ungulate density determine how much of that nutrition and cover remains available to deer. According to Cox et al. 2009, “Grazing at light to moderate levels has little impact on mule deer, but overuse in arid environments removes much of the herbaceous cover that is crucial for doe nutrition and fawning cover. Heavy utilization of bitterbrush can be especially harmful to mule deer due to steep declines in fawn survival when bitterbrush utilization exceeded 34 percent.”
Pronghorn Antelope
NDOW classifies the habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments as year-round. Table 7 depicts the approximate acres for year-round habitat. Year-round habitat encompasses the majority of the allotments with the exception of a small portion along the eastern edge of the Smoky Allotment at the foothills of the Toquima Range (map 4). The vegetative cover within the year- round habitat includes salt desert shrub, greasewood, grassland, agriculture, and sagebrush steppe.
Table 7. Pronghorn Habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments Year-Round 138,500
Pronghorn in Smoky and Francisco Allotments fall within the same hunt units as mule deer.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 20
Table 8 depicts population estimates for 2017 and 2018 (NDOW 2018).
Table 8. Estimate of adult Pronghorn Antelope for the Area 16 and 17 herds
2017 Population Estimate 2018 Population Estimate
Area 16 - 370 Area 16 - 450 Area 17 - 370 Area 17 - 360
Sagebrush, rabbit brush, and bitterbrush are important pronghorn antelope browse throughout the Great Basin and the following characteristics were common on preferred pronghorn antelope ranges (Yoakum et al. 1980):
Ground cover averaging 50 percent live vegetation;
A variety of plant species including 5 to 10 grass species, 20 to 40 forb species, and 5 to 10 shrub species;
Succulent plants, available in spring and wet summers; and Low vegetation structure averaging 15 to 24 inches (38-61 centimeters) in height Table 9 depicts the habitat ratings for pronghorn antelope based on their preference for cover
Table 9. Pronghorn Antelope Habitat Rating in Regards to Vegetative Cover for Forbs, Grasses, and Shrubs
Vegetation Type Good Fair Poor
Forbs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover <5% ground cover Grass 20-50% ground cover 10-20% ground cover <10% ground cover Shrubs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover >30% ground cover
2.7 Special Status Species
BLM Special Status Species Management Manual 6840 provides policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM Sensitive Species and their associated habitats. BLM Special Status Species (SSS) are: (1) species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood, and need, for future listing under the ESA. Bureau sensitive species lists are reviewed, and updated every five years, by each State Director (BLM 2008). Additionally, all Federal candidate, proposed, and delisted species in the five years following delisting are designated as Bureau sensitive species (BLM 2008). Within the BMD, 139 species were designated as sensitive by the Nevada BLM State Director in 2017 (appendix 3). Threatened or endangered species are not known to occur on either of the allotments being assessed.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 21
For this document, discussion of the subsequent sensitive species follow, in detail: Plants – sand cholla (Grusonia pulchella) and Eastwood milkweed (Asclepias eastwoodiana).Animals – bats, desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis ssp. nelsoni), greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis).
2.7.2 Sand Cholla
Sand cholla is a tuberous species of opuntioid cactus from the Mojave Desert of central Nevada, eastern California, northwestern Arizona and western Utah in the United States, listed in the 2017 BLM sensitive plant species list, and as a state of Nevada protected cactus, yucca, or Christmas tree. Sand cholla prefers habitat that is dry, open, loose, mostly sandy soils, sometimes gravelly or rocky (especially carbonate) soils, of valley floors and gentle slopes in the shadscale, mixed shrub, sagebrush, and lower pinyon-juniper zones. Flowering occurs mostly mid-May to mid- June. Sand cholla plants were found in 2016 during field surveys conducted by an environmental consultants working for Kinross. The plants were found in the Smoky Allotment within the boundaries of the Round Mountain Mine. Although potential habitat for sand cholla exists in the Francisco Allotment, it has not been documented. Since the main impacts to sand cholla are from recreational activities and horticultural collecting, it will not be further discussed in the rangeland health assessment.
2.7.3 Eastwood Milkweed
Eastwood milkweed is a long-lived perennial herb from a buried root crown that is endemic to Esmeralda, Lander, Lincoln, and Nye counties of Nevada and is listed as a special status species in the 2017 BLM sensitive plant species list. Eastwood milkweed prefers habitat that consists of open areas on a wide variety of basic (pH usually 8 or higher) soils, including calcareous clay knolls, sand, carbonate or basaltic gravels, or shale outcrops, generally barren and lacking competition, frequently in small washes or other moisture-accumulating microsites, in the shadscale, mixed-shrub, sagebrush, and lower pinyon-juniper zones. Flowering occurs in late spring between the months of May and June. Eastwood milkweed has not been observed within the Francisco Allotment, but has been found within the Smoky Allotment. The last known observation was in 1932 on private land located in the allotment and has not been observed since. Although potential habitat for Eastwood milkweed exists in the Smoky Allotment, it has not been recently documented and will not be further discussed in the rangeland health assessment.
2.7.4 Bats
There are 20 species of bats designated as sensitive species in the BMD. Of these 20 species, 13 have been documented collectively on the Francisco and Smoky Allotments. The 13 species are: silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), Townsend’s big- eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), long- Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 22 eared myotis (Myotis evotis), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and the cave myotis (Myotis velifer). Abandoned mines and structures provide roosting, maternity, and hibernacula for bats throughout the Great Basin. Habitat for bats, both riparian and upland, is threatened by wildfire and unmanaged livestock grazing (Bradley et al. 2009).
2.7.5 Desert Bighorn Sheep
NDOW classifies habitat areas as winter range, summer range, year-round, and lambing. Winter range in the allotments consists of more xeric, lower elevation areas containing sagebrush or pinyon-juniper communities and rocky outcrops. Summer range characteristics are more mesic, higher elevation areas containing sagebrush, sagebrush steppe, pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, or grassland vegetative communities, and rocky outcrops. No summer range exist in the allotments. Bighorn year-round habitat occurs in the lowland riparian, salt desert shrub and greasewood vegetative communities located along the foothills of both the Toquima and Toiyabe Mountain Ranges. Lambing habitat consists of higher elevation rugged terrain with slope approaching 100 percent and higher visibility with steeper slopes (map 5). Table 10 shows approximate acres of winter range, summer range, year-round habitat and lambing habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments.
Table 10. Desert bighorn sheep Habitat within the Smoky and Francisco Allotments
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments Winter Range 6,047 Year-Round 1,759 Lambing Habitat 1,289
Desert bighorn sheep in Smoky and Francisco allotments fall within Hunt Units 161 and 173, which are part of the overall Area 16 and 17 herds that incorporate units 162, 163, 164, 171, and 172 as well. The majority of the Smoky allotment falls within Hunt Unit 161, Area 16 herd; the portion of the allotment west of SR 376, falls within Hunt Unit 173, Area 17 herd. All of the Francisco Allotment falls within Hunt Unit 173, Area 17 herd.
Table 11. Estimate of adult desert bighorn sheep for Area 16 and 17 heards
2017 Population Estimate 2018 Population Estimate
Area 16 - 750 Area 16 - 810 Area 17 - 190 Area 17 - 190
The 2016 statewide desert bighorn surveys classified almost 5,800 desert bighorn sheep. The observed lamb ratio was 34 lambs per 100 ewes, only slightly higher than the last two years’ ratio of 32 and 33, respectively. The average includes a wide variation in recruitment rates. The statewide 2017 population estimate for desert bighorn of 10,100 is an increase of 4% from 2016. The 2017 population estimate is the highest level recorded.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 23
2.7.6 Greater Sage-Grouse
The greater sage-grouse (GRSG) is a high-profile sensitive species that USFWS in (2010) determined to warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species but precluded, due to higher priority species. Based on the USFWS’s finding the BLM prepared and approved the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment on September 21, 2015 (ARMPA), which amended existing land use plans (LUPs) in Nevada and Northeastern California. Since the signing of the record of decision (ROD), USFWS has classified the GRSG as a species of concern. On June 7, 2017, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretary’s Order 3353 with the purpose of enhancing cooperation among western states and BLM in managing and conserving GRSG. The BLM was also directed to review the 2015 ARMPA, it was recommended to amend the ARMPA. On March 15, 2019, the BLM published the Record of Decision and 2019 ARMPA, amending the 2015 ARMPA. The 2019 ARMPA made only limited changes to the objectives and management decisions implemented through the 2015 ARMPA. This document reflects the 2015 ARMPA, as amended. The 2019 ARMPA for GRSG management developed priority habitat management areas (PHMAs), , general habitat management areas (GHMAs), and other habitat management areas (OHMAs) (BLM 2015). These categories are defined as follows:
PHMA - BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. Areas of PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as priority areas for conservation in the USFWS’s Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing and winter concentration areas and migration or connectivity corridors. GHMA - BLM-administered lands where some special management will apply to sustain GRSG populations; these are areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA. OHMA - BLM-administered lands identified as unmapped habitat in the Draft Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA)/EIS that are within the planning area and contain seasonal or connectivity habitat areas. With the generation of updated modeling data (Spatially Explicit Modeling of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat in Nevada and Northeastern California, Coates, et al. 2014) the areas containing characteristics of unmapped habitat were identified and are now referred to as OHMAs.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 24
Table 12 shows Greater sage-grouse PHMA, GHMA and OHMA acres that occur within the Smoky and Francisco allotments (Map 6). There are no SFAs within the Smoky or Francisco allotments.3
3 The 2019 ARMPA eliminated SFAs, there were no SFAs within these allotments. Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 25
Table 12. GRSG Habitat on BLM Lands by Allotment
Total PHMA OHMA Non- Allotment GRSG GHMA BLM BLM Habitat Name Habitat BLM Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Smoky 61,858 28 13,178 48,652 60,772 Francisco 14,247 0 4,800 9,447 2,630
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework
The Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) establishes indicators to determine the status of sage-grouse habitat at multiple scales and for seasonal habitats (Stiver et al. 2015). The results of these assessments provides the necessary information to evaluate whether the BLM managed lands are meeting the rangeland health standard for habitat in regards to sage-grouse. The HAF utilizes data collected as described in BLM Technical Note 445, AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy. Habitat suitability ratings utilized the HAF protocol.
2.7.6.1.1 Lek Habitat Suitability
Table 13 displays the HAF indicators for lek habitat and suitability categories (Seasonal Use Period: May 1st to May 15th).
Table 13. Lek Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories
Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable Sagebrush provides very Availability of Lek has adjacent sagebrush little protective cover Adjacent nesting habitat Sagebrush Cover cover (within 100m) adjacent to the perimeter unavailable of the lek Detrimental land uses are not Detrimental land uses Proximity of Detrimental land uses within line of sight of lek and are within line of sight Detrimental Land are within the vicinity of absent to uncommon within 3 of lek and uncommon or Uses the lek site km of lek few within 3 km of lek Trees or other tall Trees or other tall structures are structures are within Trees or other tall Proximity of Trees or not within line of sight of lek line of sight of lek structures are within Other Tall Structures and absent to uncommon within though uncommon or the vicinity of the lek 3 km of lek scattered within 3 km of site lek
2.7.6.1.2 Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing Habitat Suitability
The HAF nesting/early brood-rearing habitat indicators and suitability categories are reflected in Table 14 (Seasonal Use Period Nesting: April 1st to June 30th, Early Brood-Rearing: May 15th- June 15th).
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 26
Table 14 Nesting/Early Brood Rearing Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories
Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable Mean Sagebrush Cover 15-25 5 to <15 or >25 <5 (%) Mean Sagebrush Height
(%) Mesic Site* 40 to 80 20 to <40 or >80 <20 Arid Site 30 to 80 20 to <30 or >80 <20 Predominant Sagebrush Spreading Mix of spreading and columnar Columnar Shape Mean Perennial Grass ≥18 10 to <18 <10 and Forb Height (cm) Mean Perennial Grass
Cover (%) Mesic* ≥15 5 to <15 <5 Arid ≥10 5 to <10 <5 Mean Perennial Forb
Canopy Cover (%) Mesic* ≥10 5 to <10 <5 Arid ≥5 3 to <5 <3 Preferred forbs are common but Preferred Forb Preferred forbs are common Preferred forbs only a few preferred species are Availability† with several species present are rare present
* Mesic and arid sites should be defined on a local basis; annual precipitation, herbaceous understory, and soils should be considered (Connelly et al. 2000) † Relative to ecological site potential
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 27
2.7.6.1.3 Upland Summer/Late Brood-rearing Habitat Suitability
Table 15 below outlines the HAF upland summer/late brood-rearing habitat indicators and suitability categories (Seasonal Use Period Late: June 15th to September 15th).
Table 15. Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories
Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable
Mean Sagebrush Cover (%) 10-25 5 to <10 or >25 <5
Mean Sagebrush Height (cm) 40-80 20 to <40 or >80 <20
Mean Perennial Grass and Forb Cover (%) ≥15 5 to <15 <5 Preferred forbs Preferred forbs are are common but Preferred Preferred Forb Availability* common with appropriate only a few forbs are rare number of species present preferred species are present
* Good abundance, diversity, and availability relative to ecological site potential.
2.7.6.1.4 Riparian Summer/Late Brood-rearing Habitat Suitability
The HAF riparian summer/late brood-rearing habitat indicators and suitability categories are shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Riparian Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories
Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable Riparian and Wet Majority of areas are in Majority of areas are Majority of areas are Meadow Stability PFC FAR NF Preferred forbs are Preferred forbs are Preferred Forb common with common but only a few Preferred forbs are rare Availability* appropriate numbers of preferred species are species present present Sagebrush cover is in Sagebrush cover is Availability of close proximity to Sagebrush cover is adjacent to brood- Sagebrush Cover brood-rearing areas (100 unavailable (>275 m) rearing areas (<100 m) to 275 m)
* Good abundance, diversity, and availability relative to ecological site potential.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 28
2.7.6.1.5 Winter Habitat Suitability
Table 17 outlines the HAF winter habitat indicators and suitability categories (Seasonal Use Period: November 1st to February 28th).
Table 17. Winter Habitat Indicators and Suitability Categories
Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable Mean Sagebrush Cover ≥10 5 to <10 <5 (%) Mean Sagebrush Height ≥25 >10 to <25 ≤10 (above snow) (cm)
Pygmy Rabbits
Pygmy rabbits are North America’s smallest rabbits, and commonly construct their own burrows, usually in stands of tall, dense sagebrush in locations with deep, loose soils. Larrucea and Brussard, found that pygmy rabbits occupy clusters of sagebrush that were taller/higher than the sagebrush shrubs in the surrounding area (i.e., sagebrush islands that ranged from 12-117 centimeters in height). Distribution of pygmy rabbits is patchy throughout most of the Great Basin. Big sagebrush is the primary food source, which may comprise up to 99 percent of food taken in winter and 51 percent in the summer. Wheatgrass and bluegrass are highly preferred foods in the summer, while utilization of forbs occurs only occasionally (Green and Flinders 1980). Pygmy rabbits are active throughout the year with breeding occurring during the spring and early summer. The primary threat to pygmy rabbits is the loss of shrub-steppe habitat due to fire, unsustainable levels of grazing, invasion of exotic annuals, and agricultural conversion. Recent studies show that grazing was compatible with pygmy rabbits if grazing occurs at levels that left sagebrush plants intact and soils not overly compacted. The strongest predictor of loss of pygmy rabbit habitat appears to be fire. Shrub cover is necessary for protection during dispersal and cheatgrass monocultures may provide a barrier to dispersal. Pinyon-juniper encroachment decreases understory species and, in turn, decreases suitable pygmy rabbit habitat. (NDOW 2012). The BMDO and TFO ID Team performed a GIS desktop review and literature search of pygmy rabbit occurrences and potential habitat in the Francisco and Smoky Allotments. The ID Team found only a documented occurrence of pygmy rabbit scat in the Round Mountain Gold Mine Plan of Operation boundary. The occurrence was in an area that is not typical of occupied habitat, the soils were sandy, not deeper than 20 inches and the surrounding vegetation is salt desert scrub. While potential pygmy rabbit habitat does occur in small bands in the allotments, it is likely unoccupied and is limited by ecological site potential, therefore, pygmy rabbits will not be further discussed in the rangeland health assessment. 3.0 Resource Management Plan Objectives
In addition to meeting or making significant progress towards meeting the RAC standards and conforming to livestock grazing management guidelines, the following RMP objectives represent
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 29 the long-term desired conditions. Standards and RMP objectives are stand-alone requirements. Together, they may combine to inform future desired management actions and/or grazing management alternatives development in the NEPA document and may be incorporated as appropriate and required by policy into final decision documents for this grazing permit renewal process.
3.2 Tonopah Resource Management Plan
The Record of Decision for the Tonopah Resource Management Plan (RMP) was issued in 1997 and covered livestock grazing management on the Francisco and Smoky allotments. The following are the current RMP objectives that pertain to the Francisco and Smoky Allotments.
3.2.2 Livestock Grazing Management
Objective: To create healthy, productive rangelands through implementation of the recommendations of the ongoing rangeland monitoring and evaluation program. RMP Determinations:
Livestock Grazing Management will be in accordance with the rangeland standards and guidelines developed by the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The Standards and Guidelines were approved by the Interim BLM Director on February 10, 1997 and by the Secretary of the Interior of February 12, 1997. Continue the following management practices: o The Tonopah MFP and Tonopah Grazing EIS, along with the Esmeralda-Southern Nye RMP/EIS, provide the guidance necessary for the livestock grazing program. o Manage livestock at initial stocking levels of 134,355 animal unit months for the Tonopah East and 46,371 animal unit months for the Tonopah West area. Adjustment in use for each allotment will be based on short-term and/or long-term monitoring data methods as outlined in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook and other BLM technical references. Monitoring will be in consultation with the grazing permittee and other publics. If the desired trend does not occur, the responsible class of animal (where it can be determined) will be reduced or excluded. In allotments where monitoring data do not distinguish individual use between livestock and wild horse and/or burros, the stocking level for livestock will be based on a proportion derived from previous planning documents.
3.2.3 Special Status Species
Objective: To protect, restore, enhance, and expand habitat of species identified as threatened, endangered, Nevada BLM Sensitive Species under the Endangered Species Act. RMP Determinations:
Habitat for all federally listed threatened or endangered species or Nevada BLM Sensitive Species (plant and animal) will be managed to maintain or increase current populations of these species. The introduction, reintroduction, or augmentation of Nevada BLM Sensitive
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 30
Species, as well as federally listed threatened or endangered species, may be allowed if, in coordination with Nevada Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is deemed appropriate. Such actions will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to applicable procedures outlined in the section on Standard Operating Procedures, Environmental Review and Management.
3.2.4 Wildlife Habitat Management
Objective: To maintain and enhance wildlife habitat and provide for species diversity RMP Determinations:
Continue the following management decisions from previous land use plans: o The Toiyabe Bench will continue to be managed in cooperation with the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with the Toiyabe Bench Deer Winter Range Management Plan. Livestock grazing would be excluded on 9,127 acres of crucial deer winter range until the objectives in the Toiyabe Bench Deer Winter Range Management Plan have been met. (The Toiyabe Bench has been managed in cooperation with Nevada Division of Wildlife and U.S, Forest Service since 1985). Manage mule deer habitat for best possible condition within site potential. Manage pronghorn antelope habitat for best possible condition within the site potential. Maintain or improve existing or potential desert bighorn sheep habitat areas (324,000 acres).
3.2.5 Riparian Habitat
Objective: To achieve or maintain the presence of adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows for all riparian-wetlands (proper functioning condition). RMP Determinations:
Manage for proper functioning condition on all streamside riparian areas, and all springs, seeps, wet meadows and other riparian areas in the Tonopah Planning Area. Where streams and riparian areas are functioning, but are at risk of deteriorating, manage for an improving trend, as determined using techniques described in current BLM Technical References and/or other BLM guidelines. If needed, and in conjunction with the grazing permittees and other publics, design and implement management practices to achieve an upward trend. If the desired trend does not occur, the responsible class of animal (where it can be determined) will be reduced or excluded. Where streams and riparian areas are nonfunctional, work with livestock permittees and other publics to modify management. If the desired trend does not occur, the responsible class of animal (where it can be determined) will be reduced or excluded.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 31
3.2.6 Vegetation
Objective: To provide for vegetative and ecological diversity. RMP Determinations:
Manage the vegetation resource for desired plant communities.
3.3 2019 Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment
The 2015 Nevada and North Eastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) amended the Tonopah RMP to conserve, enhance and restore GRSG habitat in the context of the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mission under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Each objective has multiple management decisions provided in the ARMPA to be implemented as appropriate.4 The following RMP objectives apply to both allotments in this RHA. See Appendix 4 for Table 2-2
3.3.2 Livestock Grazing (LG) Objective
LG 1: Manage permitted livestock grazing to maintain and/or enhance PHMAs and GHMAs to meet or make progress towards meeting all GRSG life-cycle requirements and habitat objectives (Table 2-2), based on site potential.
3.3.3 Vegetation (VEG) Objectives
Sagebrush-steppe
VEG 1: In PHMAs, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but no less than 70%) with a minimum of 15% sagebrush cover or as consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6). VEG 2: On public lands, establish, maintain, and enhance a resistant and resilient sagebrush vegetative community and restore sagebrush vegetation communities to reduce GRSG habitat fragmentation and maintain or reestablish GRSG habitat connectivity over the long term (Chambers, et al. 2014). VEG 3: Manage PHMAs and GHMAs for vegetation composition and structure, consistent with ecological site potential and to achieve GRSG habitat objectives (Table 2-2).
4 On March 15, 2019, the BLM published the Record of Decision and 2019 ARMPA, amending the 2015 ARMPA. The 2019 ARMPA made only limited changes to the objectives and management decisions implemented through the 2015 ARMPA. This document reflects the 2015 ARMPA, as amended. Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 32
Riparian and Wetlands Habitat VEG 8: Manage riparian areas in PHMAs and GHMAs for vegetation composition and structure, consistent with ecological site potential and to achieve GRSG habitat objectives (Table 2-2).
VEG 9: Manage upland habitat associated with riparian areas to promote cover relative to site potential to facilitate brood-rearing habitat (Table 2-2). VEG 10: Where riparian function has been compromised or lost, manage to restore riparian function and meet GRSG habitat objectives (Table 2-2).
VEG 11: In riparian and wet meadow areas, inventory, monitor, and control invasive species in PHMAs and GHMAs.
3.3.4 Special Status Species (SSS) Objectives
SSS 1: Manage land resource uses to meet GRSG habitat objectives, as described in Table 2-2. The habitat objectives will be used to evaluate management actions that are proposed in GRSG habitat. Managing for habitat objectives will ensure that habitat conditions are maintained if they are currently meeting objectives or if habitat conditions move toward these objectives in the event that current conditions do not meet these objectives. [see applicable appendices for Table 2-2.]
SSS 2: Maintain or improve connectivity between, to, and in PHMAs and GHMAs to promote movement and genetic diversity for GRSG population persistence and expansion. 4.0 Francisco Allotment (00075) Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation
4.2 Allotment Setting and Overview
The Francisco Allotment (map 1) is located in the Northern portion of Nye County, Nevada, approximately 40 miles north of Tonopah. The allotment consists of approximately 16,896 acres of public land. Livestock management is administered by the TFO The allotment lies in the Big Smoky Valley of central Nevada. The Allotment is bordered to the north by the town of Carvers and the town of Hadley sits in the middle of the Francisco Allotment. Hadley is an unincorporated community in Nye County, located off of SR 376 approximately 56 miles north of Tonopah and approximately 66 miles south of Austin. The United States Forest Service (USFS) borders the western boundary of the allotment. Since this boundary has no fence or distinguishing feature, it is roughly defined as the point on the upper bench where the slope increases noticeably into the Toiyabe Mountains. The fence along SR 376 forms the eastern and northeastern boundaries. The southern boundary is defined by a fence running east and west. The allotment is split in two, North and South Pastures, by another east- west running fence. Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 33
Table 18. Francisco Allotment Acreage Summary
% Allotment Name BLM Acres BLM and No. Acres Francisco 16,896 100 NV00075
An accurate inventory of all current rangeland improvement projects within the allotment is available in BLM’s Corporate GIS data. The range improvement projects on the allotment can be found in the following table (table 19), and locations can be found on map (Map 7)
Table 19. Summary of Range Improvement Projects in the Francisco Allotment
Range Improvement Condition Date of last inspection Project Francisco Well Functioning 1/17/2015 Francisco Allotment Fence Functioning 1/17/2015 Francisco Cattle Guards Functioning 1/17/2015 Francisco Division Fence Functioning 8/17/2016 Francisco Water Haul Functioning 1/17/2015
There are no herd management areas for wild horses or burros within the Francisco Allotment.
4.2.2 Historic Permitted AUMs and Allotment Management
The Francisco Allotment was part of the Smoky Unit during the 1958 Rangeland Adjudication. W.R. Osterhoudt had an active preference of 207 animal unit months (AUMs) and James Kielach had an active preference of 1,092 AUMs for a total of 1,299 AUMs within the Smoky Unit. In 1970, a portion of the Smoky Unit was separated off, but it was not until 1972 that the range line agreement was signed, creating the Francisco Allotment. W.R. Osterhoudt and James Kielach maintained their permits in the Francisco Allotment. The allotment boundary fence was completed on November 22, 1972. On January 1, 1973 James Kielach leased his base property to W.R. Osterhoudt for three years. This lease allowed for all the AUMs used on the Francisco Allotment to be combined under a single operation run by W.R. Osterhoudt. M&O Corporation bought Jason Kielach’s base property, the Francisco Ranch, in December 1975 and shortly thereafter acquired the associated livestock grazing privileges in the Francisco Allotment. In February 1976, W.R. Osterhoudt leased the Francisco Ranch base property and associated grazing privileges from the M&O Corporation for a term of five years. In 1981, M&O Corporation extended the lease with W.R, Osterhoudt for one year until February 28, 1982. In 1982, the lease expired, leaving W.R. Osterhoudt with his original 207 AUMs on the Francisco Allotment. In 1993, W.R. Osterhoudt had 93 AUMs suspended resulting in 114 active AUMs from 1993 until 2001. It is unknown why the 93 AUMs were suspended. Francisco Ranch was sold in 1993, to George and Linda Manley, who owned the Francisco Ranch until 2001 when it was sold to Don Osterhoudt, the son of W.R. Osterhoudt. With the approval of
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 34 the transfer of the Francisco Ranch grazing permit to Don Osterhoudt the two grazing permits were combined and total authorized AUMs were 1,209. In 2011, 160 AUMs were added to Don Osterhoudt’s permit, no documentation or rationale was provided in the case file for this action. At the time the AUMs were added, the season of use on the permit was extended by one month, with no modification of livestock numbers. Since 2011 the Don and Randall Osterhoudt grazing permit allows for 1,369 AUMs of active use and issued under section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA. The following table summarizes the grazing permit within the Francisco Allotment. The livestock number, livestock kind, begin date, end date, percent public land forage and AUMs are the minimum mandatory terms and condition of the operators that are found on their grazing permit (table 20).
Table 20. Francisco Allotment Active Permitted AUMs
% Livestock Livestock Begin End Active Suspended Permittee Public Number Kind Date Date AUMs AUMs Land Don and Randall 152 Cattle 07/01 04/15 100 1369 93 Osterhoudt
Livestock Management
Historically the North Pasture was utilized from October 1st to December 1st; use dates for the South Pasture were December 1st to April 15th. Beginning in 2016, the permittees implemented a deferred pasture rotation system. The system is designed in a manner that allows for no livestock grazing every other year during the critical growth period (March to June) for herbaceous vegetation. This deferment is an alternating fall/winter rotation, for example, if one pasture is grazed during the spring, the next year that pasture will be allowed to rest during the spring, and the other pasture will be utilized at that time.
Actual Use
The following table summarizes the total AUMs of use by grazing year (March 1 to February 28) (table 21). Due to inconsistent actual use reporting, the numbers shown from 2006 to 2016 are a compilation of billed use and submitted actual use reports. Billed use may not be an accurate representation of actual use that occurred in the allotment, if the permittee’s actual use is less than the billed use.
Table 21. Actual Use for the Francisco Allotment
Permittee 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Don & Randall 753* 779* 832* 951* 986* 911* 867* 835* 882 879 912 Osterhoudt*
* symbol indicates from billing records all others from actual use records.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 35
Utilization Data
Utilization transects were conducted in the Francisco Allotment as outlined in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook 1984 and Interagency Technical Reference 1734-03 Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements as revised 1999. Utilization was read at the end of the grazing season. Each observation was recorded using six utilization classes: No Use (0 percent), Slight Use (1-20 percent), Light Use (21-40 percent), Moderate Use (41-60 percent), Heavy Use (61-80 percent) and Severe Use (81-100 percent). Utilization monitoring is based on the key species concept. Key species are species that indicate the general degree of forage use on a key area and may indicate grazing use of closely related species. Key species may also refer to species that, because of their importance on the key area, must be considered in the management program. Key species should be abundant on rangelands with satisfactory species composition and should be plentiful enough to provide an adequate seed source on areas with unsatisfactory species composition. In some cases overgrazing may have reduced the key species for an area, other species may be selected, which can be an indicator to range health. On grazing allotments, grazing animals generally prefer these species. Utilization may also be estimated on selected plants based on other criteria to monitor management objectives for other resource uses, such as wildlife and watershed.
4.2.3 Monitoring History on the Francisco Allotment
Key Areas (KAs) were established throughout the allotment in the 1980s to monitor utilization and the effects of livestock grazing in the Francisco Allotment. Soil type influences the potential vegetation community present at each KA. Soil types were verified at each KA by digging a soil pit. These sites have been used to monitor resource conditions and the impacts of past and current management of livestock and other activities. Historical data and photos were also used to consider long term changes in the vegetation. Consistent trend data collected at key areas are provided to show trend at key areas. Monitoring data collected at key areas in the past include: line point intercept; 17 indicators of rangeland health; key species utilization, photo points; use pattern mapping; annual production; and quadrat frequency. Data is then compared to what is expected for that ecological site, as described by the ESD published by the NRCS. In 2014, the BLM started to evaluate 17 indicators of rangeland health and performed use pattern mapping. Data from 2014 utilized only a single transect. In addition, qualitative drought monitoring and utilization were performed at the KAs in 2015. In 2017, the BLM revisited sites for monitoring site suitability, establishment of new sites and follow up for the 17 indicators. The 2017 key area monitoring used single three spoke AIM transect, this was done to maximize the sampling power at each plot, allowing the BLM to have a more precise cover value as compared to a single transect (Elzinga, et al. 2001) The BLM found that not all KA sites were in appropriate locations, or were not needed due to other KAs effectively providing information about similar ecological sites. Five of the 12 KAs were monitored during 2017 to collect the final data needed to assess land health standards.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 36
This assessment will use the 1981 through 2010 quadrat frequency, and 2017 key area monitoring. The 2014 monitoring only used one transect and values and is therefore not used in this assessment. The single transect only represents values at the one transect, where the values of the three spoke AIM transect are averaged to represent a plot average. By changing the layout of transects to a spoke design, this has increased the number of measurements at the plot and cannot be compared to previous years with only a single transect.
Table 22. Key Management Area and Associated Range Types
Key Management Area Ecological Site Name Ecological Site Number Number Cobbly Loamy 5-8” P.Z. 029XY036NV 4, 9 Loamy 5-8” P.Z. 029XY017NV 8, 12 Sandy Loam 5-8” P.Z. 029XY046NV 11
Use pattern mapping was conducted on the Francisco Allotment for grazing years 2014, 2015, and 2016.
4.3 Francisco Allotment Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation
4.3.2 Standards for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area
Standard 1.Soils
The following is excerpted from the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines for grazing, and pertains to assessment of rangeland health as it relates to soils: Watershed soils and stream banks should have adequate stability to resist accelerated erosion, maintain soil productivity and sustain the hydrologic cycle. As indicated by:
Upland Soil indicators: . Ground cover (vegetation, litter, rock, and bare ground) . Surfaces (e.g. biological crust pavements) . Compaction/infiltration
4.3.2.1.1 Rangeland Health Assessment
4.3.2.1.1.1 Line Point Intercept
The primary data collected using the LPI method is quantifiable information regarding soil cover, which is comprised of vegetation, litter, rocks, and biological crusts (Herrick et al. 2015). Secondary information ascertained from LPI data is plant composition. The following sections present LPI data from 2017 KA monitoring plots.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 37
Soil Cover
Table 23 presents relative soil cover data by plot. Relative soil cover is the cover of a particular attribute as a percentage of the total cover. Relative cover will always tally to 100%. Relative ground cover is important to consider when evaluating site conditions to the expected site reference conditions. Herrick et al. (2009) states that total foliar, litter, and other surface cover (rocks and biological crusts) are positively correlated with soil and site stability and hydrologic function. It protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, thereby limiting detachment of soil particles and physical crusting of the soil surface. Additionally, higher cover generally means there are more obstructions to water flow.” The interpretation of the data is not as simple when considering the potential of each ecological site. Site reference descriptions play an important role in ensuring that site characteristics are evaluated properly.
Table 23 Summary of Percent Ground Cover for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment
% Other % Foliar % Bare % Plot Surface Cover Soil Litter Cover* KA 4 20 48 14 0 KA 8 21 42 13 29 KA 9 21 28 13 33 KA 11 20 57 28 9 KA 12 20 53 13 6
* Other surface cover represents rock and biological soil crust
The plots with the highest percent foliar cover were KA 8 and 9. KAs with the lowest percent foliar cover at 20 percent were KA 4, KA11, and KA 12. KAs with the highest percent bare ground were KA 11, and KA 12, the plots with the lowest percentage of bare ground were KA 8 and KA9. In 2017 the highest percent litter was KA 11. The plot with the highest percent other surface cover was KA 8, and 9. The plots with the lowest percent other surface cover was KA 11 and 12.
4.3.2.1.1.2 Soil Stability Data
Table 24 presents soil stability rating by key area sampled in 2017. Soil stability tests were conducted at each of the key areas to provide information about the degree of soils structure development and erosion resistance when exposed to wetting (Herrick, et al., 2015). The soil stability rating is compared to the reference area to determine a departure from normal.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 38
The “all sample” mean is the average of 18 total samples per plot. The “under cover sample” mean is the average for samples recorded under vegetation. The “no cover sample” mean is the average for samples recorded without vegetation.
Table 24. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Soil Stability Rating From Ecological Site Reference in the Francisco Allotment
Under All No Cover Cover Plot Year Reference Sample Sample Sample Mean Mean Mean KA 4 2017 <3 3.7 3 2.6 KA 8 2017 2-4 1.6 2.8 2.1 KA 9 2017 <3 1.7 2.2 1.4 KA 11 2017 2-4 1.7 1.4 2.5 KA 12 2017 2-4 1.7 1.5 1.8
Of the 5 key areas, only KA 4 was within the expected range of reference, however, the other KAs were outside of the range by only a small margin.
4.3.2.1.1.3 Canopy Gap Intercept Data
Table 25 presents the percent of the plot transects falling into 0 to 100 centimeters (0 to 3.3 feet), 101 to 200 centimeters (3.3 to 6.6 feet), and greater than 200 centimeters (greater than 6.6 feet) canopy gaps of perennial species. Canopy Gap Intercept data assesses sites for wind and water erosion potential, susceptibility to weed invasion, and provides information regarding wildlife habitat, such as hiding cover and thermal environment (Herrick, et al. 2015). Literature suggests that gaps of less than 100 centimeters are at lower risk of erosion whereas gaps that are greater than 200 centimeters are at a high risk of erosion (Okin et al. 2009). Gaps were measured on 3 transects of 25 meters. The method chosen for this monitoring did not include canopy cover of annual species. As perennial canopy gaps increase, the likelihood of invasion by annual non- natives increase. Annual invasive plants can provide for soil stability; however, their contributions to soil stability vary yearly based on precipitation.
Table 25. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Percent Canopy Gap Intercept Data* in the Francisco Allotment
25-100 101 - 200 cm >200 cm Plot Canopy Gap Canopy Gap Canopy Gap KA 4 12.28 17.71 66.09 KA 8 24.95 34.46 40.58 KA 9 30.29 45.86 51.08 KA 11 16.80 28.15 55.04 KA 12 31.55 28.27 40.16
* Due to rounding, percentages may not equal 100%
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 39
Canopy Gap Intercept data showed that all 5 KAs did have gaps greater than 200 cm. KAs 4 and 11 had the greatest percentage of gaps over 200 cm, and KAs 8 and 12 had the lowest percentage of gaps over 200 cm.
4.3.2.1.2 Evaluation of Standard 1
Evaluation Finding ☒ Achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard, but making significant progress toward achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard
4.3.2.1.3 Rationale for Evaluation Finding
4.3.2.1.3.1 Rangeland Health Departure Ratings
Evaluation sheets rating the 17 Indicators were completed at each of these sites for rangeland heath departure from reference state. The first two indicators, soil and site stability and hydrologic function are critical in evaluating standard 1. Soil and site stability is the capacity of the area to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources by wind and water. Hydrologic function is the capacity of the area to capture, store, and safely release water from rainfall, run-on, and snowmelt. Table 26 presents a summary of the departures from normal of soil and site stability and hydrologic function. The assessments provide ratings based on the degree of departure from the expected range of conditions associated with the ecological site’s reference state and the 17 Indicators and are characterized as; none-to-slight (NS), slight-to-moderate (SM), moderate (M), moderate-to- extreme (ME), and extreme-to-total (ET) (Pellant et al. 2005).
Table 26. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in Francisco Allotment for 2017.
Hydrologic Plot Soil & Site Stability Function KA 4 NS NS KA 8 NS NS KA 9 NS NS KA 11 NS NS KA 12 SM NS
Soil and Site Stability
In regards to soil and site stability, Table 26 shows four key areas with a none-to-slight departure, and one with a slight-to-moderate departure from ecological site reference. The slight-to-moderate departure was based on soils stability being lower than site reference (1.7 was site average, site reference is 2 to 4).
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 40
Hydrologic Function
All key areas were rated in the none-to-slight category. Overall Conclusion In reviewing the information found in Table 26, the 17 Indicators for 2017, it was concluded that standard 1 was being met. Although soil stability values were slightly below ecological site reference at four key areas, all key areas have adequate ground cover to resist erosion and maintain soil productivity.
Standard 2. Ecosystem Components
The following is excerpted from the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines for grazing, and pertains to assessment of rangeland health as it relates to Ecosystem Components: Watershed should possess the necessary ecological components to achieve state water quality criteria, maintaining ecological processes, and sustain appropriate uses. Riparian and wetland vegetation should have structural and species diversity characteristic of the stage of stream channel succession in order to provide forage and cover, capture sediment, and capture, retain and safely release water. As indicated by:
Upland indicators: . Canopy and ground cover, including litter, live vegetation, biological crust, and rock appropriate to the potential of the ecological site. . Ecological processes are adequate for the vegetative communities. Riparian indicators: . Stream side riparian areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, large woody debris, or rock is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows. . Elements indicating proper functioning condition such as avoiding accelerating erosion, capturing sediment, and providing for groundwater recharge and release are determined by the following measurements as appropriate to the site characteristics: o With/Depth Ratio; o Channel Roughness; o Sinuosity of stream channel; o Bank stability; o Vegetative cover (amount, spacing, lifeform); o Other cover (large woody debris and rock) . Natural springs, seeps, and marsh areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation is present to facilitate water retention, filtering, and release as indicated by plant species and cover appropriate to the site characteristics. Water quality indicators:
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 41
. Chemical, physical, and biological constituents do not exceed the state water quality standards. The above indicators shall be applied to the potential of the ecological site.
4.3.2.2.1 Rangeland Health Assessment
4.3.2.2.1.1 Uplands
Line Point Intercept Data
The primary data collected using the LPI method is quantifiable information regarding soil cover, which is comprised of vegetation, litter, rocks, and biological crusts (Herrick et al. 2015). Secondary information ascertained from LPI data is plant composition. The following sections present LPI data from the 2016 KA monitoring plots.
Canopy and Ground Cover
Table 27 presents relative ground cover data by plot, which includes foliar cover, bare ground, litter, and other surface cover, such as biotic crust or rock fragments. Relative soil cover is the cover of a particular attribute as a percentage of the total cover. Relative cover will always tally to 100%. Relative ground cover is important to consider when evaluating site conditions to the expected site reference conditions. Knowing relative ground cover will provide insights to help better understand foliar cover of dominate plant species and plant community composition by foliar cover.
Table 27 Summary of Percent Ground Cover for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment
% Other* % Foliar % Bare % Plot Surface Cover Soil Litter Cover KA 4 20 48 14 0 KA 8 21 42 13 29 KA 9 21 28 13 33 KA 11 20 57 28 9 KA 12 20 53 13 6
* Other Surface cover represents rock and biological soil crust
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 42
Foliar Cover of Dominate Plant Species
Table 28 presents absolute percent foliar cover of the dominate plant species for shrubs, grasses, forbs, and invasive species by key area. Absolute cover is the cover of all vegetative hits recorded along the monitoring transect. Since plant species often overlap one another, it is possible to have greater than 100 percent cover on monitoring transects. Loss or shifts in dominate species from the expected reference conditions could be an indication of long-term chronic disturbances like drought, altered fire regimes, and improper livestock grazing.
Table 28. Percent Foliar Cover of Dominate Plant Species* for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment
% Dominate % % Dominate % Foliar Dominate Dominate Plot Year Foliar Perennial Foliar Foliar Shrub Cover Forb Invasive Cover Grass Cover Cover KA 4 2017 KRLA2 24 None N/A None N/A N/A N/A
KA 8 2017 PIDE4 56 ACHY 4 None N/A N/A N/A
KA 9 2017 PIDE4 32 PLJCA 12 None N/A N/A N/A
KA 11 2017 KRLA2 24 ACHY 4 None N/A N/A N/A
KA 12 2017 KRLA2 48 None N/A None N/A SATR12 4
*Species code and common names can be found in table 2
In 2017, the KAs with the highest shrub percent cover were KAs 8 and 12, while KAs 4 and 11 had the lowest percent shrub cover. Most key areas did not show forb cover. Invasive cover was only reported at KA 12, but was noted in the 17 Indicators of Rangeland Heath around the roads and disturbed areas near other KAs.
Plant Community Composition by Foliar Cover
Table 29 presents percent composition for absolute foliar plant cover by key area. Plant community composition is the proportion of foliar cover of shrubs, grasses, forbs, and invasive species to the total foliar cover recorded at the monitoring site. Plant composition is used as an indicator of change in plant communities when compared to reference plant communities. In addition, the amount of invasive plant composition is an important indicator of potential declines in soil and site stability and hydrologic function (Herrick et al. 2009).
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 43
Table 29. Plant Community*Composition by Foliar Cover for Key Areas within the Francisco Allotment
Shrub % Grass % Forb % Invasive % Composition Composition Composition Composition Plot by Foliar by Foliar by Foliar by Foliar Cover Cover Cover Cover KA 4 20 0 0 0 KA 8 80 11 0 0 KA 9 70 1.5 0 0 KA 11 86 1.8 0 0 KA 12 93 0 0 1
* Total canopy cover can exceed 100 percent because plants can overlap.
In regards to plant community composition. In 2017 KA 12 had the highest amount of shrub cover, and KA 4 had the lowest amount. Grass composition was less than expected in 2017, but the previous year’s drought had affected the area. KA 8 had the highest amount of grass cover, and KAs 4, and 12 had the lowest percentage at 0 percent. Forb cover on all key area where found to be at 0 percent. The lack of forbs may have been caused by the previous year’s lack of moisture or the lack of moisture during the spring. Invasive species percent cover was very low, 0 percent on all but KA 12.
Quadrat Frequency
Quadrat Frequency data provide insight into changes in the plant community, such as plant occurrence, vigor, and/or health. Quadrat frequency data is collected at permanently located study sites and includes: species frequency and cover data (Coulloudon, et al., 1999) Charts 1, 2, and 3 presents the percent frequency of plant species by year. Quadrat frequency was done at established transect located at KAs 4, 8, and 11.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 44
Chart 1. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 4 Francisco Allotment
Key Area 4 Frequency 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10 % Species of Frequancy % 0 ACHY SPHAE GRPU3 ATCO PIDE4 KRLA2 Species Name
1985 1992 1997 2010
Chart 1 reports the trend of percent frequency of species located at KA 4 No species at this site were found either to be going at a downward or upward trend. It appears all species that are represented in the data are showing a static behavior.
Chart 2. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 8 Francisco Allotment
Key Area 8 Frequency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
% Species of Frequancy % 10 0 ACHY SPCR ELEL5 PLJA BRTE SPHAE ATCO PIDE4 KRLA2 EPNE CHVI8 Species Name
1981 1982 1992 2010
Chart 2, displays the trend of plant species located on KA 8. Bud sagebrush appears to be decreasing. This trend has been continuing since 1992, but no further frequency was done in 2017 to verify if the trend has continued. Other species present at the site have appeared to be stable or are currently stabilizing.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 45
Chart 3. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 11 Francisco Allotment
Key Area 11 Frequancy 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10 % Species of Frequancy % 0 ACHY ELEL5 SPCR AF SPHAE SAKA KRLA2 CHVI8 PIDE4 Species Name
2009
Chart 3 displays the percent frequency of species located at KA 11 Because frequency data was only collected for one year and not repeated, no trend is noted.
4.3.2.2.1.2 Riparian and Wetland Resources
No riparian and wetland resources exist in the Francisco Allotment.
4.3.2.2.2 Evaluation of Standard 2
Evaluation Finding ☒ Achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard, but making significant progress toward achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard
4.3.2.2.3 Rationale for Evaluation Finding
4.3.2.2.3.1 Uplands
Rangeland Health Departure Ratings
Evaluation sheets rating the 17 Indicators were completed at each of these sites for rangeland heath departure from reference state. The third indicator, biotic integrity is critical in evaluating standard 2. Biotic Integrity is the capacity of the biotic community to support ecological processes within the normal range of variability expected for the site, to resist a loss in the capacity to support these processes, and to recover this capacity when losses do occur. Table 30 presents a summary of the departures from normal of biotic integrity the assessments provide ratings based on the degree of departure from the expected range of conditions associated with the ecological site’s reference
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 46 state and the 17 Indicators and are characterized as: none-to-slight (NS), slight-to-moderate (SM), moderate (M), moderate-to-extreme (ME), and extreme-to-total (ET) (Pellant et al. 2005).
Biotic Integrity
Table 30. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in the Francisco Allotment for 2017.
Biotic Plot Integrity KA 4 SM KA 8 NS KA 9 NS KA 11 NS KA 12 SM
In regards to biotic integrity, 3 of the 5 key areas were rated in the none-to-slight category; those KAs are 8, 9, and 11. Two key areas had a slight to moderate departure from site reference. For KA 4, the slight to moderate departure was due to the lack of cool season grasses, but the lack of cool season grasses may be related to an ecological site inclusion. KA 12 also was rated in the slight to moderate category, as with KA 4 the site lacked cool season grasses. This key area did also have a soil stability value of 1.7 less than the expected range of 2 to 4. Overall Conclusions In reviewing the information found in the above tables and the 17 indicators for 2017, it was concluded that standard 2 is being met. All key areas seem to be within the reference values although some slight deviation may be occurring. The cause of slight deviation has not been identified.
4.3.2.2.3.2 Riparian and Wetland Resources
No riparian and wetland resources exist in the Francisco Allotment and the riparian and wetland portion of standard 2 does not apply to the Francisco Allotment.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 47
Standard 3. Habitat and Biota
The following is excerpted from the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines for grazing, and pertains to assessment of rangeland health as it relates to habitat and biota: Habitats and watersheds should sustain a level of biodiversity appropriate for the area and conducive to appropriate uses. Habitats of special status species should be able to sustain viable populations of these species. As indicated by:
Habitat Indicators: . Vegetation composition (relative abundance of species) . Vegetation structure (life forms, cover, height, and age classes) . Vegetation distribution (patchiness, corridors) . Vegetation productivity . Vegetation nutritional value Wildlife Indicators . Escape terrain . Relative abundance . Composition . Distribution . Nutritional value . Edge-patch snags
4.3.2.3.1 Rangeland Health Assessment
The TFO used 2017 line point intercept and 2017 greater sage-grouse plots data for the assessment of Standard 3. The interpretation of line point intercept is critical for the assessment of mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and desert bighorn sheep. AIM data is crucial for the HAF assessment for greater sage grouse. The TFO reviewed the 2017 data for quality control. If errors were found on data forms, such as wrong codes in vegetative canopy column, these errors were corrected.
4.3.2.3.1.1 Wildlife
Migratory Birds/Birds of Conservation Concern
The Francisco Allotment falls in the Region 9 BCR. Appendix 2 lists the bird species in Region 9. Migratory birds utilizing the uplands in the allotment are most likely the sagebrush obligate species such as the sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage sparrow, which are listed on the Region 9 species list. Riparian areas and meadows would provide habitat for such species as the tri-colored blackbird, green-tailed towhee, willow flycatcher, Lewis’s woodpecker, calliope hummingbird, yellow-billed cuckoo, and long-billed curlew. The allotment does not contain large expanses of lakes or ponds so species such as the eared grebe, yellow rail, and marble godwit are not likely to occur in the area. Species that prefer high elevation montane and subalpine forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands are only migrants (Williamson’s sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, Virginia’s warbler, flammulated owl, black swift, pinyon jay, and black rosy-finch) Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 48 and would have limited habitat in the allotment with little to no impacts associated from rangeland authorized activities. Other species such as the bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, and peregrine falcon may occur in all habitats and elevations.
Mule Deer
NDOW classifies areas within the Francisco Allotment as mule deer winter range and crucial winter range habitat (map 2). The approximate acres for each habitat classification are displayed in Table 31. Winter range consists of more xeric, lower elevation areas containing sagebrush or pinyon-juniper.
Table 31. Mule Deer Habitat within the Francisco Allotments
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments
Winter Range 4,808 Crucial Winter Range 277
Food habitat studies in Nevada revealed the mule deer's dietary composition of browse species ranged from 60 percent in the spring to 90 percent in the winter. Forb use ranged from 20 percent to greater than 50 percent in the spring, to less than 5 percent use in the winter. Grass use was found to be from 1 percent in the summer to a high of 15 percent in the spring (Tueller et al. 1979). Mule deer prefer the leaders of browse species such as bitterbrush, serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), and sagebrush. Data collected using the AIM and 17 indicator protocols were reviewed in relation to mule deer habitat needs. Table 32 depicts vegetative data in Francisco Allotment within mule deer habitat as designated by NDOW.
Table 32. Data Pertaining to Mule Deer Habitat in the Francisco Allotment from the AIM Plots
Average Total Shrub Total Grass Total Forb Monitoring Site Habitat Type Sagebrush height % Foliar % Foliar % Foliar Cover† (cm)* Cover Cover‡ KA 9 Winter N/A 70 1.5 0 Site 2 Winter N/A 28 1.3 0 Site 8 Winter N/A 24 0 1.3
* N/A height measurement was not taken † Does not include invasive or weed species ‡ Includes perennial deep-rooted grasses
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 49
Pronghorn Antelope
NDOW classifies the area within the Francisco Allotment as year-round habitat. Table 33 depicts the approximate acres for year-round habitat. Year-round habitat encompasses the entirety of the allotment. The vegetative cover within the year-round habitat includes salt desert shrub, greasewood, grassland, agriculture, and sagebrush steppe.
Table 33. Pronghorn Habitat within the Francisco Allotment
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments
Year-Round 16,684
Data collected using the AIM and 17 Indicators protocols were reviewed in relation to pronghorn antelope habitat needs. Table 34 shows the percent cover for several shrubs, forbs, and grasses and the average height of sagebrush in the Francisco Allotment.
Table 34. Pronghorn Antelope Habitat Data for the Francisco Allotment
Total Total Average Total Forb Shrub % Grass % Monitoring Site Habitat Type Sagebrush % Foliar Foliar Foliar height (cm) Cover* Cover Cover† KA 4 Year-Round N/A 20 0 0 KA 8 Year-Round N/A 80 0 0 KA 9 Year-Round N/A 70 0 0 KA 11 Year-Round N/A 86 0 0 KA 12 Year-Round N/A 93 0 1 Site 2 Year-Round N/A 28 1.3 0 Site 8 Year-Round N/A 24 0 1.3
* Does not include invasive or weed species* † Includes perennial deep-rooted grasses and bottlebrush squirreltail and Sandberg's bluegrass
Table 35. Pronghorn habitat rating in regards to vegetative cover for forbs, grasses, and shrubs (Yoakum 1980)
Vegetation Type Good Fair Poor Forbs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover <5% ground cover Grass 20-50% ground cover 10-20% ground cover <10% ground cover Shrubs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover >30% ground cover
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 50
4.3.2.3.1.2 Special Status Species
Bats
A review of BLM’s corporate GIS data and baseline reports for mines within the Francisco Allotment showed that 13 species of bats have been documented on the Francisco Allotment. The 13 species are: big brown bat, Brazilian free tailed bat, California myotis, canyon bat, cave bat, hoary bat, little brown bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged bat, pallid bats, Townsend’s big-eared bat, silver haired bat, and western small-footed myotis.
Desert Bighorn Sheep
NDOW classifies areas as winter range, summer range, year-round habitat, and lambing habitat. Winter range in the allotments consists of more xeric, lower elevation areas containing sagebrush or pinyon-juniper communities and rocky outcrops. Summer range characteristics are more mesic, higher elevation areas containing sagebrush, sagebrush steppe, pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, or grassland vegetative communities, and rocky outcrops. No summer range exist in the allotments. Bighorn year-round habitat occurs in the lowland riparian, salt desert shrub and greasewood vegetative communities located along the foothills of both the Toquima and Toiyabe Mountain Ranges. Lambing habitat consists of higher elevation rugged terrain with slope approaching 100 percent and higher visibility with steeper slopes. Table 36 shows approximate acres of winter range and year-round habitat within the Francisco Allotment. Bighorn sheep are known as opportunistic, generalist foragers that feed on a variety of plants depending on time of year and moisture. Forbs are thought to be the preferred forage. However seasonal and geographical variations in diets have been observed in bighorn sheep throughout Nevada. Favorable habitat, forage availability, disease and predation are all limiting factors for bighorn sheep populations. Decreasing horizontal visibility has a positive association with increased sheep use and decreased predation. Due to the topography a very small portion of roughly 1,431 acres of the Francisco allotment fall within bighorn sheep habitat as shown in Table 36.
Table 36. Desert bighorn sheep Habitat within the Francisco Allotment
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments
Winter Range 42
Year-Round 1,389
Greater Sage-Grouse
The Francisco Allotment has approximately 1,389 acres of potential upland year round habitat and 42 acres of potential winter habitat. No lek, nesting, riparian, and wetland/meadow habitat has been identified in the allotment.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 51
Sage-grouse habitat was evaluated using the Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) (Stiver, et al. 2015) to make habitat suitability assessments in the Francisco Allotment.
Upland Summer/Late-Brood-rearing Habitat Suitability
Two monitoring sites were evaluated for sage grouse upland summer/late brood-rearing habitat suitability within the Francisco Allotment (map 7). Table 37 shows monitoring site name, associated ESD/cover type, site location, acres of habitat assessed, and suitability rating.
Table 37. Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat in the Francisco Allotment
Site ESD Acres Suitability ID/Name R029XY017NV 1,606 Unsuitable Site 2 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. R029XY036NV Site 8 Cobbly Loam 5-8 911 Marginal P.Z.
Winter Habitat Suitability
Two monitoring sites were evaluate for sage grouse winter habitat suitability within the Francisco Allotment (map 7). Table 38 shows monitoring site name, associated ESD/cover type, site location, acres of habitat assessed, and suitability rating.
Table 38. Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat in the Francisco Allotment
Site ESD Acres Suitability ID/Name R029XY017NV 1,606 Unsuitable Site 2 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. R029XY036NV Site 8 Cobbly Loam 5-8 911 Suitable P.Z.
4.3.2.3.2 Evaluation of Standard 3
Evaluation Finding ☒ Achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard, but making significant progress toward achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 52
4.3.2.3.3 Rationale for Evaluation Finding
4.3.2.3.3.1 Wildlife
Migratory Birds/Bird of Conservation Concern
Data from the upland monitoring plots on the Francisco Allotment were used to evaluate habitat for migratory birds of conservation concern in the Francisco Allotment. In reviewing the upland monitoring plot, it was found that suitable migratory birds/birds of conservation concern habitat was present in the allotment.
Mule Deer
Food habitat studies in Nevada revealed that mule deer dietary composition of browse species ranged from 60% in the spring to 90% in the winter. Forb use ranged from 20% to greater than 50% in the spring, to less than 5 % use in the winter. Grass use was found to be from 1% in the summer to a high of 15% in the spring (Tueller, et al. 1979). Mule deer prefer the leaders of browse species such as bitterbrush and sagebrush. Table 32 in section 4.3.2.3.1.1.2 depicts shrub, grass, and forb vegetative composition in the Francisco Allotment. That data in Table 32 can be utilized to determine if the cover of vegetation at the plots provides adequate dietary requirement for mule deer. Big sagebrush and other browse species make up the majority of cover at the plot, with forbs being the limiting factor. Considering that habitat in the allotment is winter range, the cover of the plots located in habitat are providing the necessary browse for mule deer in the winter.
Pronghorn Antelope
The vegetative height, cover, and community type, as well as the elevation, topography, and distance to water, influence pronghorn habitat selection. Pronghorn generally prefer shrub communities with the vegetation structure averaging about 38.1 centimeters (15 inches) in height, in areas with flat terrain or rolling topography from 914-1,829 meters (3,000-6,000 feet) in elevation. Antelope preferred ranges consist of approximately 50 percent living vegetation (Yoakum, et al. 1980). Table 34 depicts the vegetative composition preferred by pronghorn. Table 28 in section 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2, summarizes foliar cover by shrubs, forbs, and grasses at each plot in pronghorn habitat in the Francisco Allotment. Table 34 reviews cover in regards to pronghorn antelope habitat condition within the criteria for “good” habitat for all three of the cover types. The limiting factor for the majority of the plots is low forb cover, and low percent of grasses. After reviewing upland monitoring data there is sufficient vegetation to support pronghorn within the allotment.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 53
4.3.2.3.3.2 Special Status Species
Bats
Of the 23 Nevada bat species 13 have been observed on or near the Smoky and Francisco allotments. Abandoned mines, structures and rock outcroppings within the allotment provide adequate roosting habitat for the bat species residing within the Francisco allotment. Conversion of native shrub steppe to non-native/exotic grasslands has negatively impacted bats and many of the native invertebrate species bats rely on as a food source. Data from the upland monitoring plots of the Francisco Allotment were used to evaluate habitat for bats in the Francisco Allotment. In reviewing the upland monitoring plots, it was found that there was suitable bat habitat in the allotment.
Desert Bighorn Sheep
Francisco is home to Desert Bighorn Sheep year round habitat. Habitat occurs on the upper benches on the border of U.S. Forest Service administered land, and BLM administered lands. NDOW classifies areas as winter range, summer range, year-round habitat, and lambing habitat. Winter range in the allotments consists of more xeric, lower elevation areas containing sagebrush or pinyon-juniper communities and rocky outcrops. Summer range characteristics are more mesic, higher elevation areas containing sagebrush, sagebrush steppe, pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, or grassland vegetative communities, and rocky outcrops. No summer range exist in the allotments. Bighorn year-round habitat occurs in the lowland riparian, salt desert shrub and greasewood vegetative communities located along the foothills of both the Toquima and Toiyabe Mountain Ranges. Lambing habitat consists of higher elevation rugged terrain with slope approaching 100 percent and higher visibility with steeper slopes. Table 36. Desert bighorn sheep Habitat within the Francisco Allotment shows approximate acres of winter range and year-round habitat within the Francisco Allotment. Bighorn sheep are known as opportunistic, generalist foragers that feed on a variety of plants depending on time of year and moisture. Forbs are thought to be the preferred forage. However seasonal and geographical variations in diets have been observed in bighorn sheep throughout Nevada. Favorable habitat, forage availability, disease and predation are all limiting factors for bighorn sheep populations. Decreasing horizontal visibility has a positive association with increased sheep use and decreased predation. Due to the topography a very small portion of roughly 7664 acres of the Smoky allotment fall within bighorn sheep habitat as shown in Table 35. Due to Bighorns’ opportunistic foraging potential, Table 39 shows the surrounding site provides the necessary forage for desert bighorn.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 54
Table 39. Data Pertaining to Big Horn Sheep Habitat in the Francisco Allotment from Plots
Total Total Average Total Forb Shrub % Grass % Monitoring Site Habitat Type Sagebrush % Foliar Foliar Foliar height (cm) Cover* Cover Cover† KA 4 Year-Round N/A 20 0 0 KA 8 Year-Round N/A 80 0 0 KA 9 Year-Round N/A 70 0 0 KA 11 Year-Round N/A 86 0 0 KA 12 Year-Round N/A 93 0 1 Site 2 Year-Round N/A 28 1.3 0 Site 8 Year-Round N/A 24 0 1.3
* Does not include invasive or weed species* † Includes perennial deep-rooted grasses and bottlebrush squirreltail and Sandberg's bluegrass
Greater Sage-Grouse
Two AIM sites were used to evaluate site suitability for sage grouse habitat. Upland and late brooding habitat at Site 2 was characterized as unsuitable, due to the vegetation cover and composition. Site 8 was rated at marginal. The two sites were also used to evaluate winter habitat suitability. Site 2 was rated at unsuitable. Site 8 was rated at suitable. With Site 8 being rated as both suitable and marginal, the area would be able to support a sage grouse population. With site 2 being not in suitable habitat, sage grouse populations would most likely avoid the area.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 55
5.0 Smoky Allotment (00074) Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation
5.2 Allotment Setting and Overview
The Smoky Allotment (Map 1) is located approximately 40 miles north of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada. The allotment is wholly located in Big Smoky Valley and is situated between the Toiquima Mountain range to the east and the Toiyabe Mountain range to the west. Elevations range from 5,500 feet in the valley bottoms to 7,100 feet on the valley benches. The Trail Canyon and Wildcat Canyon Allotments in the Mount Lewis Field Office border Smoky on the north. Forest Service lands border the allotment on the east and west, this boundary could be roughly defined as the point on the upper bench where the slope increases noticeably into the Toiyabe and Toiquima Mountain Ranges. The Francisco and San Antone Allotments border the Smoky Allotment on the south.
Table 40. Smoky Allotment Acreage Summary
Allotment- BLM Acres % BLM Acres Name and No. Smoky 125,247 100 An accurate inventory of all current rangeland improvement projects and cooperative agreements within the allotment is available in BLM’s Corporate GIS data (Map 8). The below table is a summary of projects on the allotment.
Table 41. Summary of Range Improvement Projects and Cooperative Agreements in the Smoky Allotment
Range Improvement Project Authorization Type Condition Date of last inspection Project Number RO Fence & Guard 590275 RI Permit Functioning 12/18/2017 Jakes Well 590354 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 9/6/2017 Charnac Field Fence 590628 RI Permit Functioning 12/18/2017 Turks Fence 594257 RI Permit Functioning 2/26/2016 Francisco Allot FC 594292 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 1/17/2015 Francisco Cttl Gds 594306 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 9/6/2017 Smokey Study Plot FC 594651 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 12/18/2017 Carvers Bench Fence 594748 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 12/18/2017 Carvers Bench Guards 594749 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 9/6/2017 West Boundary Fence 594765 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 12/18/2017 Round MTN Dump CG 594791 Cooperative Agreement Functioning 9/6/2017 Jakes Well Corral 594822 RI Permit Functioning 9/6/2017 Carvers West Fence 594868 BLM, no agreement Functioning 12/18/2017 Carvers West Cat Guard 594869 BLM, no agreement Functioning 9/6/2017
One large pit-mining operation, Round Mountain Gold Mine, exists in the Smoky Allotment and encompasses approximately 15,378 private and public land acres (Map 8). These operations represent the largest semi-permanent impact to natural resources within the allotment.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 56
No Herd Management Area (HMA) exists in the Smoky Allotment. A small group of horses has historically come off the Toquima Wild Horse Territory (WHT) in the winter and utilized the eastern benches and central portions of the allotment. Aerial helicopter surveys observed 27 horses in 2014 and 2 horses in 2017.
5.2.2 Historic Permitted AUMs and Allotment Management
Emma Rogers operated the original R.O. Ranch up to 1950 when the ranch was sold to Carl Haas. Haas, under the name R.O. Inc., acquired the Cavanaugh Brothers Ranch in 1954 and by the time of the original 1958 adjudication of the Smoky Unit 3,884 AUMs was adjudicated to these properties. R.O. Inc. was sold to Tom and Alice Denman in 1965. Charnac and Moores Creek Ranches was established by Eugene Cornell who received 787 AUMs of grazing privileges in the original 1958 adjudication of the Smoky Unit. Cornell sold to Clifford and John Harmond on December 2, 1961. The Harmond Brothers sold half of their interest in the ranches to Pete Bertolino on November 22, 1965. Harmond and Bertolino sold to George Blair on January 12, 1968, and Blair sold to the R.O. Inc. on January 23, 1970. By 1970 R.O. Inc. now had a total preference on the Smoky Allotment of 4,671 AUMs. On October 9, 1972, Evan Zimmerman, under the corporate name of R.O. Land and Livestock Corp., purchased the R.O. Ranch from the Denmans. The original R.O. Inc. and R.O. Land and Livestock Corp. deal was contested in court and grazing privileges were split between them pending settlement as stipulated on October 29, 1973. On December 7, 1973, R.O. Land and Livestock Corp. changed its name to Zimmerman Ranching Corp. This Change was not made in BLM files until the outcome of the case between R.O. Inc. and R.O. Land and Livestock was settled. On June 23, 1975, Zimmerman and Denman, acting for their corporations, signed the transfer papers, finally transferring 4,671 AUMs to Zimmerman Ranching Corp. in the Smoky Allotment. On November 29, 1988, Zimmerman sold to Stephen C. Wilmans and preference was transferred soon after. Wilmans sold to White Mountain Ranch in 2002, White Mountain Ranch sold to Truckee River Ranch in 2004. BTAZ Nevada, LLC. acquired all properties in 2011 from Truckee River Ranch, and a preference of 4,671 was transferred to BTAZ Nevada. LLC. on December 22, 2011. Irene Zaval received 120 AUMs of grazing privileges on the Dan Berg Ranch and Darrough Brothers received 1,030 AUMs in the original 1958 adjudication, which was part of the Smoky Unit. Zaval transferred her preference to her son, Kenneth Berg in 1970, and Kenneth transferred the preference to his brother, Russell W. Berg, in September 1, 1972. In the late 1970s the Darrough Brothers Allotment was combined with the Smoky Allotment. In the summer of 1985, the Darrough Brothers transferred 721 AUMs to Russell W. Berg for a total of 841 AUMs. On March 27, 1995 the remaining 309 AUMs from the Darrough Brothers was transferred to Berg, 229 of those AUMs were active and 80 AUMs were suspended as a result of the Area Manager’s Final Decision dated September 18, 1989.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 57
5.2.3 Current Permitted Use and Livestock Grazing Management
Permitted Use
The following table summarizes the grazing permits by permittee within the allotment. The livestock number, livestock kind, begin date, end date, percent public land forage, and AUMs are the minimum mandatory terms and conditions of the operators that are found on their grazing permit in table 42.
Table 42. Smoky Allotment Active Permitted AUMs
% Livestock Livestock Begin End Active Suspended Permittee Public Number Kind Date Date AUMs AUMS Land Russell Berg 76 Cattle 03/01 02/28 100 912 226 BTAZ Nevada, LLC 585 Cattle 03/01 06/30 100 2,346 0 BTAZ Nevada, LLC 584 Cattle 11/01 02/28 100 2,304 0
Livestock Management
Annually, Russell Berg turns out approximately 150 cattle on March 1st, which graze the east benches of the allotment, until approximately 130 head are moved to U.S. Forest Service land usually around June 1st. Generally, the remaining 20 cattle continue to utilize the Smoky allotment until August 31st. Typically, on or around September 1st, the cattle from the U.S. Forest Service land will return to the Smoky allotment for the remainder of the grazing year (Feburay 28th) where the cattle continue to graze around the home ranch on the east side of the allotment. Annually, BTAZ Nevada, LLC, turns out 200-400 cattle to graze in the areas around their private lands around the RO Ranch, Charnok Ranch, hay fields in the east and south parts of the allotment (see map 8) on the allotment generally beginning November 1st until mid-March. BTAZ actively moves the cattle into unused areas of the allotment, allowing the cattle to drift/trail back to water found on their private land. The area west of SR 376 is known as the Toiyabe Bench. It has been managed in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with the Toiyabe Bench Deer Winter Range Management Plan since 1985. The season of use on the bench is from March 1st to April 15th and AUMs cannot exceed 300 in a given year. With the exception of unauthorized use that took place on the bench in 2013, 2014 and 2015, no other authorized grazing use has taken place on the bench since 1985.
Actual Use
The following table summarizes the total AUMs of use by grazing year (March 1 to February 28) and permittee (Table 43). Due to inconsistent Actual Use Reports, the numbers shown from 2006 to 2016 are a mix of billed use and submitted actual use numbers. Billed use may not be an accurate representation of actual use that occurred in the allotment.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 58
Table 43. Actual Use for Smoky Allotment
Permittee 2006* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Russell 755 755 755 N/A† 294 912 912 912 882 879 912 Berg BTAZ N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,860 3,909 402 1,302 855 1,793 631 Nevada Total 2,154 4,821 1,314 2,214 1,737 2,672 1,543
* Billed use only † Not available
Utilization Data
Utilization transects were conducted in the Smoky Allotment as outlined in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook 1984 and Interagency Technical Reference 1734-03 Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements as revised 1999. Utilization was read at the end of the grazing season. Each observation was recorded using six utilization classes: No Use (0 percent), Slight Use (1-20 percent), Light Use (21-40 percent), Moderate Use (41-60 percent), Heavy Use (61-80 percent) and Severe Use (81-100 percent). Utilization monitoring is based on the key species concept. Key species are species that indicate the general degree of forage use on a key area and may indicate grazing use of closely related species. Key species may also refer to species that, because of their importance on the key area, must be considered in the management program. Key species should be abundant on rangelands with satisfactory species composition and should be plentiful enough to provide an adequate seed source on areas with unsatisfactory species composition. On grazing allotments, grazing animals generally prefer these species. Utilization may also be estimated on selected plants based on other criteria to monitor management objectives for other resource uses, such as wildlife and watershed.
Livestock Carrying Capacity
The carrying capacity analysis for the Smoky Allotment was completed using use pattern maps, actual use data, considering the conclusions following the evaluation of RMP, and Standards for Rangeland Health objectives. Carrying capacity analysis is presented in appendix 4, in accordance with BLM manual Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation TR 4400-7. Stocking rates will be analyzed in the permit renewal EA after a determination of whether RAC standards have been met and appropriate terms and conditions to achieve RMP objectives have been proposed.
5.2.4 Monitoring History on the Smoky Allotment
Key Areas (KAs) were established throughout the allotment in 1980 to monitor utilization and the effects of livestock grazing in the Smoky Allotment. The type of soil will influence the type of vegetation present at each KA. These sites have been used to monitor resource conditions and the impacts of past and current management of livestock. Historical data and photos were also used to highlight long-term changes in the vegetation and conclude what effects management has had. Trend data is the most consistent data collected at KAs and findings are displayed to show the directional trends of the key areas. Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 59
Monitoring data collected at key areas in the past includes; line point intercept, 17 indicators, and key species utilization. Quadrat frequency, a trend measurement, has also been collected. These relate what is at the site to what is expected for that ecological site as described by ESDs published by the NRCS. Photos are captured at each key area to show changes to the landscape or the typical appearance of the landscape. In 2014, the BLM started to evaluate 17 indicators on 13 KAs and performed use pattern mapping. Data from 2014 utilized only a single transect. In 2015, 3 quadrat frequency plots were updated to provide for existing conditions in the Smoky Allotment. In addition, qualitative drought monitoring and utilization were performed at the KAs in 2015. In 2016, the BLM revisited sites for monitoring site suitability, establishment of new sites and follow up 17 indicators. The 2016 key area monitoring used a three spoke AIM transects, this was done to maximize the sampling power at each plot, allowing the BLM to have a more precise cover value as compared to a single transect (Elzinga, et al. 2001) The BLM found that 2 sites were not suitable for continued monitoring, due to being located in transition zones of ecological sites; 3 monitoring sites could not be located and 1 site was reestablished after finding it was on U.S. Forest Service land. An additional 2 sites were added to better monitor rangeland health in the allotment. Eight sites were evaluated for current rangeland health in 2016. An additional 2 sites were added for greater sage- grouse habitat monitoring in 2017. In 2008, riparian Proper Function Condition (PFC) assessments were conducted on the allotment with follow up assessments taking place in 2016. This assessment will use the 1982 through 2015 quadrat frequency, 2016 key area monitoring, and 2016 PFC assessments. The 2014 monitoring only used one transect and values and will not be used in this assessment. The single transect only represents values at the one transect, where the values of the three transect are averaged to represent a plot average. Changing the layout of the transects to a spoke design has increased the number of measurements at the plot and therefore cannot be compared to previous years with a single transect.
Table 44. Key Management Area and Associated Range Types
Ecological Site Name Ecological Site Key Management Area Number Number Shallow Calcareous Loam R028XY011NV 7 8-10” p.z. Saline Meadow R029XY002NV 9 Loamy 5-8” p.z. R029XY017NV 8, 11, 14, 15 Sodic Dunes R029XY018NV 4 Cobbly Loam 5-8” p.z. R029XY036NV 10
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 60
5.3 Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation
5.3.2 Standards for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area
Standard 1. Soils
The following is excerpted from the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines for grazing, and pertains to assessment of rangeland health as it relates to soils: Watershed soils and stream banks should have adequate stability to resist accelerated erosion, maintain soil productivity and sustain the hydrologic cycle. As indicated by:
Upland Soil indicators: . Ground cover (vegetation, litter, rock, and bare ground) . Surfaces (e.g. biological crust pavements) . Compaction/infiltration Riparian soil indicators: . Stream Bank stability
5.3.2.1.1 Rangeland Health Assessment
5.3.2.1.1.1 Line Point Intercept Data
The primary data collected using the LPI method is quantifiable information regarding soil cover, which is comprised of vegetation, litter, rocks, and biological crusts (Herrick et al. 2015). Secondary information ascertained from LPI data is plant composition. The following sections present LPI data from the 2016 KA monitoring plots.
Soil Cover
Table 45 presents relative soil cover data by plot. Relative soil cover is the cover of a particular attribute as a percentage of the total cover. Relative cover will always tally to 100%. Relative ground cover is important to consider when evaluating site conditions to the expected site reference conditions. Herrick et al. (2009) states that total foliar, litter, and other surface cover (rocks and biological crusts) are positively correlated with soil and site stability and hydrologic function. It protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, thereby limiting detachment of soil particles and physical crusting of the soil surface. Additionally, higher cover generally means there are more obstructions to water flow.” The interpretation of the data is not as simple when considering the potential of each ecological site. Site reference descriptions play an important role in ensuring that site characteristics are evaluated properly.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 61
Table 45. Summary of Percent* Ground for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment
% Other† % Foliar % Bare % Plot Surface Cover Soil Litter Cover KA 4 21.0 63.0 16.0 0 KA 7 38.7 42.7 6.7 12.7 KA 8 22.7 64.7 8.0 5.3 KA 9 40.7 52.7 6.0 0 KA 10 30.0 47.3 10.0 16.0 KA 11 26.0 65.0 1.0 8.0 KA 14 27.3 62.0 9.3 1.3 KA 15 21.3 57.3 6.7 15.3
* Due to rounding, percentages may not equal 100% †Other surface cover represents rock and biological soil crust
The plots with the highest percent foliar cover in 2016 were KA 9 and KA 7, which had the highest percent foliar cover. The plots with the lowest percent foliar cover in 2016 were KA 4 and KA 15. KAs 8 and 11 had the highest percent bare ground in 2016. The plots with the lowest percent bare ground in 2016 were KAs 7 and 10 in 2016. KAs 4 and 10 had the highest percent litter in 2016. KAs 9 and 11 had the lowest percent litter in 2016. The plots with the highest percent other surface cover were 10 and 15. The plots with the lowest percent other surface cover were KA 4 and 9.
5.3.2.1.1.2 Soil Stability Data
Table 46 presents soil stability rating by key area sampled in 2016. Soil stability tests were conducted at each of the key areas to provide information about the degree of soils structure development and erosion resistance when exposed to wetting (Herrick, et al., 2015). The soil stability rating is compared to the reference area to determine a departure from normal. The “all sample” mean is the average of 18 total samples per plot. The “under cover sample” mean is the average for samples recorded under vegetation. The no cover sample” mean is the average for samples recorded without vegetation.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 62
Table 46. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Soil Stability Rating From Ecological Site Reference in the Smoky Allotment
Under All No Cover Cover Plot Reference Sample Sample Sample Mean Mean Mean KA 4 1.0-4.0 1.3 1.4 1.0 KA 7 2.0-4.0 2.6 2.6 2.2 KA 8 2.0-4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 KA 9 2.0-4.0 1.8 2.3 1.5 KA 10 2.0-4.0 2.0 2.4 1.2 KA 11 2.0-4.0 1.5 2.7 1.1 KA 14 2.0-4.0 2.0 2.8 1.8 KA 15 2.0-4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Of the 8 key areas, 4 key areas had lower soil stability compared to the reference state. These key areas are KAs 8, 9, 11, and 15.
5.3.2.1.1.3 Canopy Gap Intercept Data
Table 47 presents the percent of the plot transects falling into 0 to 100 centimeters (0 to 3.3 feet), 101 to 200 centimeters (3.3 to 6.6 feet), and greater than 200 centimeters (greater than 6.6 feet) canopy gaps of perennial species. Canopy Gap Intercept data assesses sites for wind and water erosion potential, susceptibility to weed invasion, and provides information regarding wildlife habitat, such as hiding cover and thermal environment (Herrick, et al. 2015). Literature suggests that gaps of less than 100 centimeters are at lower risk of erosion whereas gaps that are greater than 200 centimeters are at a high risk of erosion (Okin et al. 2009). The method chosen for this monitoring did not include canopy cover of annual species. As perennial canopy gaps increase the likelihood of invasion by annual non-natives increase. Annual invasive plants can provide for soil stability however, their contributions to soil stability vary yearly based on precipitation.
Table 47. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Percent Canopy Gap Interceprt Data* in the Smoly Allotment
0 - 100 cm 101 - 200 cm >200 cm Plot Year Canopy Gap Canopy Gap Canopy Gap KA 4 2016 8.0 23.0 69.0
KA 7 2016 34.7 46.6 18.7
KA 8 2016 23.4 37.4 39.2
KA 9 2016 35.4 35.2 29.4
KA 10 2016 49.9 31.9 18.3
KA 11 2016 10.0 18.0 72.0
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 63
KA 14 2016 6.7 5.0 88.3
KA 15 2016 49.0 40.0 11.0
* Due to rounding, percentages may not equal 100%.
Canopy Gap Intercept data showed that all 8 KAs had a canopy gaps greater than 200 centimeters. Of notable discussion, KAs 11 and 14 had the highest percent of canopy greater than 200 centimeters while KAs 7, 10, and 15 had the lowest.
5.3.2.1.2 Evaluation of Standard 1
Evaluation Finding ☐ Achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard, but making significant progress toward achieving the standard ☒ Not achieving the standard
5.3.2.1.3 Rationale for Evaluation Finding
5.3.2.1.3.1 Rangeland Health Departure Ratings
Evaluation sheets rating the 17 Indicators were completed at each of these sites for rangeland heath departure from reference state. The first two indicators, soil and site stability and hydrologic function are critical in evaluating standard 1. Soil and site stability is the capacity of the area to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources by wind and water. Hydrologic function is the capacity of the area to capture, store, and safely release water from rainfall, run-on, and snowmelt. Table 48 presents a summary of the departures from normal of soil and site stability and hydrologic function. The assessments provide ratings based on the degree of departure from the expected range of conditions associated with the ecological site’s reference state and the 17 Indicators and are characterized as; none-to-slight (NS), slight-to-moderate (SM), moderate (M), moderate-to- extreme (ME), and extreme-to-total (ET) (Pellant et al. 2005).
Table 48. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in Smoky Allotment for 2016.
Plot Soil & Site Stability Hydrologic Function KA 4 NS SM KA 7 NS NS KA 8 M M KA 9 SM M KA 10 NS NS KA 11 NS M KA 14 NS SM KA 15 NS NS Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 64
Soil and Site Stability
In regards to soil and site stability, table 63 shows six KAs with a none-to-slight departure, one KA with a slight-to-moderate departure and one KA with a moderate departure from ecological site reference. The moderate departure for KA 8 was attributed to pedestaling around Indian ricegrass plants, bare grounds was observed to be higher than ecological site reference (64.7 percent, site reference is ±50 percent), numerous wind scours were observed around Indian ricegrass plants, low soils surface resistance to erosion (1 was site average, site reference is 2 to 4), and active soil loss was observed to be taking place in 2016.
Hydrologic Function
In reviewing Table 48 for hydrologic function, three KAs had a none-to-slight departure from reference, two had slight-to moderate departure, and three had a moderate departure from reference state. The moderate departure for key area 8 was attributed to pedestaling around Indian ricegrass plants, bare grounds was observed to be higher than ecological site reference (64.7 percent, site reference is ±50 percent), low soils surface resistance to erosion (1 was site average, site reference is 2 to 4), and active soil loss was observed to be taking place in. The moderate departure for key area 9 was attributed to high amounts of bare ground (52 percent, site reference ±30 percent), a lack of rhizomatous grass species, and lack of litter (8 percent, site reference ±80 percent). The moderate departure for key area 11 was attributed to high amounts of bare ground (65 percent, site reference ±50 percent, low soils surface resistance to erosion (1.5 was site average, site reference is 2 to 4). Overall Conclusions In reviewing the information found in Table 48, the 17 Indicators for 2016, it was concluded that Standard 1 is not being achieved. The following KAs represent plots that had a moderate departure in either soil and site stability or hydrologic function: KAs 8, 9, and 11. The condition of these sites such as foliar cover, bare ground, soils stability values, and litter amount all being below site reference has led to Standard 1 not being achieved.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 65
Standard 2. Ecosystem Components
The following is excerpted from the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines for grazing, and pertains to assessment of rangeland health as it relates to Ecosystem Components: Watershed should possess the necessary ecological components to achieve state water quality criteria, maintaining ecological processes, and sustain appropriate uses. Riparian and wetland vegetation should have structural and species diversity characteristic of the stage of stream channel succession in order to provide forage and cover, capture sediment, and capture, retain and safely release water. As indicated by:
Upland indicators: . Canopy and ground cover, including litter, live vegetation, biological crust, and rock appropriate to the potential of the ecological site. . Ecological processes are adequate for the vegetative communities. Riparian indicators: . Stream side riparian areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, large woody debris, or rock is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows. . Elements indicating proper functioning condition such as avoiding accelerating erosion, capturing sediment, and providing for groundwater recharge and release are determined by the following measurements as appropriate to the site characteristics: o With/Depth Ratio; o Channel Roughness; o Sinuosity of stream channel; o Bank stability; o Vegetative cover (amount, spacing, lifeform); o Other cover (large woody debris and rock) . Natural springs, seeps, and marsh areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation is present to facilitate water retention, filtering, and release as indicated by plant species and cover appropriate to the site characteristics. Water quality indicators: . Chemical, physical, and biological constituents do not exceed the state water quality standards. The above indicators shall be applied to the potential of the ecological site.
5.3.2.2.1 Rangeland Health Assessment
5.3.2.2.1.1 Uplands
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 66
Line Point Intercept Data
The primary data collected using the LPI method is quantifiable information regarding soil cover, which is comprised of vegetation, litter, rocks, and biological crusts (Herrick et al. 2015). Secondary information ascertained from LPI data is plant composition. The following sections present LPI data from the 2016 KA monitoring plots.
Canopy and Ground Cover
Table 49 presents relative ground cover data by plot, which includes foliar cover, bare ground, litter, and other surface cover, such as biotic crust or rock fragments. Relative soil cover is the cover of a particular attribute as a percentage of the total cover. Relative cover will always tally to 100%. Relative ground cover is important to consider when evaluating site conditions to the expected site reference conditions. Knowing relative ground cover will proved insights to help better understand foliar cover of dominate plant species and plant community composition by foliar cover.
Table 49 Summary of Percent* Ground for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment
% Other† % Foliar % Bare % Plot Surface Cover Soil Litter Cover KA 4 21.0 63.0 16.0 0 KA 7 38.7 42.7 6.7 12.7 KA 8 22.7 64.7 8.0 5.3 KA 9 40.7 52.7 6.0 0 KA 10 30.0 47.3 10.0 16.0 KA 11 26.0 65.0 1.0 8.0 KA 14 27.3 62.0 9.3 1.3 KA 15 21.3 57.3 6.7 15.3
* Due to rounding, percentages may not equal 100% †Other surface cover represents rock and biological soil crust
The plots with the highest percent foliar cover in 2016 KA 9 and KA 7 had the highest percent foliar cover. The plots with the lowest percent foliar cover in 2016 were KA 4 and KA 15. KAs 8 and 11 had the highest percent bare ground in 2016. The plots with the lowest percent bare ground in 2016 were KAs 7 and 10 in 2016. KAs 4 and 10 had the highest percent litter in 2016. KAs 9 and 11 had the lowest percent litter in 2016. The plots with the highest percent other surface cover were KA 7 and 10. The plots with the lowest percent other surface cover were KA 4 and 9.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 67
Foliar Cover of Dominate Plant Species
Table 50 presents absolute percent foliar cover of the dominate plant species for shrubs, grasses, forbs, and invasive species by key area. Absolute cover is the cover of all vegetative hits recorded along the monitoring transect. Since plant species often overlap one another, it is possible to have greater than 100 percent cover on monitoring transects. Loss or shifts in dominate species from the expected reference conditions could be an indication of long-term chronic disturbances like drought, altered fire regimes, and improper livestock grazing.
Table 50. Percent Foliar Cover of Dominate Plant Species* for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment
% Dominate % % Dominate % Foliar Dominate Dominate Plot Foliar Perennial Foliar Foliar Shrub Cover Forb Invasive Cover Grass Cover Cover
KA 4 SAVE4 8.0 SPAI 3.0 None N/A None N/A
KA 7 ARTRW8 19.3 ACHY 2.0 AF01 3.3 None N/A
KA 8 PIDE4 10.7 PLJA 6.0 AF01 3.3 HAGL 2.7
KA 9 SAVE4 6.0 DISP 16.7 None N/A None N/A
KA 10 PIDE4 14.7 PLJA 2.7 SPHAE 2.0 SATR12 1.3
KA 11 SABA14 14.0 PLJA 2.0 AF01 1.0 None N/A
KA 14 ATCO 6.7 None N/A AF01 9.3 HAGL 6.0
KA 15 PIDE4 8.0 PLJA 5.3 None N/A None N/A
* Species code and common names can be found in table 2
The KAs with the highest shrub cover were KA 7 and KA 10 and KAs with the lowest shrub cover were KA 9 and KA 14. The key areas with the highest grass cover were KA 8 and 9 and KA 14 did not report grass cover. Forb cover was limited across the allotment and 3 KAs did not report forb cover. Forb cover was reported at KA 7, KA 8, KA 10, KA 11, and KA 14 in 2016. Invasive cover was observed at KA 8, KA 10, and KA 14.
Plant Community Composition by Foliar Cover
Table 51 presents percent composition for absolute foliar plant cover by key area. Plant community composition is the proportion of foliar cover of shrubs, grasses, forbs, and invasive species to the total foliar cover recorded at the monitoring site. Plant composition is used as an indicator of change in plant communities when compared to reference plant communities. In addition, the amount of invasive plant composition is an important indicator of potential declines in soil and site stability and hydrologic function (Herrick et al. 2009). Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 68
Table 51. Plant Community*Composition by Foliar Cover for Key Areas within the Smoky Allotment
Shrub % Grass % Forb % Invasive % Composition Composition Composition Composition Plot by Foliar by Foliar by Foliar by Foliar Cover Cover Cover Cover KA 4 84 14 0 0 KA 7 83 10 7 0 KA 8 44 32 12 12 KA 9 41 59 0 0 KA 10 60 23 13 4 KA 11 84 12 4 0 KA 14 51 0 29 20 KA 15 50 44 6 0
* Total canopy cover can exceed 100 percent because plants can overlap.
In regards to plant community composition. KAs 4 and 11 had the highest amount of shrub cover, KA 9 had the lowest amount shrub cover. Grass composition was highest at KA 9 and the lowest at KA 14. Forbs cover was highest at KA 14 and KAs 4 and 9 had no forb cover. Only KAs 8, 10, and 14 had invasive plant cover.
Quadrat Frequency
Quadrat Frequency data provide insight into changes in the plant community, such as plant occurrence, vigor, and/or health. Quadrat frequency data is collected at permanently located study sites and includes: species frequency and cover data (Coulloudon, et al., 1999) Charts 4, 5, and 6 presents the percent frequency of plant species by year. Quadrat frequency was done at established transect located at key areas 4, 8, and 11.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 69
Chart 4. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 4 Smoky Allotment
Key Area 4 Frequency 50 45 40 1982 35 30 1984 25 1990 20 1995 15 2003
% Species of Frequency % 10 2010 5 2015 0 SAVE4 SPAI LECI4 ATCO ARTRW8 ERNA10 DISP Species Chart 4 reports the trend of percent frequency of species located at KA 4. Species on an observed downward trend are black greasewood, Wyoming big sagebrush, shadscale, and rubber rabbit brush. Species on an observed static trend are alkali sacaton and basin wildrye.
Chart 5. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 8 Smoky Allotment
Key Area 8 Frequency 90 80 70 1982 1985 60 1991 50 1995 40 2003 2010 30 2015 20
% Species of Frequency % 10 0 ATCO PIDE4 PLJA ACHY SATR SPHAE SABA14 HAGL Species Chart 5 reports the trend of percent frequency of species located at KA 8. Species on observed downward trend are shadscale, galleta grass, and Indian ricegrass.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 70
Species on an observed static trend are bud sagebrush, globe mallow, and Bailey’s greasewood. The observed trend for invasive species such as Russian thistle and halogeton indicates that while present on the site, the percent frequency of the species can differ year to year due to climatic variation at the site.
Chart 6. Summary of Quadrat Frequency Key Area 11 Smoky Allotment
Key Area 11 Frequency 90 80 70 1982 60 1985 50 1990 40 1995 30 2015
% Species of Frequency % 20 10 0 SABA14 PIDE4 PLJA ACHY ATCO Species Chart 6 reports the trend of percent frequency of species located at KA 11. Species on observed downward trend are galleta grass, Indian ricegrass, and shadscale. Species on an upward trend are Bailey’s greasewood and bud sagebrush.
5.3.2.2.1.2 Riparian and Wetland Resources
A comprehensive assessment of all streams and seeps in the Smoky Allotment was completed due to the relatively small amount of riparian areas. Reaches were stratified into groups with similar characteristics, as indicated by stream type. All four stream reaches were assessed in the field during 2016, by a BLM interdisciplinary team. The team also assessed 12.1 acres of wetland areas. Individual results of the 2016 riparian assessments are shown in Table 52 and they are summarized in Table 53. Individual results of the wetland assessments are shown in and they are summarized in Table 54. Photos of the PFC assessment sites are provided in Appendix 6.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 71
Table 52. Riparian Condition Ratings for the Smoky Allotment in 2016
Upstream Upstream Date Riparian Name UTM UTM Rating* Trend Miles Assessed Northing Easting Ophir Creek 6/20/2016 4309211 480306 NF N/A 1.3 Jefferson Creek 6/30/2016 4286430 496780 PFC N/A 1.9 Willow Creek 6/30/2016 4292910 496771 PFC N/A 0.5 Barker Creek 10/21/2016 4295664 497057 PFC N/A 0.9 *Rating key: PFC-Proper Functioning Condition; FAR-Functioning-At-Risk; NF-Nonfunctioning
Table 53. Summary of Riparian Condition Ratings for the Smoky Allotment in 2016
Percent of Percent of Rating Count Cumulative Miles Total Miles Streams
Proper Functioning Condition 3 3.3 72 75 Functional At Risk – Trend Upward 0 0 0 0 Functional At Risk – Trend Not Apparent 0 0 0 0 Functional At Risk – Trend Downward 0 0 0 0 Nonfunctional 1 1.3 28 25 Total 4 4.6 100 100
Table 54. Wetland Condition Ratings for the Smoky Allotment in 2016
Date UTM UTM Wetland Name Rating* Trend Acres Assessed Northing Easting
Charnak Meadow 6/20/2016 4314294 496755 PFC N/A 9.1 Charnak Spring Complex 10/27/2016 4313651 496051 PFC N/A 3.0 *Rating key: PFC-Proper Functioning Condition; FAR-Functioning-At-Risk; NF-Nonfunctioning
5.3.2.2.1.3 Water Quality
Nevada Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards for waterbodies on the Smoky are found in the following sections of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC): NAC 445A.121 Standards applicable to all surface waters. NAC 445A.122 Standards applicable to beneficial uses.
Nevada Water Quality Assessment
The State of Nevada assesses waterbodies identified in NAC 445A.11704 through 445A.2234 to determine whether they are achieving the water quality standards. However, the waterbodies in the
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 72
Smoky Allotment are considered intermittent and no waterbodies in the Smoky Allotment have been identified in NAC 445A.11704 through 445A.2234.
Bureau of Land Management Water Quality Data
Water quality data collected by the BLM on the Smoky Allotment are limited. Table 55 lists the results of sampling conducted by the BLM in November of 2017 on Ophir, Barker, Willow, and Jefferson Creeks.
Table 55. Water Quality Results in the Smoky Allotment
Stream UTM UTM Temp Temp TDS Salt Easting Northing (oC) (oF) pH Conductivity (PPM) (PPM) Ophir #1 480455 4309164 5.1 41.2 8.71 323 230 154 Ophir #2 480762 4309219 5.0 41.0 8.62 321 229 155 Ophir #3 481092 4309256 5.8 42.4 8.52 322 228 156 Barker #1 497031 4295752 8.7 47.7 7.53 143 103 71 Barker #2 496858 4295859 8.1 46.6 7.55 145 103 71 Willow #1 496769 4292909 6.4 43.5 7.87 270 192 131 Jefferson #1 498077 4286013 4.6 40.3 8.13 190 135 90 Jefferson #2 494842 4287462 8.7 47.7 7.86 312 121 154
5.3.2.2.2 Evaluation of Standard 2
Evaluation Finding ☐ Achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard, but making significant progress toward achieving the standard ☒ Not achieving the standard
5.3.2.2.3 Rationale for Evaluation Finding
5.3.2.2.3.1 Uplands
Rangeland Health Departure Ratings
Evaluation sheets rating the 17 Indicators were completed at each of these sites for rangeland heath departure from reference state. The third indicator, biotic integrity is critical in evaluating standard 2. Biotic Integrity is the capacity of the biotic community to support ecological processes within the normal range of variability expected for the site, to resist a loss in the capacity to support these processes, and to recover this capacity when losses do occur. Table 56 presents a summary of the departures from normal of biotic integrity. The assessments provide ratings based on the degree of departure from the expected range of conditions associated with the ecological site’s reference state and the 17 Indicators and are characterized as: none-to-slight (NS), slight-to-moderate (SM), moderate (M), moderate-to-extreme (ME), and extreme-to-total (ET) (Pellant et al. 2005).
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 73
Biotic Integrity
Table 56. Summary of Key Area Monitoring Plots for Rangeland Health Departure from Ecological Site Reference in Smoky Allotment for 2016.
Plot Biotic Integrity KA 4 SM KA 7 SM KA 8 M KA 9 SM KA 10 NS KA 11 M KA 14 SM KA 15 NS
In regards to biotic integrity in 2016, table 63 shows two KAs had a none-to-slight departure from site reference, four KAs had a slight-to-moderate departure from reference, and two KAs had moderate departure from reference state. The moderate departure for KA 8 was attributed to low soils surface resistance to erosion (1 was site average, site reference is 2 to 4), active soil loss was observed to be taking place in 2016, and excessive invasive plant species on the site. The moderate departure for KA 11 was attributed to low soils surface resistance to erosion (1.5 was site average, site reference is 2 to 4), a loss of cool season bunch grass species, and a lack of litter cover (1 percent, site reference 15-25 percent). Overall Conclusions In reviewing the information found in table 62, the 17 Indicators for 2016, it was concluded that Standard 2 is not being achieved. The condition of key areas 8 and 11 have led to the standard not being achieved. Both key areas have experienced a loss of deep root, cool season, perennial bunchgrass species and are now dominated by shrub species. This is supported by the quadrat frequency at both sites, which show shrub species either on an upward or stable trend.
5.3.2.2.3.2 Riparian and Wetland Resources
The riparian and wetland resources portion of standard 2 was not met because one of the riparian reaches was nonfunctional (NF) during the 2016 assessments. The 2016 data actually showed 75 percent of assessed riparian’s miles to be in proper functioning condition (PFC) and 100 percent of wetland areas at PFC. Assessments of riparian condition are a “snapshot” in time, but riparian systems are dynamic. Riparian areas experience seasonal and long-term changes due to natural phenomena, such as annual weather patterns and climatic shifts, succession of plant communities, wildfire, and weed or insect infestations. They also respond to human uses, such as livestock grazing, road
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 74 maintenance, recreational use, mining, and others. Due to the majority of riparian reaches being at PFC, no Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) was conducted to establish an ecological status. The NF rating at Ophir Creek reach is intermittent and the channel is entrenched, the entrenchment is most likely due to the channel being ditched. Given that current livestock management limits livestock grazing in the Toiyabe Bench area, where the Ophir Creek reach is located, livestock are not contributing to the current condition of this reach.
5.3.2.2.3.3 Water Quality
Water quality is achieving the standard.
Standard 3. Habitat and Biota
The following is excerpted from the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines for grazing, and pertains to assessment of rangeland health as it relates to Habitat and Biota: Habitats and watersheds should sustain a level of biodiversity appropriate for the area and conducive to appropriate uses. Habitats of special status species should be able to sustain viable populations of these species. As indicated by:
Habitat Indicators: . Vegetation composition (relative abundance of species) . Vegetation structure (life forms, cover, height, and age classes) . Vegetation distribution (patchiness, corridors) . Vegetation productivity . Vegetation nutritional value Wildlife Indicators . Escape terrain . Relative abundance . Composition . Distribution . Nutritional value . Edge-patch snags
5.3.2.3.1 Rangeland Health Assessment
The TFO used 2016 line point intercept and 2017 greater sage-grouse data for the assessment of Standard 3. The interpretation of line point intercept is critical for the assessment of mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and desert bighorn sheep. AIM data is crucial for the HAF assessment for greater sage grouse. The TFO reviewed the 2016/2017 data for quality control. If errors were found on data forms, such as wrong codes in vegetative canopy column, these errors were corrected.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 75
5.3.2.3.1.1 Wildlife
Migratory Birds/Birds of Conservation Concern
The Smoky Allotment falls in the Region 9 BCR. Appendix 2 lists the bird species in Region 9. Migratory birds utilizing the uplands in the allotment are most likely the sagebrush obligate species such as the sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage sparrow, which are listed on the Region 9 species list. Riparian areas and meadows would provide habitat for such species as the tri-colored blackbird, green-tailed towhee, willow flycatcher, Lewis’s woodpecker, calliope hummingbird, yellow-billed cuckoo, and long-billed curlew. The allotment does not contain large expanses of lakes or ponds so species such as the eared grebe, yellow rail, and marble godwit are not likely to occur in the area. Species that prefer high elevation montane and subalpine forests and pinyon- juniper woodlands are only migrants (Williamson’s sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, Virginia’s warbler, flammulated owl, black swift, pinyon jay, and black rosy-finch) and would have limited habitat in the allotment with little to no impacts associated from rangeland authorized activities. Other species such as the bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, and peregrine falcon may occur in all habitats and elevations
Mule Deer
NDOW classifies areas within the Smoky Allotment as mule deer winter range and crucial winter range habitat (map 2). The approximate acres for each habitat classification are displayed in Table 57. Winter range consists of more xeric, lower elevation areas containing sagebrush or pinyon- juniper.
Table 57. Mule Deer Habitat within the Smoky Allotment
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments Winter Range 3,671 Crucial Winter Range 8,172
Table 58. Data Pertaining to Mule Deer Habitat in the Smoky Allotment
Total Average Total Forb Monitorin Habitat Shrub Total Grass Sagebrush % Foliar g Site Type % Foliar % Foliar Cover‡ height (cm)* Cover† Cover Crucial KA7 N/A 83 7 10 Winter KA10 Winter N/A 60 13 23 Crucial KA11 N/A 84 4 12 Winter Crucial Site 6 0 97 3 0 Winter Site 12 Winter 25 68 27 5
* Sagebrush height is not available † Does not include invasive or weed species ‡ Includes perennial deep-rooted grasses and bottlebrush squirreltail and Sandberg's bluegrass Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 76
Pronghorn Antelope
NDOW classifies the area within the Smoky Allotment as year-round habitat. Table 59 depicts the approximate acres for year-round habitat. Year-round habitat encompasses the majority of the allotments with the exception of a small portion along the eastern edge of the Smoky Allotment at the foothills of the Toiyabe Range. The vegetative cover within the year-round habitat includes salt desert shrub, greasewood, grassland, agriculture, and sagebrush steppe.
Table 59. Pronghorn Habitat within the Smoky Allotment
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments Year-Round 121,816
Data collected using the AIM and 17 Indicators protocols were reviewed in relation to pronghorn antelope habitat needs. Table 60 shows the percent cover for several shrubs, forbs, and grasses and the average height of sagebrush in the Smoky Allotment.
Table 60. Pronghorn Antelope Habitat Data for the Smoky Allotment
Total Average Total Shrub Total Grass Monitoring Habitat Forb % Sagebrush % Foliar % Foliar Site Type Foliar height (cm)* Cover Cover‡ Cover† KA 4 Year Round N/A 84 0 14 KA 7 Year Round N/A 83 7 10 KA 8 Year Round N/A 44 12 32 KA 9 Year Round N/A 41 0 59 KA 10 Year Round N/A 60 13 23 KA 11 Year Round N/A 84 4 12 KA 14 Year Round N/A 51 29 0 KA 15 Year Round N/A 50 6 44 Site 6 Year Round 0 97 3 0 Site 12 Year Round 25 68 27 5
* Sagebrush height is not available † Does not include invasive or weed species ‡ Includes perennial deep-rooted grasses and bottlebrush squirreltail and Sandberg's bluegrass
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 77
Table 61. Pronghorn habitat rating in regards to vegetative cover for forbs, grasses, and shrubs (Yoakum 1980)
Vegetation Type Good Fair Poor Forbs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover <5% ground cover Grass 20-50% ground cover 10-20% ground cover <10% ground cover Shrubs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover >30% ground cover
5.3.2.3.1.2 Special Status Species
Bats
A review of BLM’s corporate GIS data and baseline reports, for mines within the Smoky Allotment, showed that 13 species of bats have been documented on the Smoky Allotment. The 13 species are: big brown bat, Brazilian free tailed bat, California myotis, canyon bat, cave bat, hoary bat, little brown bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged bat, pallid bats, Townsend’s big-eared bat, silver haired bat, and western small-footed myotis.
Desert Bighorn Sheep
NDOW classifies areas as winter range, summer range, year-round habitat, and lambing habitat. Winter range in the allotments consists of more xeric, lower elevation areas containing sagebrush or pinyon-juniper communities and rocky outcrops. Summer range characteristics are more mesic, higher elevation areas containing sagebrush, sagebrush steppe, pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, or grassland vegetative communities, and rocky outcrops, no summer range exist in the allotments. Bighorn year-round habitat occurs in the lowland riparian, salt desert shrub and greasewood vegetative communities located along the foothills of both the Toquima and Toiyabe Mountain Ranges. Lambing habitat consists of higher elevation rugged terrain with slope approaching 100 percent and higher visibility with steeper slopes. Table 36 shows approximate acres of winter range and year-round habitat within the Francisco Allotment. Bighorn sheep are known as opportunistic, generalist foragers that feed on a variety of plants depending on time of year and moisture. Forbs are thought to be the preferred forage. However seasonal and geographical variations in diets have been observed in bighorn sheep throughout Nevada. Favorable habitat, forage availability, disease and predation are all limiting factors for bighorn sheep populations. Decreasing horizontal visibility has a positive association with increased sheep use and decreased predation. Due to the topography a very small portion of roughly 7,664 acres of the Smoky allotment falls within bighorn sheep habitat as shown in Table 62.
Table 62. Desert bighorn sheep Habitat within the Smoky Allotment
Habitat Classification Total Acres in Allotments Winter Range 4,658 Year-Round 1,717 Lambing Habitat 1,289
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 78
Table 63. Data Pertaining to Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat in the Smoky Allotment
Total Average Total Shrub Total Grass Monitoring Habitat Forb % Sagebrush % Foliar % Foliar Site Type Foliar height (cm)* Cover Cover‡ Cover† Site 12 Year Round 25 68 27 5
* Sagebrush height is not available † Does not include invasive or weed species ‡ Includes perennial deep-rooted grasses and bottlebrush squirreltail and Sandberg's bluegrass
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 79
Greater Sage-Grouse
The Smoky Allotment has approximately 6,119 acres of potential upland summer/late brood- rearing habitat and 6,119 acres of potential winter habitat. No lek and nesting habitat has been identified in the allotment. Additionally, 4.6 miles are riparian stream miles, and 12.1 acres are wetland/meadow habitat. Sage-grouse habitat was evaluated using the Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) (Stiver, et al. 2015) to make habitat suitability assessments in the Smoky Allotment.
Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing Habitat Suitability
No nesting/early brood-rearing habitat is mapped in the Smoky Allotment.
Upland Summer/Late-Brood-rearing Habitat Suitability
Two monitoring sites were evaluated for sage grouse upland summer/late brood-rearing habitat suitability within the Smoky Allotment (Map 8). Table 64 shows monitoring site name, associated ESD/cover type, site location, acres of habitat assessed, and suitability rating. If the sagebrush cover was below 5 percent, the site was rated as unsuitable for nesting/early brood rearing habitat because the protective cover needed by sage-grouse chicks was absent. It should be noted that Site 06 was rated as unsuitable, due to the ecological site limiting habitat potential
Table 64. Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat in the Smoky Allotment
Site ESD Suitability ID/Name Lomy Slope 5-8” Site 06 P.Z. Unsuitable (R029XY022NV) Cobbly Loam 5- Site 12 8” P.Z. Marginal (R029XY036NV)
Riparian Summer/Late-Brood-rearing Habitat Suitability
Four reaches, 4.6 miles, were assessed in the field during 2016, by a BLM interdisciplinary team. The 2016 riparian assessments showed 72 percent of total miles of the riparian areas on the Smoky Allotment are at proper functioning condition (PFC) and 28 percent were nonfunctioning. Individual results of the 2017 riparian assessments are summarized in Table 52 and Table 53 are in the Riparian and Wetland Resources Section. Two wetlands, 12.1 acres, were also assessed. The riparian wetland assessments showed 100 percent of total acres assessed are at PFC. Individual results of the 2016 riparian assessments are summarized in Table 54 are in the Riparian and Wetland Resources Section. Overall suitability for Riparian Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat (S-5) is rated at Suitable.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 80 Winter Habitat Suitability
Two monitoring sites were evaluated for sage grouse winter habitat suitability within the Smoky Allotment (Map 8). Table 65 shows monitoring site name, associated ESD/cover type, site location, acres of habitat assessed, and suitability rating.
Table 65. Habitat Ratings for Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat in the Smoky Allotment
Site ESD Suitability ID/Name Lomy Slope 5-8” Site 06 P.Z. Unsuitable (R029XY022NV) Cobbly Loam 5- Site12 8” P.Z. Suitable (R029XY036NV)
If the sagebrush cover was below 5 percent, the site was rated as unsuitable for nesting/early brood rearing habitat because the protective cover needed by sage-grouse chicks was absent.
It should be noted that Site 06 was rated as unsuitable, due to the ecological site limiting habitat potential
5.3.2.3.2 Evaluation of Standard 3
Evaluation Finding ☐ Achieving the standard ☐ Not achieving the standard, but making significant progress toward achieving the standard ☒ Not achieving the standard
5.3.2.3.3 Rationale for Evaluation Finding
5.3.2.3.3.1 Wildlife
As previously stated under sections 5.3.2.1.2 and 5.3.2.2.2 of this document, Standards 1 and 2 as they pertain to the Smoky Allotment, are not being achieved. Consequently, and connected to these upland and riparian vegetation/soil conclusions respectively, BLM has concluded that Standard 3 (in addition) is not being achieved in regards to providing acceptable wildlife habitat.
Migratory Birds/Bird of Conservation Concern
Data from the upland monitoring plots on the Smoky Allotment were used to evaluate habitat for bats in the Smoky Allotment. In reviewing the upland monitoring plot, it was found that suitable migratory birds/birds of conservation concern habitat was lacking in the allotment. The Riparian and Wetland portion of Standard 2, was not achieved in the Smoky Allotment due to one riparian reach being rated as nonfunctional (see section 5.3.2.2.1.2). Although one riparian reach was not meeting the standard, the majority of riparian and wetland areas were meeting the
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 81 standard. Although these habitats are small in proportion to the uplands, riparian health is very important to many migratory bird species for foraging habitat in the Smoky allotment.
Mule Deer
Food habitat studies in Nevada revealed that mule deer dietary composition of browse species ranged from 60% in the spring to 90% in the winter. Forb use ranged from 20% to greater than 50% in the spring, to less than 5 % use in the winter. Grass use was found to be from 1% in the summer to a high of 15% in the spring (Tueller, et al. 1979). Mule deer prefer the leaders of browse species such as bitterbrush and sagebrush. Table 58 in section 5.3.2.3.1.1.2 depicts shrub, grass, and forb vegetative composition in Smoky Allotment. That data in Table 58 can be utilized to determine if the cover of vegetation at the plots provides adequate dietary requirement for mule deer. Big sagebrush and other browse species make up the majority of cover at the plot, with forbs being the limiting factor. Considering that habitat in the allotment is either crucial winter range or winter range, the cover of the plots located in that habitat are providing the necessary browse for mule deer in the winter.
Pronghorn Antelope
The vegetative height, cover, and community type, as well as the elevation, topography, and distance to water, influence pronghorn habitat selection. Pronghorn generally prefer shrub communities with the vegetation structure averaging about 38.1 centimeters (15 inches) in height, in areas with flat terrain or rolling topography from 914-1,829 meters (3,000-6,000 feet) in elevation. Antelope preferred ranges consist of approximately 50 percent living vegetation (Yoakum, et al. 1980). Table 61 depicts the vegetative composition preferred by pronghorn. Table 60 in section 765.3.2.3.1.1.3, 5.3.2.3.1.1.3 summarizes foliar cover by shrubs, forbs, and grasses at each plot in pronghorn habitat in the Smoky Allotment. Utilizing Table 61 (in section 5.3.2.2.1.1.23) to review cover in regards to pronghorn antelope habitat condition, only 2 plots fall within the criteria for “good” habitat for all three of the vegetation cover types. Many plots meet the criteria for good habitat in one category but fail to meet in other categories; for example, KA 9 meets the criteria for good habitat for shrub and grass cover, but falls into the poor category based on the available forb cover. The limiting factor for the majority of the plots is low forb cover.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 82
5.3.2.3.3.2 Special Status Species
Bats
Data from the upland monitoring plots on the Smoky Allotment were used to evaluate habitat for bats in the Smoky Allotment. In reviewing the upland monitoring plot, it was found that suitable bat habitat was lacking in the allotment. The Riparian and Wetland portion of Standard 2, was not achieved in the Smoky Allotment due to one riparian reach being rated as nonfunctional (see section 5.3.2.2.1.2). Although one riparian reach was not meeting the standard, the majority of riparian and wetland areas were and although these habitats are small in proportion to the uplands, riparian health is very important to many bat species for foraging habitat in the Smoky allotment.
Desert Bighorn Sheep
Bighorn sheep are known as opportunistic, generalist foragers that feed on a variety of plants depending on time of year and moisture. Forbs are thought to be the preferred forage. However seasonal and geographical variations in diets have been observed in bighorn sheep throughout Nevada. Favorable habitat, forage availability, disease and predation are all limiting factors for bighorn sheep populations. Decreasing horizontal visibility has a positive association with increased sheep use and decreased predation. Due to the topography a very small portion of roughly 7,664 acres of the Smoky allotment fall within bighorn sheep habitat as shown in Table 62. Table 63 summarizes foliar coverage by shrubs, forbs and grasses in potential habitat. Due to Bighorns opportunistic foraging potential, site 12 meets the vegetation requirements for suitable bighorn habitat.
Greater Sage-Grouse
Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing Habitat Suitability
No nesting/early brood-rearing habitat is located in the Smoky Allotment.
Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Suitability
The upland summer/late brood-rearing habitat in the Smoky Allotment is unsuitable. Site 06 was rated as unsuitable and Site 12 was rated as marginal. Site 06 was rated as unsuitable based on limited site potential. The site had a limited amount of sagebrush, grass, and forb cover, sagebrush and perennial grass and forb cover were both 1.3%. The site is primarily dominated by shadscale and limits the site potential. Site 12 was rated as marginal based on limited sagebrush height and perennial grass and forb cover. In order for the upland summer/late brood-rearing habitat to be rated as suitable in accordance with the HAF, the average height of the sagebrush must be between 40 to 80 centimeters. Monitoring data showed the dominant sagebrush was Wyoming sagebrush with an average height 25
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 83 centimeters, which does not provide adequate cover for sage-grouse. The limited forb presence may be a result of late season monitoring.
Riparian Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Suitability
The riparian and wetland summer/late brood-rearing habitat assessment for the Smoky Allotment is suitable. Of the 4 riparian reaches assessed, 3 were suitable and 1 was unsuitable. Both wetland areas were rated as suitable.
Winter Habitat Suitability
Winter habitat for sage-grouse in the Smoky Allotment is marginal. Site 12 was rated as suitable and Site 06 was rated as unsuitable. Site 06 had an unsuitable rating due to low sagebrush cover. It is likely that ecological site potential is limiting that site’s habitat potential. 6.0 Interdisciplinary Team Members
An interdisciplinary team from the Battle Mountain District, Mount Lewis Field Office, and Tonopah Field Office prepared this RHA and RE. The following table lists the team member and the disciplines for which they are responsible.
Table 66. Interdisciplinary Team Members
Resource Specialist/Name Title Specialty Range Management – Vegetation – Daltrey J. Balmer Rangeland Management Specialist Soils - Riparian and Livestock Grazing Range Management – Vegetation - Jeremy Sykes Rangeland Management Specialist Soils and Livestock Grazing Brandon Crosby Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Habitat and Sage-Grouse Riparian Area Management and Justin Ferris Hydrologist Water Quality
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 84 7.0 Literature Cited
BLM. (1985). Rangeland Monitoring: Analysis, Interpretation and Evaluation. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. BLM. (1997). Tonopah Resource Managment Plan . Tonopah, NV: US Department of the Interior . BLM. (1999). Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center. BLM. (2008). Special Status Species Management (Vol. BLM Manual 6840). Washington, D.C.: US Department of the Interior. BLM. (2014). State Protocol Agreement Between the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer for Implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. Reno: Bureau of Land Management. BLM. (2015). Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. Reno, NV: US Department of the Interior. Burton, T. A., Smith, S. J., & Cowley, E. R. (2011). Riparian Area Management: Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) of Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation. Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior. Denver, CO: National Operations Center. doi:BLM/OC/ST-10/033+1737+REV Carson, R. G., & Peek, J. (1987). Mule Deer Habitat Selection Patterns in Northcentral Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management, 51, 46-51. Chambers, J. C., Pyke, D. A., Maestas, J. D., Pellant, M., Boyd, C. S., Campbell, S. B., & Espinosa, S. (2014). Using Resistance and Resilience Concepts to Reduce Impacts of Invasive Annual Grasses and Altered Fire Regimes on the Sagebrush Ecosystem and Greater Sage-grouse: A strategic Multi-scale Approach. Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station. Coates, P. S., Casazza, B. E., Brussee, B. E., Ricca, M. A., Gustafson, K. B., Overton, C. T., . . . Delehanty, D. J. (2014). Spatially Explicit Modeling of Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Habitat in Nevada and Northeastern California-A Decision-support Tool for Managment. Open File Report 2014-1163, US Geological Survey. Coulloudon, B., Eshelman, K., Gianola, J., Habich, N., Hughes, L., Johnson, C., . . . Willoughby, J. (1999). Sampling Vegetation Attributes Interagency Technical Reference . Denver,Colorado: Bureau of Land Management's National Applied Resource Sciences Center. Cox, M., Lutz, D. W., Wasely, T., Fleming, M., Compton, B. B., Keegan, T., . . . Kilpatrick, S. (2009). Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Intermountain West Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 85 Dickard, M., Gonzalez, M., Elmore, W., Leonard, S., Smith, D., Smith, S., & Staats, J. (2015). Riparian Area Managment: Proper Functioning Condition Assessment for Lotic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-15, Bureau of Land Managment, US Deparment of the Interior, Denver. Green, J. S., & Flinders, J. T. (1980). Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammalian Species, 125, 1-4. Herrick, J. E., Van Zee, J. W., McCord, S. E., Courtright, E. M., Karl, J. W., & Burkett, L. M. (2015). Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems (Second ed., Vol. 1: Core Methods). Las Cruces, NM: USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. Holechek, J. L. (1988). An Approach for Setting the Stocking Rate. Rangelands, 10(1). Holechek, J. L., Pieper, R. D., & Herbel, C. H. (1983). Comparison of Big Sagebrush Vegetation in North-central New Mexico Under Moderately Grazed and Grazing Excluded Conditions. Journal of Range Management, 36, 455-456. Larrucea, E. S., & Brussard, P. F. (2008). Shift in Location of Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) Habitat in Response to Changing Environments. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(9), 1639-1643. Laycock, W. A. (1991). Stable States and Thresholds of Range Condition on North American Rangelands: A Viewpoint. Journal of Range Management, 44, 724-433. Leckenby, D. A., Sheehy, D. P., Nellis, C. H., Scherzinger, R. J., Luman, I. D., Elmore, W., . . . Trainer, C. E. (1982). Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands--The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon: Mule Deer. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. MacKinnon, W., Karl, J., Toevs, G., Taylor, J., Karl, M., Spurrier, C., & Herrick, J. (2011). BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods. Denver, CO.: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center. NatureServe. (2017). NatureServe Explorer. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].(Version 7.1). Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://explorer.natureserve.org NDEP. (2016). Nevada 2014 Water Quality Integrated Report. Bureau of Water Quality Planning. Carson City, NV: NDEP. Retrieved from https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/water-wqm- docs/IR2014_Report.pdf NDOW. (2012). Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Retrieved 2016, from Nevada Deparment of Wildlife: http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada_Wildlife_Action_Plan/ NDOW. (2015). 2014-2015 Big Game Status. Retrieved 2016, from Nevada Deparment of Wildlife: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Public_Meetings/Commission/201 5%20Big%20Game%20Status%20Book.pdf
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 86 NDOW. (2016). 2015-2016 Big Game Status. Retrieved 2016, from Nevada Department of Wildlife: http://www.ndow.org/Education/Publications/Big_Game_Status_Book/ NNHP. (2001, June 25). Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada Natural Heritage Program. Rare Plant Fact Sheet for Windloving Buckwheat. Carson City, Nevada. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from Nevada Natural Heritage Program Web Site: http://heritage.nv.gov/sites/default/files/atlas/erioganemo.pdf Pellant, M., Shaver, P., Pyke, D. A., & Herrick, J. E. (2005). Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 4. Bureau of Land Managment, U.S. Department of the Interior. Denver, CO: National Scienc and Technology Center. Prichard, D., Berg, F., Leonard, S., Hagenbuck, W., Manning, M., Krapf, R., . . . Staats, J. (2003). Riparian Areage Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center. Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied River Morphology. In Wildlife Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Stiver, S. J., Rinkes, E. T., Naugle, D. E., Makela, P. D., Nance, D. A., & Karl, J. W. (2015). Sage- Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Sundstrom, C., Hepworth, W. G., & Diem, K. L. (1973). Abundance, Distribution and Food Habits of the Pronghorn. Wyoming Fish and Game Commission, Cheyenne, Bulletin No. 12, 61. Tilley, D., & St. John, L. (2012). Plant Guide for Black Sagebrush (Artemisia nova). Aberdeen, Idaho 83210: USDA-Plant Materials Center. Tsukamoto, G. K. (1983 (Revised in 2003)). Nevada's Pronghorn Antelope Ecology, Management, and Conservation. NDOW Biological Bulletin. Tueller, P. T., Beeson, C. D., Tausch, R. J., West, N. E., & Rea, K. H. (1979). Pinyon-juniper Woodlands of the Great Basin: Distribution, Flora, Vegetal Cover. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. US Climate Data Tonopah, NV Climate . (2018, January 29). Retrieved from US Climate Data: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/tonopah/nevada/united-states/usnv0091 USFWS. (2010, March 23). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List. 75 Federal Register 13910. USFWS. (2013). Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. Denver, CO: US Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS. (2014, October 27). Memorandum: Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 87 Valone, T. J., Meyer, M., Brown, J. H., & Chew, R. M. (2002). Timescale of Perennial Grass Recovery in Desertified Arid Grasslands Following Livestock Removal. Conservation Biology, 16, 955-1002. Yoakum, J., Dasmann, W. P., Sanderson, H. R., Nixon, C. M., & Crawford, H. S. (1980). Habitat Improvement Techniques. Wildlife Management Techniques Manual. Washington, D.C., USA: The Wildlife Society.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 88 8.0 Appendices List of Appendices Appendix 1. Climate, precipitation, and drought data for the Francisco and Smoky Allotments 89 Appendix 2. Birds of Conservation Concern – Great Basin Region 9 ...... 92 Appendix 3. Battle Mountain BLM Sensitive Species List ...... 94 Appendix 4. Smoky Allotment Carrying Capacity Analysis Appendix 5. Table 2-2 Habitat Objectives for GRSG from the Greater Sage-grouse Plan Amendment ...... 99 Appendix 6. Smoky PFC Pictures ...... 113
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 89 Appendix 1. Climate, precipitation, and drought data for the Francisco and Smoky Allotments
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 90
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 91
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 92 Appendix 2. Birds of Conservation Concern – Great Basin Region 9
Species Notes
Greater Sage-Grouse Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A year round resident in sagebrush, (Columbia Basin wet meadows and riparian habitats DPS)
Eared Grebe Breeding resident species, mainly in marshes, ponds, and lakes
Bald Eagle Listed as a BLM sensitive species. Primarily a winter resident
Ferruginous Hawk Listed as a BLM sensitive species. Primarily a breeding, summer resident in open grassland, shrubsteppe, pinyon/juniper, sagebrush, cliffs, talus, and agricultural habitats
Golden Eagle A year round resident in sagebrush, salt desert scrub, cliffs, agricultural lands, mountain mahogany, pinyon-juniper, aspen, lowland riparian, and mountain riparian habitats
Peregrine Falcon Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A year round resident in open landscapes with cliffs (or skyscrapers) for nest sites.
Yellow Rail Mainly a winter migrant. Not likely to occur in Francisco and Smoky Allotments
Snowy Plover Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A breeding species mainly in the Lahontan Valley
Long-billed Curlew A breeding resident in prairies and grassy meadows near water
Marbled Godwit Not likely to occur in Francisco and Smoky Allotments
Yellow-billed Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A breeding resident in dense stands Cuckoo (w. U.S. of cottonwood and willow habitats in deciduous riparian woodlands DPS)
Flammulated Owl A breeding resident in montane forest, usually open conifer forests containing pine, with some brush or saplings. Mainly in Elko County.
Black Swift Mainly a passage migrant in southwestern Nevada. Nests in behind or next to waterfalls in wet cliffs
Calliope A breeding resident in open shrubby montane forest, mountain Hummingbird meadows, second-growth, and willow and alder thickets
Lewis's Woodpecker Listed as a BLM sensitive species. In Nevada this species is most strongly associated with deciduous riparian woodlands dominated by aspen or cottonwood. It is no longer known to breed in the valley-bottom riparian woodlands where they are thought to have historically occurred
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 93 Species Notes
Williamson's A breeding resident mainly in eastern parts of Nevada. Habitat is in Sapsucker middle to high elevation montane and subalpine coniferous forests
White-headed A breeding resident in Washoe and El Dorado counties. Habitat is Woodpecker montane coniferous forest primarily pine and fir
Willow Flycatcher A year round resident. In central, eastern, and northern Nevada the species is found in both lowland and montane riparian habitats, and occasionally in other inundated areas such as aspen stands or wet meadows
Loggerhead Shrike Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A permanent resident that breeds in open country with scattered trees and shrubs, savanna, desert scrub, and, occasionally, open woodland
Pinyon Jay Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A permanent resident in pinyon- juniper woodland, less frequently pine; in nonbreeding season, also occurs in scrub oak and sagebrush
Sage Thrasher Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A breeding resident in sagebrush plains, primarily in arid or semi-arid habitats.
Virginia's Warbler A breeding resident in arid montane woodland, oak thickets, pinyon- juniper, coniferous scrub, and chaparral in brushy steep mountain slopes within or near dry coniferous woodlands
Green-tailed Towhee A breeding resident in thickets, chaparral, shrublands, riparian scrub, and especially sagebrush.
Brewer's Sparrow Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A breeding resident strongly associated with sagebrush over most of its range, in areas with scattered shrubs and short grass.
Black-chinned A breeding resident, mainly in Clark and Lincoln counties in Nevada. Sparrow Breeds in chaparral, sagebrush, and arid scrub; on gentle hillsides to steep, rocky slopes, or in brushy canyons
Sage Sparrow A sagebrush obligate species that prefer areas with shrubs at least 45 cm (18 in) tall with 10-25% crown cover mixed with a sparse grass and forb component
Tricolored Blackbird Breeds in fresh water marshes of cattails, tules, bulrushes, and sedges. Known to occur in Douglas county in Nevada.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 94 Species Notes
Black Rosy-Finch Listed as a BLM sensitive species. A non-breeding resident utilizing barren, rocky or grassy areas and cliffs among glaciers or beyond timberline. Could use areas within the allotment during the winter, as their winter habitat use includes lowland semi-deserts, grasslands, and scrublands (Parrish et al. 2002).
Appendix 3 Battle Mountain BLM Sensitive Species List
All species listed here are Nevada BLM Sensitive Species as designated by the State Director, and are identified on the State Director’s list as occurring in the Battle Mountain District, as of October 1 2017. Criteria set forth in the BLM 6840 Manual for designating sensitive species are:
1. Species designated as Bureau sensitive must be native species found on BLM administrated lands for which BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management, and either: a. There is information that a species has recently undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward trend such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the species range, or b. The species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitats on BLM- administrated lands, and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk.
2. All federally designated candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following their delisting shall be conserved as Bureau sensitive species.
Species listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act are identified in the first part of the table below (all are also Nevada BLM Sensitive species).
Battle Mountain District Endangered and Threatened Species List Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Plants (4) Spring-loving centaury Centarium namophilum Threatened Ash Meadows mousetails Ivesia kingii var. eremica Threatened Armagosa niterwort Nitrophila mohavensis Endangered Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis Candidate Birds (3) Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Threatened Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus Endangered Ridgway’s rail (Yuma clapper rail) Rallus obsoletus yumanensis Endangered Reptile (1) Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii Threatened Fish (2) Railroad Valley springfish Crenichthys nevadae Threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi Threatened
Battle Mountain District Special Status Plant Species List (32)
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 95 Common Name Scientific Name
Eastwood milkweed Asclepias eastwoodiana Cima milkvetch Astragalus cimae var. cimae Tonopah milkvetch Astragalus pseudiodanthus Toquima milkvetch Astragalus toquimanus Currant milkvetch Astragalus uncialis Elko rockcress Boechera falcifructa Monte Neva paintbrush Castilleja salsuginosa Tecopa birdbeak Cordylanthus tecopensis Mojave (Virgin River) thistle Circium mohavense (C. virginense) Goodrich biscuitroot Cymopterus goodrichii Nevada willowherb Epilobium nevadense Windloving buckwheat Eriogonum anemophilum Beatley buckwheat Eriogonum beatleyae Deeth buckwheat Eriogonum nutans var. glabratum Tiehm buckwheat Eriogonum tiehmii Sand cholla Grusonia pulchella Alkali ivesia Ivesia kingii var. kingii Lunar Crater buckwheat Johanneshowellia crateriorum Davis peppercress Lepidium davisii Holmgren lupine Lupinus holmgrenianus Low feverfew Parthenium ligulatum Pahute Mesa beardtongue Penstemon pahutensis Lahontan beardtongue Penstemon palmeri var. macranthus Bashful beardtongue Penstemon pudicus Tiehm beardtongue Penstemon tiehmii Clarke phacelia Phacelia filiae Reese River phacelia Phacelia glaberrima Williams combleaf Polyctenium williamsiae Blaine pincushion Sclerocactus blainei Nye (Tonopah) pincushion Sclerocactus nyensis Railroad Valley globemallow Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. williamsiae Lone Mountain goldenheads Tonestus graniticus
Battle Mountain District Special Status Animal Species List Common Name Scientific Name
BIRDS (26)
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 96 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Western snowy plover (not protected Pacific Coast DPS) Charadrius nivosus nivosus Great Basin willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii odastus Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Sandhill crane Antigone canadensis Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Bald eagle Halioeetus leucocephalus Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Black rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata Gray-crowned rosy-finch Leucosticte tephrocotis Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens Flammulated owl Psiloscops flammeolus Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri Crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissale LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei FISH (9) Big Smoky Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus lariversi Monitor Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 5 Oasis Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 6 Fish Lake Valley tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 4 Hot Creek Valley tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 5 Little Fish Lake Valley tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 6 Railroad Valley tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 7 Big Smoky Valley tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 8 Charnock Ranch (Charnock Springs) tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 10 MAMMALS (31) Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Desert pocket mouse Chaetodipus penicillatus Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Greater western mastiff bat Eumops perotis Allen’s big-eared (lappet-browed) bat Idionycteris phyllotis Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Dark kangaroo mouse (includes Desert Valley and Fletcher) Microdipodops megacephalus ssp.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 97 Pale kangaroo mouse Microdipodops pallidus Pahranagat Valley montane vole Microtus montanus fucosus California myotis Myotis californicus Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Cave myotis Myotis velifer Long-legged myotis Myotis volans Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Canyon bat (formerly western pipistrelle) Parastrellus hesperus Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami American water shrew Sorex pallustrus Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Fish Spring pocket gopher Thomomys bottae abstrusus San Antonio pocket gopher Thomomys bottae curatus AMPHIBIANS (4) Western toad Anaxyrus boreas Amargosa toad Anaxyrus nelsoni Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris REPTILES (6) Great Basin collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores Long-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii Pygmy short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassii Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Desert horned lizard Phrynosoma platyrhinos Western red-tailed skink Plestiodon [Eumeces] gilberti rubricaudatus MOLLUSCS (9) California floater Anodonta californiensis Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata Duckwater pyrg Pyrgulopsis aloba Southern Duckwater pyrg Pyrgulopsis anatina Large-gland Carico pyrg Pyrgulopsis basiglans Carinate Duckwater pyrg Pyrgulopsis carinata Oasis Valley pyrg Pyrgulopsis micrococcus Ovate Cain Spring pyrg Pyrgulopsis pictilis Duckwater Warm Springs pyrg Pyrgulopsis villacampae Ants, Wasps, Bees (2) Mojave gypsum bee Andrena balsamorhizae Mojave poppy bee Perdita meconis True Bugs (1) Pahranagat naucorid bug Pelocoris shoshone shoshone Beetles (4) Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab Aegialia crescenta Aegialian scarab beetle Aegialia knighti
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 98 Crescent Dunes aphodius scarab Aphodius ssp. 2 Crescent Dunes serican scarab Serica ammomenisco Butterflies (7) Big Smoky wood nymph Cercyonis oetus alkalorum White River wood nymph Cercyonis pegala pluvialis Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus plexippus White Mountains skipper Hesperia miriamae longaevicola Railroad Valley skipper Hesperia uncas fulvapalla White River Valley skipper Hesperia uncas grandiosa Great Basin small blue Philotiella speciosa septentrionalis
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 99 Appendix 4. Smoky Allotment Carrying Capacity Analysis Smoky Allotment Carrying Capacity Analysis
The following carrying capacity analysis was completed using use pattern mapping, actual use data, and considering the conclusions following the evaluation of Land Use Plan and Standards for Rangeland Health objectives. Carrying capacity analysis is presented below in accordance with BLM manual Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation TR 4400-7.
The following is the allocation of AUMs to livestock, as established by the Tonopah Resource Management Plan (RMP). These AUMs were the proportion of the total livestock existing use identified in the RMP. The RMP was completed in December 1997. The RMP identified 5,529 AUMs for livestock grazing; however, 5,593 AUMs are currently permitted for this allotment. The original 1959 adjudication called for 5,819 AUMs in the current in the Smoky Allotment. For the carrying capacity calculations, the current permitted use of 5,593 AUMs was used. No reductions in permitted use from expansion in the Round Mountain Mine have taken place. No allocation of AUMs to wild horse use has been made in the Smoky Allotment.
Smoky AUMs (Existing Permitted Use) Operator Permitted Use (AUMs) Russell W. Berg 922 BTAZ Nevada, LLC. 4,671 Total 5,593
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 100 The following are the calculations use for the carrying capacity analysis.
Desired Weighted Average
Light Use Acres * 30% + Moderate Use Acres * 50% Total Acres
Desired Carrying Capacity
Average actual livestock use * Utilization Objective = AUMs Desired Weighted Average Calculation
Potential Weighted Average Carrying Capacity Calculations
Negligible Use Acres * 2.5% + Slight Use Acres * 13% + Light Use Acres * 30% + Moderate Use Acres * 70% Total Acres
Potential Carrying Capacity
Average livestock actual use * Utilization Objective = AUMs Potential Weighted Average
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 101 DESIRED SMOKY USE PATTERN MAP CALCULATIONS
2015 Use Pattern Map Desired Weighted Average Calculation
39,581 acres * 30% = 39,581 acres
11,874 = 39,581
30% Desired Weighted Average (2015)
2015 Use Pattern Map Desired Carrying Capacity Calculation
40% Utilization Objective
2,672 * 40% = 3,563 AUMs 30%
3,563 AUMs Desired Carrying Capacity at 40% Utilization Objective (2015)
2016 Use Pattern Map Desired Weighted Average Calculation
11,946 acres * 30% + 289 *50% = 12,235 acres
3,584 + 145 = 12,235
30% Desired Weighted Average (2016)
2016 Use Pattern Map Desired Carrying Capacity Calculation
40% Utilization Objective
1,543 * 40% = 2,057 AUMs 30%
2,057 AUMs Desired Carrying Capacity at 40% Utilization Objective (2016)
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 102 AVERAGE DESIRED CARRYING CAPACITY 40% UTILIZATION OBJECTIVE
3,563 + 2,057 = 2,810 AUMs 2
Average Desired Carrying Capacity = 2,810 AUMs
Desired Carrying Capacity for Individual Permittee
Individual Permittee AUMs = Percentage of Livestock AUMs in the allotment Total Permitted Livestock AUMs
Percentage of Livestock AUMs * Desired Carrying Capacity Livestock AUMs = Proposed AUMs for Individual Permittee
1. Russell W. Berg
922 Permitted AUMs = 16% * 2,810 = 450 AUMs 5,593 Total AUMs
2. BTAZ Nevada, LLC.
4,671 Permitted AUMs = 84% * 2,810 = 2,360 AUMs 5,593 Total AUMs
OPERATOR PERMITTED AUMS PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED AUMS LIVESTOCK AUMS Russell W. Berg 922 16 450 BTAZ Nevada, LLC. 4,671 84 2,360 Total 5,593 100 2,810
POTENTIAL SMOKY USE PATTERN MAP CALCULATIONS 2015 Use Pattern Map Potential Weighted Average Calculation
55,765 acres * 2.5% + 14,882 acres * 13% + 39,581 acres * 30% = 110,228 acres
1,394 + 1,935 + 11,874 = 110,228
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 103
14% Potential Weighted Average (2015)
2015 Use Pattern Map Potential Carrying Capacity Calculation
40% Utilization Objective
2,672 * 40% = 7,634 AUMs 14%
7,634 AUMs Potential Carrying Capacity at 40% Utilization Objective (2015)
2016 Use Pattern Map Potential Weighted Average Calculation
81,171 acres * 2.5% + 16,932 acres * 13% + 12,235 acres * 30% + 289 * 50% = 110,338 acres
2,029 + 2,201 + 3,671 + 154 = 110,338
7% Potential Weighted Average (2016)
2016 Use Pattern Map Potential Carrying Capacity Calculation
40% Utilization Objective
1,543 * 40% = 8,817 AUMs 7%
8,817 AUMs Potential Carrying Capacity at 40% Utilization Objective (2016)
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 104 AVERAGE POTENTIAL CARRYING CAPACITY 40% UTILIZATION OBJECTIVE
7,643 + 8,817 = 8,230 AUMs 2
Potential Carrying Capacity = 8,230 AUMs
Potential Carrying Capacity for Individual Permittee
Individual Permittee AUMs = Percentage of Livestock AUMs in the allotment Total Permitted Livestock AUMs
Percentage of Livestock AUMs * Potential Carrying Capacity Livestock AUMs = Proposed AUMs for Individual Permittee
1. Russell W. Berg
922 Permitted AUMs = 16% * 8,230 = 1,317 AUMs 5,593 Total AUMs
2. BTAZ Nevada, LLC.
4,671 Permitted AUMs = 84% * 8,230 = 6,913 AUMs 5,593 Total AUMs
Operator Existing AUMs Percentage of Adjusted AUMs Livestock AUMs Russell W. Berg 922 16 1,317 BTAZ Nevada, LLC. 4,671 84 6,913 Total 5,593 100 8,230
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 105 Smoky Livestock Carrying Capacity (Desired and Potential)
DESIRED POTENTIAL PERCENTAGE CARRYING CARRYING PERMITTED OF CAPACITY OPERATOR CAPACITY AUMS LIVESTOCK ADJUSTED ADJUSTED AUMS AUMS AUMS (40%) (40%) Russell W. 922 16 450 1,317 Berg
BTAZ 4,671 84 2,360 6,913 Nevada LLC.
Total 5,593 100 2,810 6,659
Rationale:
The Smoky Allotment Rangeland Heath Assessment presented a compilation and summarization of all available monitoring data at upland key areas to compare the current resource conditions in the allotment to the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Area rangeland health standards. The Evaluation Report provided an analysis of assessed to the three rangeland standards, Soils, Ecosystem Components, and Habitat and Biota. It was found that the Smoky Allotments was not achieving all three standards. The carrying capacity for the Smoky Allotment was completed by analysis of use pattern mapping data collected in 2015 and 2016, livestock actual use for the corresponding year that data was collected. Key area utilization was compared to the use pattern maps, when available. Key area utilization was not used to derive carrying capacity since the Smoky Allotment does not have individual pastures of defined use areas where actual use could be applied to each key area. Weighted average utilization derived from the use pattern maps is more representative of the use that occurred throughout the entire allotment and serves more accurately to estimate carrying capacity. Drought has had a significant impact to the current vegetation condition in the Smoky Allotment. The attached charts illustrates precipitation (Attachment 1) and the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Attachment 2) in the Smoky Allotment from a period of 1979 to 2016. The charts show from 1979 to 1998, cycles of higher precipitation and non-drought years for 2 to 3 years, followed by lower precipitation and drought years for 2 to 3 years. After 1998, lower precipitation and drought periods are shown to be 3 to 4 years with periods of higher precipitation and non-drought years only lasting 1 to 2 years. Over the same time period, precipitation during the critical growth period (March-June) for most grass species in the allotment after 1998 has followed a similar cycle (Attachment 3). The utilization objective identified on BTAZ Nevada, LLC. grazing permit is 55% for grass species and 45% shrub species. The frequency studies located a key areas 4, 8, and 11 showed grass species on a downward trend, while shrub, with the exception of shadscale showing relatively stable trends. The following table illustrates the desired weighted average utilization and the potential weighted average utilization for 2015 and 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 106 USE PATTERN MAP YEAR DESIRED WEIGHTED POTENTIAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE AVERAGE 2015 30% 14% 2016 30% 7%
While this level of use over a two year period is most likely not a contributing factor to the current condition of the uplands, a combination of drought, lower perception, and livestock grazing are more likely. During 2015 and 2016, both permittees were concerned about the condition of the allotment and took voluntarily non-use in the allotment due to vegetation condition. Due to the standards of rangeland health not being met, a 40% utilization objectives is appropriate for the allotment in the future. Holechek recommends in the more arid regions, less than 12 inches precipitation per year, of the Southwest and intermountain areas, utilization levels between 25% and 45%. While this carrying capacity is an important step in the assessment and evaluation process, after reviewing this analysis it has been found that both years of use pattern mapping were conducted in drought years. Both 2015 and 2016 use levels are below the utilization objective of the allotment and it is likely that drought is continuing to have impact to vegetation condition. Current stocking levels on the allotment can be maintained, and with a season of use change that avoids the critical growth period in the allotment, vegetation condition will improve.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 107 Attachment 1
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 108 Attachment 2
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 109 Attachment 3
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 110 Appendix 5. Table 2-2 Habitat Objectives for GRSG from the Greater Sage-grouse Plan Amendment
Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference (Habitat Objectives)
GENERAL/LANDSCAPE-LEVEL1
All life stages Rangeland health Meeting all standards2
assessments Cover Nesting Seasonal habitat >65% of the landscape Aldridge and Boyce needed in sagebrush cover 2007 Annual grasses <5% Blomberg, et al. 2012 Security (nesting) Conifer <3% phase I (>0 to Casazza, et al. 2011 encroachment <25% cover) USGS (in prep A) No phase II (25 to 50% cover) No phase III (>50% cover) Cover and food Conifer <5% phase I (>0 to USGS (in prep A) (winter) Encroachment 25%) USGS (in prep B) No phase II (25 to 50% cover) No phase III (>50% cover) Sagebrush extent >85% sagebrush land USGS (in prep A) cover Doherty, et al. 2008 LEK (Seasonal Use Period: March 1 to May 15)1
Cover Availability of Has adjacent sagebrush Blomberg, et al. 2012 sagebrush cover Connelly, et al. 2000 cover Stiver, et al. 2015 HAF Security3 Pinyon or juniper <3% landscape cover Connelly, et al. 2000 cover within .6 mile of leks (modified) Proximity of tall Use Manier et al. 2014- Stiver, et al. 2015 structures4 Conservation Buffer HAF Distance Estimates for Baruch-Mordo, et al. GRSG-A Review; 2013 preference is 3 miles Coates, et al. 2013 Manier, et al. 2014 NESTING (Seasonal Use Period: April 1 to June 30)1
Cover Sagebrush cover >20% Kolada, et al. 2009a Residual and live >10% if shrub cover is Coates, et al. 2013 perennial <25%5 Coates and Delehanty 2010
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 111 Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference (Habitat Objectives)
grass cover (such as Kolada, et al. 2009a native Kolada, et al. 2009b bunchgrasses) Annual grass cover <5% Lockyer, et al. 2015 Total shrub cover >30% Coates and Delehanty 2010 Kolada, et al. 2009a Lockyer, et al. 2015 Perennial grass height Provide overhead and Connelly, et al. 2000 (includes residual lateral concealment Connelly, et al. 2003 grasses) from predators Hagen, et al. 2007 Stiver, et al. 2015 HAF Security2 Proximity of tall Use Manier et al. 2014, Coates, et al. 2013 structures4 Conservation Buffer Gibson, et al. 2013 (3 feet [1 meter] Distance Manier, et al. 2014 above Estimates for GRSG-A shrub) Review; preference is 3 miles BROOD-REARING/SUMMER (Seasonal Use Period: May 15 to September 15; Early: May 15 to June 15; Late: June 15 to September 15)1
UPLAND HABITATS
Cover Sagebrush Cover 10 to 25% Connelly, et al. 2000 Perennial grass cover >15% combined Connelly, et al. 2000 and perennial Hagen, et al. 2007 forbs grass and forb cover Deep rooted 7 inches6, 7 Hagen, et al. 2007 perennial Casazza, et al. 2011 bunchgrass (within 522 feet [200 meters] of riparian areas and wet meadows) Cover and Food Perennial forb cover >5% arid Casazza, et al. 2011 >15% mesic Lockyer, et al. 2015 RIPARIAN/MEADOW HABITATS
Cover and Food Riparian PFC Dickard, et al. 2015 areas/meadows Prichard, et al. 1998 Stiver, et al. 2015
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 112 Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference (Habitat Objectives)
HAF Security Upland and riparian Preferred forbs are Stiver, et al. 2015 perennial forb common with HAF availability several species and understory present6 species High species richness richness(all plants) Riparian Has adjacent sagebrush Casazza, et al. 2011 area/meadow cover Stiver, et al. 2015 interspersion with HAF adjacent sagebrush
WINTER (Seasonal Use Period: November 1 to February 28)1
Cover and Food >10% above snow Connelly, et al. 2000 Sagebrush cover depth USGS (in prep C) >9.8 inches above Connelly, et al. 2000 Sagebrush height snow depth USGS (in prep C) 1Any one single habitat indicator does not define whether the habitat objective is or is not met. Instead, the preponderance of evidence from all indicators within that seasonal habitat period must be considered when assessing sage-grouse habitat objectives. 2Upland standards are based on indicators for cover, including litter, live vegetation, and rock, appropriate to the ecological potential of the site. 3Applicable to Phase I and Phase II pinyon and/or juniper. 4Does not include fences. 5In addition, if upland rangeland health standards are being met. 6 Relative to ecological site potential. 7In drought years, 4-inch perennial bunchgrass height with greater than 20 percent measurements exceeding 5 inches in dry years.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 113 Appendix 6. Smoky PFC Pictures
Figure 1. Jefferson Creek PFC looking upstream, June 30, 2016. Picture was taken at road crossing due to the inability to access the stream channel due to woody vegetation.
Figure 2. Jefferson Creek PFC looking downstream, June 30, 2016. Picture was taken at road crossing due to the inability to access the stream channel due to woody vegetation.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 114
Figure 3. Willow Creek PFC looking across the stream channel, June 30, 2016.
Figure 4. Willow Creek PFC looking down the stream channel, June 30, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 115
Figure 5. Willow Creek PFC looking across the stream channel at the end of the reach, June 30, 2016.
Figure 6. Barker Creek PFC looking down the stream channel, October 10, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 116
Figure 7. Barker Creek PFC looking across the stream channel, October 10, 2016.
Figure 8. Barker Creek PFC looking across the stream channel, October 10, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 117
Figure 9. Ophir Creek PFC looking up the stream channel, June 20, 2016.
Figure 10. Ophir Creek PFC looking across the stream channel, June 20, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 118
Figure 11. Ophir Creek PFC looking up the stream channel, June 30, 2016.
Figure 12. Charnac Meadow PFC June 20, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 119
Figure 13. Charnac Meadow PFC June 20, 2016.
Figure 14. Charnac Spring Complex PFC October 27, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 120
Figure 15. Charnac Spring Complex PFC October 27, 2016.
Figure 16. Charnac Spring Complex PFC October 27, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 121
Figure 17. Charnac Spring Complex PFC October 27, 2016.
Figure 18. Charnac Spring Complex PFC October 27, 2016.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 122 9.0 Maps
See next page.
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 123
Francisco and Smoky Allotments Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Page 124