DOCSLIB.ORG

Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment DRAFT Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment and Wildlife Specialist Report Prepared by: Doug Middlebrook Wildlife Biologist for: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 02/05/2015 DRAFT DRAFT The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. DRAFT DRAFT Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 4 Summary of Determinations.................................................................................................................. 4 Additional Recommendations or Conservation Measures .................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 6 Description of the Alternatives ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Alternative A (No-action) .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Alternative B ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Alternative C ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Description of the Amendment Area and Sage-grouse Habitat ............................................................ 9 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis ......... 16 Species Considered in the Analysis ........................................................................................................ 17 I. Federally Listed and Proposed Species ............................................................................................... 17 Federally Listed Species ..................................................................................................................... 18 Proposed Species ................................................................................................................................ 23 Species Analyzed in Further Detail .................................................................................................... 49 II. Sensitive Animal Species ................................................................................................................. 116 Species Information and Effects Analysis ........................................................................................ 125 Sagebrush Associated Species .......................................................................................................... 125 Species Utilizing Snags and Trees for Roosting ............................................................................... 130 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Species ......................................................................................... 133 III. Management Indicator Species ....................................................................................................... 135 Mule deer .......................................................................................................................................... 136 Greater Sage Grouse ......................................................................................................................... 139 IV. Neotropical Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................... 139 Species Viability Requirements ............................................................................................................ 141 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................................... 144 APPENDIX A1. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, HTNF ........... 149 APPENDIX A2. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, CCD .............. 155 APPENDIX A3. Existing Management Direction Pertinent to Sage Grouse Habitats, Tonopah RMP ............................................................................................................................................................... 157 APPENDIX A4. BLM Instruction Memoranda ................................................................................... 166 APPENDIX B. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Action Consistency Checklist ................... 167 DRAFT DRAFT Executive Summary The analysis area consists of National Forest system and BLM lands that have been identified as Bi-State sage grouse habitat (Figure 1). The management direction proposed in the action alternative would apply to designated BSSG habitats and linkage areas within the project area that have been identified as grouse habitat. However, there are no areas designed as linkage areas within the project area. The analysis area consists of 650,746 total acres of identified BSSG habitat on USFS and BLM lands (Table 3). Of these, about 426,809 acres (66%) occur on Forest Service lands and 223,935 acres (44%) are on BLM lands. Both the Bridgeport and Carson Ranger Districts on the HTNF contain BSSG habitat, as do both the Carson City and Battle Mountain BLM Districts. Federal, state, and private ownerships occur within and outside the National Forest and BLM District boundaries, and include sage-grouse habitat. Summary of Determinations • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or its critical habitat. • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project will not affect the following Federally-listed species or their designated critical habitat: o Carson wandering skipper, southwestern willow flycatcher, mountain yellow-legged frog (Southern California DPS), Yosemite toad, least Bell’s vireo. • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species proposed for federal listing, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat: o Greater sage-grouse , Bi-State DPS; Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the following sagebrush-associated sensitive species in the planning area: : o Pygmy rabbit, dark kangaroo mouse, desert bighorn sheep, loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow. • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the following pinyon-juniper-associated sensitive species in the planning area: o Pinyon jay, ferruginous hawk, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat silver-haired bat, hoary bat, California myotis, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis, western pipistrelle. • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project will not affect all other Regional Forester’s and Nevada BLM sensitive species considered in this Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment. DRAFT DRAFT • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project will benefit habitat and will not cause populations to trend downward, for the following Management Indicator Species (MIS): o Greater sage grouse • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment , the action alternatives may impact habitat, but will not cause populations to trend downward, for the following Management Indicator Species (MIS): o Mule deer • It is my determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment project will have no impact on all other MIS species considered in this assessment. • It is my determination
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PDF Linkchapter
    Index (Italic page numbers indicate major references) Abalone Cove landslide, California, Badger Spring, Nevada, 92, 94 Black Dyke Formation, Nevada, 69, 179, 180, 181, 183 Badwater turtleback, California, 128, 70, 71 abatement districts, California, 180 132 Black Mountain Basalt, California, Abrigo Limestone, Arizona, 34 Bailey ash, California, 221, 223 135 Acropora, 7 Baked Mountain, Alaska, 430 Black Mountains, California, 121, Adams Argillite, Alaska, 459, 462 Baker’s Beach, California, 267, 268 122, 127, 128, 129 Adobe Range, Nevada, 91 Bald Peter, Oregon, 311 Black Point, California, 165 Adobe Valley, California, 163 Balloon thrust fault, Nevada, 71, 72 Black Prince Limestone, Arizona, 33 Airport Lake, California, 143 Banning fault, California, 191 Black Rapids Glacier, Alaska, 451, Alabama Hills, California, 152, 154 Barrett Canyon, California, 202 454, 455 Alaska Range, Alaska, 442, 444, 445, Barrier, The, British Columbia, 403, Blackhawk Canyon, California, 109, 449, 451 405 111 Aldwell Formation, Washington, 380 Basin and Range Province, 29, 43, Blackhawk landslide, California, 109 algae 48, 51, 53, 73, 75, 77, 83, 121, Blackrock Point, Oregon, 295 Oahu, 6, 7, 8, 10 163 block slide, California, 201 Owens Lake, California, 150 Basin Range fault, California, 236 Blue Lake, Oregon, 329 Searles Valley, California, 142 Beacon Rock, Oregon, 324 Blue Mountains, Oregon, 318 Tatonduk River, Alaska, 459 Bear Meadow, Washington, 336 Blue Mountain unit, Washington, 380 Algodones dunes, California, 101 Bear Mountain fault zone, California,
    [Show full text]
  • East Walker River Watershed Assessment
    East Walker River Watershed Assessment March 2012 Contributors and Acknowledgements Assessment and plan written by Rick Kattelmann Ph.D., retired hydrologist who specialized in watershed management and snow hydrology. He worked and contracted for a variety of agencies, public utilities, and conservation groups. Rick was the principal hydrologist for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project in the mid-1990s and authored more than 150 scientific and technical papers. He served two terms on the Mono County Planning Commission and wrote watershed assessments for the other principal watersheds of Mono County. Rick holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in forestry and watershed hydrology at U.C. Berkeley and a Ph.D. in snow hydrology from U.C. Santa Barbara. Assessment and plan production managed by Eastern Sierra Land Trust: Aaron Johnson, Lands Director, Heather Freeman, Office Coordinator, Karen Ferrell-Ingram, Executive Director Assistance with cartographic design and spatial analysis: Kimberly Forkner Funders/Support: Funding for this project has been provided by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, an agency of the State of California. The maps and cartographic products included in this report were made possible through a generous grant of the ArcGIS software by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) through the ESRI Conservation Program. Disclaimer Watershed Assessments are a snapshot in time of a location, synthesizing all the known information concerning that area. Omissions, errors, an d misunderstandings can occur. The authors request that corrections, additions, and suggestions be sent to the address below. Eastern Sierra Land Trust P.O. Box 755 Bishop, CA 93515 East Walker River Watershed Assessment Table of Contents Contributors and Acknowledgements ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • August 5, 2019 Jan Cutts District Ranger
    California Program Office 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1730 | Sacramento, California 95814 | tel 916.313.5800 www.defenders.org August 5, 2019 Jan Cutts District Ranger Bridgeport Ranger District HC 62 Box 1000 Bridgeport, CA, 93517 Via email to: [email protected]; comments-intermtn-humboldt-toiyabe- [email protected] Re: Scoping comments on Bridgeport Southwest Rangeland Project Dear Ms. Cutts; Thank you for the opportunity to submit scoping comments on the Bridgeport Southwest Rangeland Project. Scoping comments included in this letter are submitted by Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) on behalf of its 1.8 million members and supporters in the U.S., including 279,000 in California. Defenders is a national non-profit environmental dedicated to protecting all wild animals and plants in their natural communities. To this end, Defenders uses science, public education and participation, media, legislative advocacy, litigation, and proactive on-the-ground solutions in order to impede the accelerating rate of extinction of species, associated loss of biological diversity, and habitat alteration and destruction. Project background The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Bridgeport Ranger District is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for proposed cattle grazing on the existing Cameron Canyon, Dunderberg, Summers Meadow, and Tamarack grazing allotments in Mono County, California, which comprise 19,360 acres of federal land. The allotments include a portion of the Hoover Wilderness where livestock grazing is allowed since it was an existing use prior to enactment of the Wilderness Act and its designation in 1964. National Headquarters | 1130 17th Street, N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 | tel 202.682.9400 | fax 202.682.1331 | www.defenders.org The project area includes designated critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (SNBS), which was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Canterbury\My Documents
    Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) May 2003 Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: The Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep was developed by the State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with: National Park Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Director, California Department of Fish and Game XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Regional Director, National Park Service XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service Primary Author The primary author of this recovery plan is: John D. Wehausen, Ph.D. University of California White Mountain Research Station 3000 East Line St. Bishop, CA 93514 The recovery plan was written with the assistance of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team (see Acknowledgments). i Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometime preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and other Federal agencies, Tribes, and other affected and interested parties involved. Recovery plans do not obligate cooperating or other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Director, Regional Director, or California/Nevada Operations Manager as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Sage Grouse
    June 2004 Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern California First Edition Prepared by: The Bi-State Local Planning Group In Conjunction with: The Nevada Governor's Conservation Team Table of Contents PREFACE .............................................................................................................................vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT APPROACH ....................................................... 2 2.3 Genetic Background for the Bi-State Sage-grouse Populations ............................. 2 2.4 Risk Assessment and Conservation Strategy Approach ......................................... 9 3.0 PINE NUT PMU ........................................................................................................11 3.1 PMU Description ...................................................................................................11 3.1.1. Location and Boundary ..............................................................................11 3.1.2 Land Ownership and Regulatory Jurisdictions ...........................................11 3.1.3 Topography and Climate ...........................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Trekking.Pdf
    Long - Term Trekking Offered by the HIGH ADVENTURE TEAM Greater Los Angeles Area Council Boy Scouts of America The High Adventure Team of the Greater Los Angeles Area Council-Boy Scouts of America is a volunteer group of Scouters which operates under the direction of GLAAC-Camping Services. Its mission is to develop and promote outdoor activities within the Council and by its many Units. It conducts training programs, sponsors High Adventure awards, publishes specialized literature such as Hike Aids and The Trail Head and promotes participation in summer camp, in High Adventure activities such as backpacking, peak climbing, and conservation, and in other Council programs. Anyone who is interested in the GLAAC-HAT and its many activities is encouraged to direct an inquiry to the GLAAC-Camping Services or visit our web site at http://glaac-hat.org/. The GLAAC-HAT meets on the evening of the first Tuesday of each month at 7:30 pm in the Cushman Watt Scout Center, 2333 Scout Way, Los Angeles, CA 90026. These meetings are open to all Scouters. REVISIONS February 2016 Maintenance release. Tom Thorpe July 2015 Moved some of the material between this Tom Thorpe Hike Aid and Hike Aid 12. Added several long-term descriptions. Dick Rose June 2005 This new Hike Aid includes Program Lyle Whited, Announcements 1, “The Silver Moccasin John Hainey Hike”, 4, “John Muir Trail”, 5, “High Sierra Trail”, and 15, “The Golden Big Horn Trek”. Tooth of Time - Philmont Scout Ranch Long-Term Trekking Published by the HIGH ADVENTURE TEAM of the Greater Los Angeles
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument Natural Resource Report NPS/DEPO/NRR—2014/889 ON THE COVER Soda Springs Meadow Photograph courtesy of Devils Postpile National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument Natural Resource Report NPS/DEPO/NRR—2014/889 Bill Kuhn National Park Service Yosemite National Park PO Box 700 El Portal, CA 95318 Terressa Whitaker National Park Service Yosemite National Park PO Box 700 El Portal, CA 95318 December 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal and formal peer review by administrative staff and subject-matter experts, some of whom were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on a par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Club Mountain Registers and Records, 1860-2015
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf738nb2br No online items Finding Aid to the Sierra Club Mountain Registers and Records, 1860-2015 Finding Aid written by Lauren Lassleben; revised by Charis Baz Takaro and Alison E. Bridger Funding for processing The Sierra Club Records Project was provided by a major grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. The Bancroft Library © 2007 The Bancroft Library University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 [email protected] URL: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/libraries/bancroft-library Finding Aid to the Sierra Club BANC MSS 71/293 c 1 Mountain Registers and Records, 1860-2015 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: The Bancroft Library Title: Sierra Club Mountain registers and records creator: Sierra Club Identifier/Call Number: BANC MSS 71/293 c Physical Description: 36 linear feet(27 cartons, 6 oversize boxes, 1 volume, 1 oversize folder) Date (inclusive): 1860-2018 Abstract: Contains the Sierra Club Mountaineering Committee records, artifacts including register containers, and mountain registers mainly from California summits of the Sierra Nevada. Language of Material: Collection materials are in English Many of the Bancroft Library collections are stored offsite and advance notice may be required for use. For current information on the location of these materials, please consult the Library's online catalog. Finding Aid Author(s): Finding Aid written by Lauren Lassleben; revised by Charis Baz Takaro and Alison E. Bridger Date Completed: June 2007 Finding Aid Encoded By: GenX Access Collection is open for research. Publication Rights All requests to reproduce, publish, quote from, or otherwise use collection materials must be submitted in writing to the Head of Public Services, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-6000.
    [Show full text]