Environmental Assessment

United States Department of EAST ALPINE RANGELAND PROJECT Agriculture

Forest Service CARSON RANGER DISTRICT Intermountain Region HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST September 2012 Alpine County, California and Douglas County, Nevada

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

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Project Area ...... 1 1.3 Background ...... 4 1.4 Purpose and Need ...... 7 1.5 Management Direction...... 8 1.6 Rangeland Capability and Suitability ...... 12 1.7 Decisions to be Made ...... 13 1.8 Public Involvement ...... 13 1.9 Tribal Involvement...... 14 1.10 Identification of Issues ...... 14 1.10.1 Soil and Watershed Resources ...... 15 1.10.2 Vegetation ...... 15 1.10.3 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources ...... 15 1.10.4 Wilderness...... 15 1.10.5 Recreation ...... 16 1.10.6 Sensitive and Rare Plants ...... 16 1.10.7 Cultural Resources ...... 16 1.10.8 Other Issues and Concerns Not Being Analyzed ...... 16 1.11 Federal and State Permit Requirements ...... 17 Chapter 2 – Alternatives ...... 19 2.1 Introduction ...... 19 2.2 Development of Alternatives ...... 19 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 19 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 19 2.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action/No Grazing ...... 45 2.3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 45 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 46 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... 55 3.0 Introduction ...... 55

East Alpine Rangeland Project i 3.1 Soil and Watershed Resources ...... 58 3.1.1 Scope of the Analysis...... 58 3.1.2 Desired Condition ...... 61 3.1.3 Current Condition ...... 62 3.1.4 Environmental Consequences ...... 64 3.1.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ...... 66 3.1.6 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 66 3.1.7 Specialist Report ...... 66 3.2 Vegetation ...... 66 3.2.1 Scope of the Analysis...... 67 3.2.2 Desired Condition ...... 69 3.2.3 Current Condition ...... 69 3.2.4 Environmental Consequences ...... 89 3.2.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ...... 99 3.2.6 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 99 3.2.7 Specialist Report ...... 100 3.3 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources ...... 100 3.3.1 Scope of the Analysis...... 101 3.3.2 Desired Condition ...... 103 3.3.3 Wildlife Species Analyzed in Detail ...... 104 3.3.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ...... 153 3.3.5 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 153 3.3.6 Specialist Report ...... 153 3.4 Wilderness...... 153 3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis...... 154 3.4.2 Desired Condition ...... 155 3.4.3 Current Condition ...... 155 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences ...... 156 3.4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ...... 159 3.4.6 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 159 3.4.7 Specialist Report ...... 160 3.5 Recreation ...... 160 3.5.1 Scope of the Analysis...... 160 ii East Alpine Rangeland Project 3.5.2 Desired Condition ...... 160 3.5.3 Current Condition ...... 160 3.5.4 Environmental Consequences ...... 161 3.5.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ...... 162 3.5.6 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 162 3.5.7 Specialist Report ...... 162 3.6 Sensitive and Rare Plants ...... 162 3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis...... 163 3.6.2 Desired Condition ...... 163 3.6.3 Current Condition and Environmental Consequences by Species ...... 163 3.6.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ...... 170 3.6.5 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 170 3.6.6 Specialist Report ...... 170 3.7 Cultural Resources ...... 171 3.7.1 Scope of the Analysis...... 171 3.7.2 Desired Condition ...... 172 3.7.3 Current Condition ...... 172 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences ...... 172 3.7.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ...... 175 3.7.6 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 175 3.7.7 Specialist Report ...... 175 Chapter 4 – List of Contributors and Recipients ...... 177 4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 177 4.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 177 4.3 Tribal Governments ...... 178 4.4 Others ...... 178 Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary ...... 179 Chapter 6 – Literature Cited ...... 191

East Alpine Rangeland Project iii Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tables Table 1. Current Allotment Management ...... 6 Table 2. Comparison of Average AUMS for Allotments Before and After Implementation of the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan ...... 7 Table 3. Crosswalk of Terms used in Toiyabe Forest Plan, the SNFPA, and Ecological Scorecards ...... 11 Table 4. Capable and Suitable Acres for Sheep in the Project Area ...... 13 Table 5. Comparison of Capable Acres for Sheep Versus Cattle for the Project Area ...... 13 Table 6. Comparison of Average Stocking Rates Permitted on Cottonwood, Dumont, and Bagley Valley Allotments ...... 22 Table 7. Proposed Range of Occupancy Rates for Cottonwood, Dumont, and Bagley Valley Allotments Based on Converting Currently Permitted Cow/calf Numbers to Ewes/ lambs...... 23 Table 8. Comparison of Riparian Utilization Standards Now used under the SNFPA and no longer used standards from the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan...... 27

Table 9. Maximum forage utilization standards as described in the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan1 and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan2. (Standards for ‘Non-Functioning’ condition class derived from ID team assessments to adequately protect resources3)...... 29 Table 10. Ecological Conditions and Proposed Proper Use Criteria by Habitat Group and Allotment...... 30 Table 11. Summary of Initial Grazing Strategy for East Alpine Rangeland Project ...... 31 Table 12. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Desired Condition or Improvement in Ecological Condition of Aspen, Sagebrush, Mountain Brush, and Grassland Vegetation Communities...... 37 Table 13. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Desired Condition or Improvement in Ecological Condition in Riparian and Meadow Vegetation Communities...... 38 Table 14. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Desired Condition or Improvement in Ecological Condition in Alpine Vegetation Communities...... 39 Table 15. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Decline in Condition of Aspen, Sagebrush, Mountain Brush, and Grassland Vegetation Communities...... 40 Table 16. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Decline in Condition in Riparian and Meadow Vegetation Communities...... 41 Table 17. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Decline in Condition in Alpine Vegetation Communities...... 42 Table 18. Comparison of Actions Proposed by Alternatives...... 46 Table 19. Comparison of Alternatives – Effects of Implementation...... 47 Table 20. Watersheds and Major Streams...... 59 Table 21. Acres of Slope Categories by Allotment...... 63 iv East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Table 22. Current Livestock Allotments and Permitted Use within the Project Area...... 70 Table 23. Acreage by Dominant Community Type ...... 70 Table 24. CrosswalksVegetation Cover Types (CALVEG) to the Vegetation Groups Used by the Matrices (USDA FS 2009)...... 73 Table 25. Mapped Acres of Noxious Weeds by Allotment...... 81 Table 26. Data Summary for the Cottonwood Allotment...... 83 Table 27. Data for the Bagley Valley Allotment...... 86 Table 28. Data for the Dumont Allotment...... 87 Table 29. Data for the Silver King Allotment...... 89 Table 30. Current Number of Acres of Late Seral Conifer and Mixed Conifer/Aspen Habitat Types within the Project Area...... 118 Table 31. Acres of potential nesting and foraging habitat for sage grouse that overlap with capable grazing acres within the project area...... 131 Table 32. Species associated with major habitat types in the project area (CalPIF 2002, 2005 and RHJV 2004 and current trend information (from 1966 to 2010) for the Sierra Nevada Region from the USGS Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al 2011)...... 149 Figures

Figure 1. East Alpine Rangeland Project Area ...... 3 Figure 2. Revised Boundary for Dumont Allotment...... 21 Figure 3. Process Used to Determine Adjustments Based on Monitoring ...... 36 Figure 4: Silver King Valley Irrigation System ...... 44 Figure 5: Streams in Project Area...... 60 Figure 6. Ecology Plot Locations for the Project Area ...... 82 Figure 7. Nearest Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Activity to Project Area...... 105 Figure 8. Potential and Occupied Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Within and Near the Project Area. Note data is currently available only for Nevada...... 125 Figure 9. Map showing habitat for the West Walker River herd including the Carson River sub- unit herd...... 142

East Alpine Rangeland Project v Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

This page intentionally left blank.

vi East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction This environmental assessment (EA) describes a USDA - Forest Service proposal to reauthorize grazing and change the kind of livestock from cattle to sheep on the Cottonwood, Bagley Valley, and Dumont allotments. The proposal also includes closing the Silver King Allotment. These allotments are located on the Carson Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The Forest Service has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. Supporting documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Carson Ranger Station in Carson City, Nevada. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the proposed action and alternative(s). Federal actions such as the authorization of grazing must be analyzed to determine potential environmental consequences pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Rescission Act of 1995 (P.L 104-19). The Council on Environmental Quality regulations define an environmental assessment as a concise public document that includes brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives to the proposal, of environmental impacts of the proposed action, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted (40 CFR 1508.9). 1.2 Project Area The Bagley Valley, Cottonwood, Dumont, and Silver King allotments are located on the Carson Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The Bagley, Dumont, and Silver King allotments are located in Alpine County, California. The Cottonwood Allotment includes lands in both Alpine County, California and Douglas County, Nevada (figure 1). Most of the Dumont and Silver King allotments are located in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness (figure 1). Bagley Valley Allotment Bagley Valley C&H Allotment lies between Dumont C&H and Cottonwood C&H Allotments. The northern boundary of the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness coincides with the southern boundary of the allotment. The allotment is located south of Monitor Pass Road (CA Hwy 89) and south of Heenan Lake and lies adjacent to Bureau of Land Management and State of California lands at Heenan Lake. Bureau of Land Management administered lands are within the allotment boundary. The legal description for this allotment is T9N, R21E, Sections 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 35, 36, Mount Diablo Meridian. The Bagley C&H Allotment totals approximately 9,723 acres, of which most is Bureau of Land Management lands (BLM); 2,853 acres are National Forest System land. Cottonwood Allotment The Cottonwood Cattle and Horse (C&H) Allotment is located north of Monitor Pass Road (CA Highway 89) and west of Highway 395. It is adjacent to lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Nevada, the State of California (Heenan Lake Area), and the Bureau of Land Management. There are private lands within the allotment boundary which would not be authorized for grazing with this permit. The legal description for this allotment is T10N, R20E, Sections 1, 2, 13, 24; T10N, R21E, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35; T11N, R21E, Sections 24, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 36, Mount Diablo Meridian. The Cottonwood Allotment is divided into four grazing units totaling approximately 19,270 acres, of which approximately 17,703 acres are National

East Alpine Rangeland Project 1 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Forest System lands. The remainder of the acres are comprised of private and California state lands and would not be managed under this permit. Dumont Allotment The Dumont C&H Allotment is located south of Monitor Pass Road (CA Hwy 89) and south of Bagley Valley C&H Allotment. Most of this allotment is within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness and includes a small section of California State lands. The legal description for this allotment is: T7N, R21E, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; T8N, R21E, Sections, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34,35, 36; T8N, R22E, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31; T9N, R21E, Section 36, Mount Diablo Meridian. Dumont C&H Allotment currently totals 20,721 acres, of which 20,547 are National Forest System land. Silver King Allotment Silver King C&H Allotment is located north of Sonora Pass Road (CA Hwy 108) and east of Dumont C&H Allotment. The Allotment occurs within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness; a small portion of private land exists within the allotment boundary. The legal description for this allotment is: T8N, R22E, Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,32, 33, 34; T7N, R22E, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; T7N, R21E, Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, Mount Diablo Meridian. Silver King C&H Allotment totals 11,891 acres.

2 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Figure 1. East Alpine Rangeland Project Area

East Alpine Rangeland Project 3 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

1.3 Background Borda Land and Sheep Company recently acquired the term grazing permits for Cottonwood, Bagley Valley and Dumont Cattle and Horse (C&H) Allotments through the permit waiver process (FSM 2230). This acquisition was based on purchase of livestock from Park Cattle Company, LLC and Park Livestock Company who also held the grazing permits on these allotments. Between 2009 and 2011, the permittee was authorized to graze the Haypress Unit of the Cottonwood Allotment, and trail through Bagley Valley Allotment under term grazing permit #20085 issued for Leviathan Sheep & Goat Allotment. After acquiring the term grazing permits for Cottonwood, Bagley Valley, and Dumont, the permittee requested a ‘kind of livestock’ conversion from cattle to sheep for all three allotments. According to FSH 2209.13 and the Toiyabe Forest Plan, changing the kind of livestock on an existing allotment requires that NEPA be conducted to determine if a conversion is appropriate to meet the ecological desired conditions of the area (USDA 2005 Chapter 10, section 13.13 USDA FS 1986, IV-31). In addition, the above allotments are part of the proposed schedule to complete environmental analysis for all range allotments on National Forest System lands as required by Public Law 104-19 (Rescissions Act). In response to the Rescissions Act, as well as the requested kind of livestock change, the Carson Ranger District has prepared this Environmental Assessment for the Cottonwood, Bagley Valley, Dumont, and Silver King Allotments. The history and background on each of the allotments is summarized for each allotment. Table 1 provides a summary of the current management strategy for all four allotments. The total project area, including Silver King Allotment is approximately 69,723 acres, of which approximately 60,904 acres are National Forest System lands. Bagley Valley Allotment The Forest Service lands in the Bagley C&H Allotment are managed as part of an on/off permit with the BLM. The BLM manages their portion of the allotment under a separate permit which is currently issued to Borda Land and Sheep Company. The Bagley Valley grazing permit has historically included only a small number of livestock, as most of this area was privately owned until 1994. Historically this allotment was grazed in conjunction with private lands where the most desirable forage for livestock occurred (flat meadows). In 1994, the Forest Service acquired these private lands and the permit has since been operated as part of an on/off grazing strategy with the adjacent BLM allotment. After acquiring the private lands in Bagley Valley, the availability of capable acres for grazing on National Forest System lands increased on this allotment. However, in subsequent years, livestock numbers were not increased and the allotment was only used for trailing livestock between adjacent allotments. This was due primarily to concerns over the watershed condition in Bagley Valley which in the past was considered unstable due to highly erosive soils that were creating numerous gullies throughout the valley. Since this time, restoration efforts, including moving a roadbed away from the stream channel in 2001, have led to an improvement in streambank stability and overall watershed condition. Based on recent monitoring efforts, the ecological condition of Bagley Valley is considered to be functioning-at-risk with a stable to upward trend (see section V). Cottonwood Allotment Until 1945, the Cottonwood Cattle and Horse (C&H) Allotment was grazed by sheep under four separate allotments. Sheep use probably started sometime in the late 1880s and greatly expanded during the 1890s. In 1945, cattle began to share the allotment with sheep and the Cottonwood C&H Allotment was formed. Cattle grazed the area with sheep until 1968 when a complete conversion to cattle was made. The most recent term grazing permit was held by the Park Livestock Company and permitted eighty-four cow/calf pairs from June 26 to October 25, which was run in conjunction with their adjacent private land. Forty-nine cow/calf pairs were also authorized on this allotment from July 1 to September 25.

4 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

In 1972, the allotment management plan for Cottonwood required grazing be conducted under a three- pasture rest rotation system. However, actual use on the allotment often included continuous, season-long use, resulting in unsatisfactory range conditions. Cattle tended to congregate in riparian and meadow areas impacting soil conditions and sensitive plant communities. Sheep were authorized to graze the Haypress Unit in 2009 and 2010 under permit #20085. During both years, approximately 645 dry ewes were grazed between August 21 and September 21. Monitoring data collected in 2010 indicates that most riparian, uplands, and meadows are currently functioning-at-risk with upward ecological trends. Dumont Allotment As with Bagley Valley, the most desirable grazing lands were privately owned. In the early 1990s the Forest Service acquired the large meadows that had been privately held. A term grazing permit for Dumont C&H and Bagley Valley C&H was issued in 1996, and renewed in 2006 and permitted 85 cow/calf pairs. Based on the sheep grazing history in the surrounding areas, it is assumed that the Dumont Allotment was also grazed by sheep as early as the late 1870s. The earliest Forest Service documentation on file for cattle grazing began in 1974; though it is likely cattle were there prior. Grazing continued on the Dumont Allotment until 2006 with the exception of Dumont Meadows, Falls Meadows, and Poison Flat which were rested for resource protection in 2000 and have not been grazed since. In contrast to Bagley Valley, Silver King Valley is dominated by resilient gravel/cobble material. Silver King Creek and the East Carson River converge in the valley. Stream channel types are generally entrenched, and well-armored with materials from bedrock to coarse gravels, and heavily vegetated with tree, willow, and alder plant communities. Because of the stable geological nature of the Silver King Valley, erosion and disturbance to streambank conditions were generally not noted as a concern. Monitoring conducted in 2010 showed the ecological condition of meadows in Silver King Valley to be functioning-at-risk. The Dumont Allotment includes an extensive irrigation system that historically irrigated most of the Silver King Valley. The majority of the irrigation system was originally constructed in the early 1900s with new sections added in later years. The current irrigation system includes three main ditches which originate from two diversion points at Silver King Creek within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness and flow north out of the wilderness and into the remainder of Silver King Valley. Irrigation was discontinued in the early 1990s. Many of the ditches have not been maintained and are in need of repair. In addition, the diversion points for the irrigation system from Silver King Creek blew out from the massive flooding in 1997 and were never repaired. When the Forest Service purchased the private in-holdings in Bagley Valley and Dumont Allotments, the corresponding water rights were also acquired. The water rights described on pages 147 through 150 of the Alpine Decree (1980) list riparian water rights now held by the U.S. Forest Service to divert “reasonable amounts of water for irrigation of the lands hereinafter described.” Silver King Allotment Comstock–era logging occurred in this area in the 1860s, followed by sheep grazing from the early 1900s until about the 1930s when cattle predominantly grazed the area. From 1977 to 1987 the term grazing permit was for 525 cow/calf pairs from July 14 to September 30. The permit was waived to a new permittee in 1987 and included the same occupancy rates and season of use dates. However, the actual authorized use for most years was 225 cow/calf pairs from July 16 to September 7. In 1970 Paiute cutthroat trout, which are endemic to the Silver King watershed, were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and were later reclassified as threatened in 1975. Recovery criteria listed in the 2004 Revised Recovery Plan includes protecting Paiute cutthroat trout habitat from potential

East Alpine Rangeland Project 5 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

impacts from grazing and recommends closing the Silver King Allotment (USDI 2004). Between 1987 and 1994, the allotment was rested several times for resource protection and in 1995 the term grazing permit was cancelled due to noncompliance. The allotment has remained vacant since this time. Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Both the Dumont and Silver King allotments occur within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness and were established allotments prior to wilderness designation in 1984. Consistent with provisions in the Wilderness Act and the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (USDA FS 2007a, FSM 2323.23), both allotments were preserved and have been in active or vacant status since. Table 1. Current Allotment Management

ACRES PERMITTED CURRENT Non- PERMITTED ALLOTMENT ALLOTMENT Forest TOTAL SEASON OF GRAZING Forest NUMBERS STATUS Service USE STRATEGY Service

Bagley 2,853 6,870 9,723 7 yearlings July-October Active Trailing

133 cow/calf Rest Rotation/ Cottonwood 17,703 1,567 19,270 June-October Active pairs Deferred

85 cow/calf Rest Rotation/ Dumont 20,547 174 20,721 July-October Active pairs Deferred

525 cow/calf Rest Rotation/ Silver King 24,613 220 24,833 July-September Vacant pairs Deferred

Summary of Allotments Although portions of the allotments are still functioning outside the natural range of variability as compared to historic known values, recent monitoring indicates these plant communities are on an upward trend toward reestablished resiliency and ecological integrity. Proper grazing management can stimulate plant growth, improve nutrient cycling, and manipulate plant composition to improve conditions even further. Converting the kind of livestock to sheep may also help accelerate this process. Sheep grazing requires the use of a herder and several herding dogs that keep the herd moving throughout the allotment. This type of rotational grazing minimizes concentrated use in any one area and allows plants to be grazed at a sustainable level. The sheep herder can also redirect the grazing to focus on uplands whereas cattle tend to congregate in wetter areas such as meadows and riparian zones. As discussed in more detail below, a review of the forage capability for the project area reveals that the landscape is more conducive to sheep grazing than cattle grazing. For example, Dumont Allotment contains twice as many capable acres for sheep than cattle (table 5). This is due primarily to the differences in grazing preferences between cattle and sheep. For example, sheep would graze farther away from water and on steeper slopes than cattle. The history of overgrazing on these allotments occurred primarily while they were in private ownership (with the exception of Cottonwood). Unregulated stocking rates and utilization levels lead to resource conditions that were not sustainable. Since acquiring private lands in Bagley Valley and Dumont in the early 1990s, grazing has been sporadic and at much reduced levels than in years previous. As shown in table 2, Animal Use Months (AUMs) have been reduced by approximately 75 percent for these allotments

6 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

since implementation of the Toiyabe Forest Plan in 1986. Likewise, utilization levels for all three allotments were reduced with implementation of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (2001, 2004) (table 8). The Proposed Action would include a management strategy that employs proper use criteria (utilization standards, disturbance thresholds etc.) to assure that an upward trend toward ecological function continues. Table 2. Comparison of Average AUMS for Allotments Before and After Implementation of the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan

EQUIVALENT PRE- EQUIVALENT Post- PRE-1986 CATTLE POST-1986 CATTLE ALLOTMENT 1986 1986 AUMs AUMs SHEEP AUMs SHEEP AUMs

Bagley Valley1 598 AUM 23 AUM 2,990 AUM 115 AUM

Cottonwood 3,010 AUM 863 AUM 15,045 AUM 4,315 AUM

Dumont 2,083 AUM 677 AUM 10,415 AUM 3,385 AUM

1 AUMS are based on historic stocking rates and are not necessarily reflective of the current capability of the Bagley Valley Allotment. 1.4 Purpose and Need The purpose of this action is to reauthorize grazing and authorize the conversion of cattle to sheep on the Cottonwood, Bagley, and Dumont Allotments. As part of this action, a ten-year term grazing permit would be issued for the allotments under terms and conditions designed to sustain or improve the health of the land and protect essential ecosystem functions and values. The purpose of this action also includes closing Silver King Allotment to livestock grazing as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (USDI 2004). This action is being considered at this time because current and prospective permittees have expressed a desire to graze or continue grazing on allotments in the project area and the Rescissions Act of 1995 directs the Forest Service to establish and adhere to a schedule to complete environmental analyses and decisions on all allotments. National Forest System lands provide an important source of livestock forage. Congress has made it clear through the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act that domestic livestock grazing is one of many activities that should be considered when balancing the multiple uses on National Forest System lands. One of the desired conditions stated in the Toiyabe Forest Plan (USDA FS 1986) provide guidance on the appropriate balance between livestock grazing with other uses: A). Ninety-five percent of all rangelands will have been brought to satisfactory condition (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). The need for this action includes the Forest Service’s responsibility to respond to a change of livestock request in a manner consistent with Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 222.4 (a) (8) and NEPA requirements (USDA Forest Service 2005a-FSM 2209.13 Ch. 10, 16.5). In many cases, the need for action can also be driven by a gap between desired rangeland conditions and existing conditions. Although rangeland conditions are improving across the project area (see section 3.2 Vegetation), most of the project area is not in satisfactory condition. Table 10 below summarizes the current ecological conditions on the three allotments where grazing is being proposed under this project. When existing conditions are less than desired and there are no indications that conditions are improving

East Alpine Rangeland Project 7 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

under the existing management actions, changes in management that are designed to improve rangeland conditions need to be developed. 1.5 Management Direction Projects that take place on National Forest System lands are guided by the desired conditions, goals, objectives, management direction, and standards and guidelines set out in the forest plan specific to each national forest. The Forest Plan for the Toiyabe National Forest (1986), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (2004) embodies the provisions of National Forest Management Act (NFMA), its implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. There is also management area prescriptions for the management area in which the project area is located, Alpine County. The primary sources of management direction from the Toiyabe Forest Plan that affect livestock grazing management are described below. • Describe ecological sites, develop SCORE cards to rate ecological status and resource values, and define management strategies for rangeland management. (USDA FS 1986, pg. IV-26). • Strive to achieve or maintain a minimum of 60 percent ground cover on upland rangelands with the exceptions of low sagebrush types, Wyoming big sagebrush types, crested wheatgrass seedings, pinyon-juniper types, and south facing sagebrush types on granitic slopes of the Sierra Nevada. (USDA FS 1986, pg. IV-26). • Conduct monitoring and evaluation in accordance with FSH 2209.21, Range Environmental Analysis Handbook, and the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. (USDA FS 1986, pg. IV-26). • Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.21 describes rangeland health in terms of the desired conditions of vegetation, soils, and associated resources for which objectives have been stated. The Intermountain Region Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2005a FSH 2209.21, Ch. Zero Code) use the following phrases to define rangeland health: Functioning Rangelands: A condition where a rangeland has the capability across the landscape for renewal, for recovery from a wide range of disturbances, and for retention of its ecological resilience. Functioning rangelands are also meeting a desired condition identified in long-term specified management objectives, standards, and/or guidelines. Functioning-at-Risk Rangelands: Rangeland conditions that have a reversible loss in capability and increased vulnerability to irreversible degradation based upon evaluation of current conditions and processes. Non-functioning Rangelands: A condition where a rangeland has lost the capability across the landscape for ecological resilience. Non-functioning rangeland health occurs when the desired condition is not being met and short-term objectives are not being achieved to move the rangeland toward the desired conditions. When determining the functionality of upland rangelands, the FSH directs consideration of a minimum of four criteria: non-native invasive plant species, ground cover, shrub cover, and species composition (FSH 2209.21, Ch. 20, 22.1). • Achieve or maintain rangeland in satisfactory condition which is defined as: (1) having a resource value rating (RVR) of 50 or above for vegetation or other features; or (2) being in a mid-succession or higher class of ecological status; and (3) having a stable or upward trend in soil and vegetation. (USDA FS 1986, pg. IV-26-27).

8 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

• Implement non-continuous use management systems on all livestock grazing allotments. When feasible, use a rest rotation system when significant range is in unsatisfactory condition. (USDA FS 1986, IV-27). • Forage utilization standards obtained from the 1986 Forest Plan are to be used as maximum standards for the development of proper use criteria. In 2001 and 2004, the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan amended the Toiyabe Plan and provided new grazing standards for riparian areas (table 8). Design of management systems will include the specific utilization standards to be applied. These standards should be applied based on utilization of key plant species by key area. Soil disturbance may also be used to determine proper use and is often the best measure of proper use on sheep ranges and on granitic slopes (USDA FS 1986, IV-28-29). • Proper use criteria will be established, in writing, for each unit of each grazing allotment. Proper use criteria are a mandatory part of each allotment management plan. Long-term trend studies are also mandatory to determine if proper use criteria are correct and to determine what is occurring in regard to range condition. Establishing proper use criteria requires Interdisciplinary (ID) team involvement. Proper use criteria define the permissible grazing level in the range unit or pasture (USDA FS 1986, IV-30). • Allow livestock conversions based on resource needs, capability, and management objectives and not solely based on the desires of the livestock user. Conversions will be made in accordance with a management plan, and current range analysis, and if the necessary range improvement structures are in place. Management Area Direction – Alpine Management Area • Complete nine initial range allotment plans and update one plan (USDA FS 1986, IV-90). • Complete 10,240 acres of initial range analysis and 3,100 acres of updated analysis. (USDA FS 1986, IV-90). • Administer and manage 14 grazing allotments, and complete examinations on 14 allotments. (USDA FS 1986, IV-90). Management Area Direction – Existing Wildernesses • Complete on initial plan and update six plans (USDA FS 1986, IV-109). • Coordinate livestock trailing with adjacent National Forest allotments (USDA FS 1986, IV-109). • Complete 17 new structural improvements that meet criteria of protecting or maintaining wilderness values (USDA FS 1986, IV-109). • Administer and manage six grazing allotments, complete examinations on six allotments annually (USDA FS 1986, IV-109). • Livestock grazing operations, where established prior to designation of wilderness, shall, pursuant to Sec. 4(d) (4) (2) of the Wilderness Act, be permitted to continue, subject to provisions of 36 CFR 293. "Committee Guidelines and Policies Regarding Grazing in National Forest Wilderness Areas" (H.R. Report No. 96-1126, dated 6/24/80) will be applied in a practical, reasonable, and uniform manner in all National Forest wildernesses. These guidelines and policies are applicable only to livestock grazing operations (USDA FS 1986, IV-109). Forest Plan Amendment The Toiyabe Forest Plan was amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) in 2001 and 2004 and includes additional direction related to desired conditions and livestock grazing within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). Riparian Conservation areas are land allocations that are managed

East Alpine Rangeland Project 9 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

to maintain or restore the function of aquatic, riparian and meadow ecosystems (USDA 2001 ROD pp. A- 7). RCAs generally include all vegetation within 300 feet of the bank full edge of a perennial stream and 150 feet from seasonally flowing streams. Desired conditions for meadows within RCAs includes maintaining the “ecological status of meadow vegetation in late seral condition” (50 percent or more of the relative cover of the herbaceous layer is late seral with high similarity to the potential natural community) (USDA 2004 ROD pp. 42). Management direction related to meeting the desired condition includes the following Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCO): 1.) The SNFPA sets maximum utilization levels on forage use in meadows based on the grazing system being used on the allotment. For season-long grazing on meadows in early seral status, the SNFPA limits livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). If the meadows are in late seral status livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants is limited to a maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). Ecological status is to be determined by using Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks. If meadow ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, grazing is to be modified or suspended (USDA 2004-RCO #5-120, pp 65). 2.) Under intensive grazing systems (such as rest rotation and deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization levels can be higher than the levels described above if the meadow is maintained in late seral status and meadow-associated species are not being impacted. Degraded meadows require total rest from grazing until they have recovered and have moved to mid- or late seral status. Degraded meadows are defined as those in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meadow area in bare soil and active erosion (USDA 2004-RCO #5-120, pp. 65). 3.) Browsing is limited to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Livestock are to be removed from any area of an allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation (USDA 2004-RCO #5-121, pp. 65). 4.) Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots (USDA 2004-RCO #2- 103 pp. 63). Summary of Management Direction Several different but similar terms (late seral, mid-succession, functioning) are used to describe desired (or satisfactory) range conditions in the management direction discussed above. For this analysis, all of these slightly different terms for the desired condition are interpreted as meaning the area would be in a mid or later ecological status and in a stable or upward trend. The mid to late ecological status indicates a relationship to a potential natural community (i.e., a condition that would be achieved if there were no interference by humans) and a resilience to disturbance. The analysis for this project describes the desired condition in terms of whether the area is functioning. The term “functioning” indicates the same concepts as the desired conditions referenced in the Forest Plan and FSH 2209.21. “Functioning” means a vegetative community has the most appropriate soil and vegetative characteristics that enable it to efficiently process precipitation, reproduce healthy vegetation, and withstand or be resilient to disturbance. It incorporates how well these individual vegetative groups receive and process precipitation and are able to withstand extreme weather, fire, or human caused events or activities without resulting in degraded states. The condition terms “late seral with a stable or upward trend,” “mid-succession with a stable or upward trend,” and “functioning” all fit within the meaning of “satisfactory condition” as expressed in the Forest Plan (USDA FS 1986, IV-26). Rangelands are considered to be in functioning-at-risk condition when

10 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

short-term objectives are being met but functionality criteria are not yet present (FSH 2209.21). This is the case with rangelands that are in “early seral” ecological status, even when there is an upward trend. As noted above, the Forest Plan provides direction to develop scorecards to rate ecological status. This project uses the Eastern Sierra Nevada Riparian Field Guide (USDA FS 1999) and the Resource Implementation Protocol for Condition Assessment Matrices”, herein referred to as the “Matrices” (USDA FS 2009). Future monitoring would shift toward using only the Matrices (Appendix A). The Matrices provide parameters for soil, vegetation, hydrology, and disturbance factors that indicate whether a vegetation community, and the habitat it represents, are functioning, functioning-at-risk, or non- functioning condition. The Matrices are a tool for field personnel to use to determine the ecological condition of various community types (for example, mountain big sagebrush, wet meadows, aspen, and mountain mahogany). A community type would be correlated to a plant alliance (i.e., mountain big sagebrush) at the field data collection level. The Matrices are based on field research, literature reviews, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ecological site descriptions. The criteria and process included in the Matrices was scientifically peer reviewed (USDA FS 2009). The Matrices describe categories of specific conditions for these same vegetative types that would be considered to be in a declining state from functioning. The Matrices also describe categories of specific conditions for these same vegetative types that would be considered to be “functioning-at-risk” and “non- functioning” or unsatisfactory. Vegetative communities in either of these conditions would be considered less than desired. However, for vegetation communities that are in functioning-at-risk or non-functioning condition, it is important to determine if the community condition is improving, stable, or declining. This may also be described as trending upward or downward. Table 3 displays the relationship of these various terms with each other. Table 3. Crosswalk of Terms used in Toiyabe Forest Plan, the SNFPA, and Ecological Scorecards

FOREST PLAN RANGELAND EASTERN SIERRA NEVADA SIERRA NEVADA MATRICES2 ECOLOGICAL CONDITION1 RIPARIAN FIELD GUIDE FOREST PLAN (FOR CONDITION (SCORECARDS) RIPARIAN)

Late seral with stable High or upward trend Satisfactory Functioning (F) Late seral Mid-succession with stable or upward Moderate trend

Late seral with Low downward trend Functioning-at- Risk (FR) Mid-succession with Unsatisfactory Very Low to Non- Early seral downward trend functioning (NF) Early seral

1Terms used in Forest Plan and defined in the Region 4 Range Analysis Handbook (USDA FS 1981) 2 For more information on the Matrices, see appendix A. The overall ecological condition of various vegetative communities within each allotment has been established using the best available information. Review of all available data sources, site visits, and professional expertise and knowledge was used to determine the condition of each allotment based on the attributes listed in the Matrices using the current terminology in the FSH 2209.21. Table 10 includes the

East Alpine Rangeland Project 11 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

current rangeland conditions for each of the allotments in the project area. Table10 and the subsequent analysis for this project groups dominant vegetative community types into the following habitat groups: • Uplands (non-riparian aspen, mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, black sagebrush, low sage, basin big sagebrush, mountain brush, mixed sage/bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, and grasslands) • Riparian (riparian/meadows) • Alpine (high elevation vegetation-typically above the tree line). 1.6 Rangeland Capability and Suitability Under the proposed action, the kind of livestock for all three allotments would be converted from cattle to sheep. According to Toiyabe Forest Plan, a thorough review of range capability must be conducted before a change in the kind of livestock can be authorized. Rangeland capable acres for cattle may not always equate to the same acres for sheep due to the differences in where sheep often graze compared to cattle (i.e. steeper slopes, farther distances from water). As part of the process of evaluating the purpose and need for this project, the capability and suitability of the Bagley Valley, Dumont, and Cottonwood Allotments for sheep grazing was reviewed by the interdisciplinary team. As a starting point, the team reviewed the capability and suitability analysis that was compiled for the Forest Plan for all rangelands on the Toiyabe National Forest including those listed above (USDA FS 2008). The Forest Plan analysis includes information from the Forest Plan, the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan, and the Analysis of the Management Situation (USDA FS 1981). Rangeland capability was then modeled spatially using current information and definitions. The analysis conducted included outcomes for both sheep and cattle. The Forest Plan modeling reflects that all of the allotments in the project area have some rangelands capable of producing forage for domestic grazing. The modeling also shows that the allotments provide more capable acres for sheep than for cattle (table 5). This is due in part to the differences in grazing preferences between cattle and sheep. For example, sheep would graze farther away from water and on steeper slopes than cattle. In addition to the Forest plan review, specific analysis was conducted for the three allotments. This review resulted in the inclusion of approximately 500 acres of capable range in the Silver King Valley within the Dumont Allotment. These acres were determined to contain well over 200 pounds per acre of dry-air forage and therefore are considered capable. An additional 1,131 acres of capable range was added to the Dumont Allotment from the boundary adjustment that included a portion of Silver King Allotment. As displayed in table 4, some of the rangelands in the project area do not meet the capability definition. This does not mean that those rangelands cannot be crossed by livestock or that some forage cannot be removed by livestock without causing an unacceptable impact. For example, in areas with enough tree canopy to reduce forage production to less than 200 pounds per acre, it does not mean livestock could not or should not pass through or remove some forage while passing through the area. Rather, it means the area was not deemed to have enough forage production to be used as a base for determining grazing capacity. Lands that were not identified as capable can be grazed and would be managed under the same standards as lands that were identified as capable. Rangeland suitability was also considered for the Forest Plan and for this project. Suitability considers the compatibility of domestic livestock grazing with other resources and activities on NFS lands. At the Forest level, approximately 1.1 million of the 3.2 million acres in the Forest were found to be suitable for grazing (areas that do not include administrative sites, campgrounds, municipal watersheds, etc.) (USDA FS 2008). For the initial project-level review, approximately 2,565 acres were identified as unsuitable for grazing. All of these acres occurred in the Dumont Allotment and were considered unsuitable due to

12 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need proximity to habitat for threatened wildlife species (Paiute cutthroat and Lahontan cutthroat trout), administrative sites (Soda Springs Administrative site), and popular recreational trails (Pacific Crest Trail). Under the proposed action, the Dumont Allotment boundary would be modified to avoid sensitive habitats and other important features (see figure 2) and thereby exclude all unsuitable acres within the allotment. Table 4. Capable and Suitable Acres for Sheep in the Project Area

TOTAL NFS CAPABLE PERCENT SUITABLE PERCENT ALLOTMENT ACRES ACRES CAPABLE ACRES SUITABLE

Bagley Valley 2,853 2,604 90.95 2,863 100.0

Cottonwood 17,703 11,468 64.78 17,703 100.00

Dumont 15,735 6,556 41.67 15,735 100.0

Table 5. Comparison of Capable Acres for Sheep Versus Cattle for the Project Area

PERCENT TOTAL NFS CAPABLE CAPABLE ACRES/ PERCENT ALLOTMENT CAPABLE/ ACRES ACRES/ SHEEP CATTLE CAPABLE/ CATTLE SHEEP

Bagley Valley 2,853 2,604 90.95 2,469 86.24

Cottonwood 17,703 11,468 64.78 9,614 54.31

Dumont 15,735 6,556 41.67 3,813 24.23

1.7 Decisions to be Made Given the purpose of and need for this analysis, the deciding official will review the alternatives and their environmental consequences to make the following decision on the East Alpine Rangeland Project: • Whether to continue grazing on the Cottonwood, Bagley Valley, and Dumont Allotments which are currently authorized under term grazing permits. • Whether to authorize a change in the kind of livestock from cattle to sheep for the three allotments. • Whether to close portions of the Silver King and Dumont allotments to grazing. 1.8 Public Involvement Notice of this project was published in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on January 1, 2012. The entry in the SOPA has been updated quarterly, most recently on July 1, 2012. A Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA) was distributed on March 15, 2012, to approximately 33 agencies, individuals, and organizations with notification that an EA was being prepared and would be available for review, and requesting comments on the proposed action. A legal notice advising of the availability of the Notice of

East Alpine Rangeland Project 13 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Proposed Action and requesting review and comments was published in the Reno, Nevada Reno Gazette- Journal, the newspaper of record, on March 15, 2012. The 30 day comment period on the proposed action ended on April 16, 2012. The Forest received comments from eleven organizations and individuals on the NOPA during the comment period. The comments were analyzed, summarized, and considered in the preparation of this EA. 1.9 Tribal Involvement The special and unique legal and political relationships of tribal governments and the United States government are reflected in the United States Constitution, treaties, statutes, court decisions, executive orders, and memoranda. These relationships impart a duty on all federal actions to consult, coordinate, and communicate with American Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis. Because American Indian Tribes can be affected by Forest Service policies and actions managing the lands and resources under its jurisdiction, the Forest Service has a duty to consult with American Indian Tribes on matters affecting their interests. Because of this government-to-government relationship, efforts were made to involve local tribal governments and to solicit their input regarding the proposed action. Meetings were held with various representatives of tribal governments, including: • Washoe Tribe of California (February 22, 2011) • Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (August 9, 2011) • Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (January 30, 2012) The Notice of Proposed Action was mailed to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California on March 8. No responses were received to the Notice of Proposed Action. 1.10 Identification of Issues The interdisciplinary team reviewed comments received during public and internal scoping in an effort to identify issues (unresolved resource conflicts) created by the Proposed Action. Comments were received from individuals, organizations, state agencies, and other federal agencies. Each comment received during scoping/comment period was considered a potential issue and evaluated to determine which of the following ways the comment would be resolved or addressed. • Resolved by Forest Plan land use designations. • Addressed through implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and best management practices. • Addressed through implementation of project-specific design features. • Addressed during processes or analysis routinely conducted by the interdisciplinary team. • Addressed through spatial location of activities during design of project alternatives. • Used to drive or partially drive an alternative. • Beyond the scope of the project. Although a number of concerns and potential issues were noted during scoping and the analysis of the Proposed Action, no unresolved resource conflicts were identified. As documented in Chapter 3 and this project’s planning record, the Proposed Action would not result in unacceptable impacts to any given resource and the Proposed Action would be consistent with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Because there were no unresolved conflicts with the Proposed Action, the interdisciplinary team did not develop any alternatives to address unresolved conflicts. . This project does have an alternative to

14 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

describe the effects of taking no action to compare against the effects of the Proposed Action. Chapter 2 of this EA discusses and compares these two alternatives. The resources that may be impacted by the Proposed Action are discussed separately below.

1.10.1 Soil and Watershed Resources Livestock grazing may affect soil and watershed resources in several ways. Loss of effective ground cover in the uplands may increase overland flow and soil erosion. Soil compaction, loss of ground cover and plant vigor in riparian areas can decrease the ability of riparian areas to filter pollutants and function as a floodplain.

1.10.2 Vegetation Livestock grazing has the potential to affect the composition, structure, and health of the various vegetative communities in the project area. These vegetative communities include riparian areas, aspen, and upland vegetation. Grazing also has the potential to introduce and/or expand noxious weed infestations within these vegetative communities. These effects would impact the functioning of natural ecological processes, such as the capture, storage, and redistribution of water; conversion of sunlight to plant and animal matter; and the cycling of nutrients through the physical and biological environments. Properly-managed livestock can eliminate or minimize these negative impacts.

1.10.3 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources Livestock management can affect upland and aquatic habitats and associated wildlife and fish populations. This is especially true of areas where native species depend on particular habitat elements. Direct impacts from livestock grazing may include consumption of individual plants, trampled plants, and disturbance to sensitive and management indicator species (i.e. sage grouse, mountain quail, goshawk, mule deer, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, macroinvertebrates) habitats. Indirect impacts may include habitat alteration, such as a reduction or change in vegetative cover, species composition, the spread of noxious weeds, manipulation of stream channel form (wider, shallower channel, bank shearing), and reduction of water quality, including increases in water temperature and/or nutrients.

1.10.4 Wilderness Portions of the Dumont irrigation system are present within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. This irrigation system, as well as the allotment, were established many decades prior to the wilderness designation and were therefore grandfathered into the act as a “historic use”. Forest Service Policy (USDA Forest Service 2007-FSM 2323.222) reinforces the language in the Wilderness Act and Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 293.7) and states: “…grazing is an allowable use within wilderness where it was established prior to the wilderness designation, that grazing will ordinarily be controlled in wilderness under the general regulations governing grazing of livestock on National Forests, and that a wilderness designation will not prevent the maintenance or construction of improvements as allowable in allotment management plans or to protect the range.” Furthermore, this policy also states that motorized equipment can be used for the maintenance and construction of such improvements where practical alternatives are not available and such use would not have a significant adverse impact on the natural environment. The irrigation system in the Dumont Allotment is currently in need of repair and would require the use of heavy equipment to replace culverts and re-establish waterflow from the diversion point at Silver King Creek to the west and east ditches (approximately 100 feet). Other non-mechanized methods of replacing the culverts were analyzed in the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (Appendix E) prepared for this project and determined to not be feasible (see project file). Using heavy equipment was also determined

East Alpine Rangeland Project 15 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

to provide the most efficient method to replace culverts and would cause less disturbance by taking considerably less time (compared to non-mechanized method) to complete. Wilderness character may be temporarily impacted from activities associated with repairing the irrigation system in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness.

1.10.5 Recreation Livestock grazing has the potential to affect recreation in areas of the project where there is recreation use including trails, trailheads, and dispersed camping. Potential effects are generally social in nature including the sights, sounds, ground disturbance, animal excrement, and visual evidence of grazing or trailing along trails or in dispersed camping areas. The proposed action has been designed to avoid conflicts with recreation to the extent possible. In the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness the project area has been moved away from the Pacific Crest Trail, Poison Lake, Soda Springs and other higher use trails.

1.10.6 Sensitive and Rare Plants Modification of the plant community structure and composition could impact sensitive plants and their habitats. Adverse impacts to Forest Sensitive or other rare plant species can result from trampling, soil compaction, competition with invasive species, and changes in the relationship of mycorrhizae and the sensitive plant populations. In addition, alpine plant communities in the analysis area could also be modified by livestock grazing. Surveys conducted in the project area resulted in no detections of rare plants. However, habitat potential for Forest Sensitive moonworts was identified within the project area.

1.10.7 Cultural Resources Livestock grazing in the project area may affect cultural resource sites. Impacts to cultural sites comes from compaction of soils, reduced vegetation, and trampling increasing soil erosion causing the movement and transportation of artifacts away from sites. Several cultural resources surveys have been conducted within the project area. There are 80 prehistoric and 76 historic known sites within the project area. Prehistoric sites range from small lithic scatters with a few flakes to large lithic procurement sites with formal tools and raw materials.

1.10.8 Other Issues and Concerns Not Being Analyzed Several issues identified during scoping are outside the scope of this analysis or already addressed by existing standards and guidelines of applicable management plans or federal, state, and local regulations. Issues outside the scope of the project will not be analyzed. Issues already addressed by standards and guidelines of applicable management plans or federal, state, and local regulations will be addressed uniformly under each action alternative. Roadless Areas There is a small portion of the Silver Hill Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) in the project area. This roadless area lies within the Bagley Valley Allotment, which is proposed only for trailing. The likely trailing route would be along the road. The roadless area boundary is 100 feet off the road. It is possible that some trailing could occur outside the road corridor but is not likely. Sheep trailing, which may occur as part of this project on the eastern edge of the Silver Hill IRA is not expected to have any noticeable effect to the roadless area characteristics. Furthermore, there would be no road construction or motor vehicle use in the roadless area associated with this project.

16 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Climate Change Although climate variability makes predictions about drought, rainfall, and temperature extremes highly uncertain, climate change is an acknowledged pressure on forest and rangeland ecosystems (USDA FS 2007b). Climate modeling supports projections that temperatures in Nevada could increase by 3-4° F in spring and fall (with a range of 1-6° F), and by 5-6° F in winter and summer (with a range of 2-10° F) by the end of this century (US EPA 1998a). The frequency of extreme hot days in summer would increase because of the general warming trend (US EPA 1998a). Precipitation is estimated to decrease in summer by 10 percent (with a range of -5 to -20 percent), to increase in spring by 15 percent (with a range of 5-25 percent), to increase in fall by about 30 percent (with a range of 10-50 percent), and to increase in winter by about 40 percent (with a range of 20-70 percent) (US EPA 1998a). It is not clear how the severity of storms might be affected, although an increase in the frequency and intensity of winter storms is possible (US EPA 1998a). The amount of precipitation on extreme wet or snowy days in winter is likely to increase (US EPA 1998a). Even with the best available science, it would be too remote and speculative to factor any specific ecological trends or substantial changes in climate into the analysis of environmental impacts of this project. Research about the implications of climate change on forest and rangeland management and long-range shifts in species range is ongoing. Although there is a strong consensus that global climate change is occurring, there is still much uncertainty about subsequent ecological interactions and trends at the local or site-specific scale. Where appropriate, climate change research is used in this document (see chapter 3 - discussion of the effects of climate change on cheatgrass, whitebark pine, and alpine plant communities in Vegetation section). Given the relatively random nature of climate-related events, such as droughts, wildfire, and floods, it would be highly remote and speculative to make management decisions based on the current predictions. The best available science concerning climate change is not yet adequate to support reliable predictions about ecological interactions and trends at the local (site-specific) scale. It is possible to quantify a project’s direct effects on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, under a high estimate the domestic livestock in this project under proposed action would produce 14.4 tons of methane, which would be equivalent to 274 tons of carbon dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPAs) reporting requirement for carbon dioxide emissions only applies to facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that in 2008 livestock in the United States produced 148,600,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions through enteric fermentation (the digestion process that creates methane). These calculations provide no certainty about the actual intensity of an individual project’s indirect effects on global climate change. Uncertainty in climate change effects is expected because it is not possible to meaningfully link individual project actions to quantitative effects on climatic patterns. 1.11 Federal and State Permit Requirements If the decision allows the continuation of livestock grazing, the Forest Service would continue to authorize the grazing use by issuing ten year term grazing permits for each allotment. Currently, there are no ten year permits that authorize grazing on the Bagley Valley, Cottonwood, Dumont, or Silver King allotments. Grazing permits include both “Terms & Conditions” and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 222.3). A section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along with a water quality certification from the Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Board would be required before work on the Silver King Creek irrigation diversion is implemented.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 17 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

This page intentionally left blank.

18 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the proposed action and no action alternatives and summarizes the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including associated design criteria, and adaptive management and monitoring strategy. 2.2 Development of Alternatives NEPA regulations require that agencies should “vigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to the proposed action. The alternatives should achieve the same or similar purpose as the proposed action and should address issues raised and include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action. Alternatives that would not be reasonable, either because they do not meet the purpose and need or because of other considerations, may be eliminated from detailed study. 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail This section describes two alternatives considered in detail. The alternatives analyzed include the required “No Action”, which analyzes a no grazing alternative, and the “Proposed Action.”

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) was developed to meet the purpose and need for the East Alpine Rangeland Project. The objective of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is to manage these National Forest System (NFS) lands to provide sustainable livestock grazing opportunities while protecting and improving essential ecosystem functions and values. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is based on the current ecological condition of the rangelands to set annual proper use criteria. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) provides for future changes in these criteria as a result of a change in the ecological condition. To improve areas that are not in desired condition (functioning condition), this alternative applies reduced utilization levels designed to assist improvement in those areas. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) also provides for various grazing practices and strategies to be implemented to allow grazing activities to contribute to achieving the desired ecological condition. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would set proper use criteria for habitat groups based on three possible ecological conditions (functioning, functioning-at-risk, and non-functioning). Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would: • Change the boundary on the Dumont Allotment by: • adding 1,623 acres from the Silver King Allotment (see figure 2), and • removing 3,015 acres from the southern portion of the Dumont Allotment (see figure 2) to avoid unsuitable areas such as important wildlife, recreation and administrative sites. • Close the remainder of the Silver King Allotment to livestock grazing (22,990 acres). • Close the 3,015 acres that were removed from the Dumont Allotment. • Change the kind of livestock from cattle to sheep for the Cottonwood, Bagley Valley, and newly configured Dumont allotments and authorize grazing. • Apply design features to minimize the impacts or potential impacts of grazing and associated activities.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 19 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

• Establish proper use criteria and within season triggers to determine when livestock should be moved or removed. The proper use criteria, set out below in table 10, are based on the current ecological condition for each habitat group within each allotment. • Conduct short-term and long-term monitoring to determine if prescribed or administrative adjustments are necessary based on ecological assessments and management objectives. • Develop updated Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) for each allotment. • Improve irrigation structures in the Dumont Allotment. Details of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Dumont Allotment Boundary Adjustment The Dumont Allotment boundary would be redefined to avoid environmentally sensitive areas (as described below). The boundary would also be adjusted to add an additional 1, 623 acres from the Silver King Allotment to provide additional forage for livestock. The overall boundary adjustment would result in reducing the Dumont Allotment from 20, 547 acres to 15,909 total acres (figure 2). Redefining the boundary would include avoiding portions of Poison Creek and Silver King Creek which are considered important habitat for two federally listed species, the Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) and the Paiute cutthroat trout (PCT). Although not currently occupied by PCT, the portion of Silver King Creek to be avoided is part of the recovery area identified by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USDI 2004). The allotment boundary adjustment would also include removing forested stands south of Poison Creek due to low forage potential. Other environmentally sensitive areas such as upper Dumont Meadows and Falls Meadows would no longer be included within the allotment boundary. The re-delineation of Dumont Allotment boundary would avoid alpine plant communities near the top of Driveway Trail. These meadows are considered fragile and not conducive to livestock grazing due to their very wet nature and geological instability. The geologically significant Soda Cone would also be excluded from the allotment to avoid impacts to soil structure and composition. Delineation of the new allotment boundary would include avoiding fragile alpine plant communities located near the top of Driveway Trail. To avoid conflicts with recreation and administrative sites, the new allotment boundary would avoid the Soda Springs cabin as well as most of the trail that leads from the Soda Cone to Soda Springs guard station. The new allotment boundary would avoid all portions of the Pacific Crest Trail. Closure of Silver King Allotment Silver King Creek upstream of Llewellyn Falls and several tributaries throughout the Silver King Allotment currently contain occupied and potential habitat for the federally listed Paiute cutthroat trout. Closure of the Silver King Allotment to grazing would meet the purpose and need for this project by following recommendations in the 2004 Recovery Plan which states that closure of the allotment would protect habitat for Paiute cutthroat trout and would aid in the recovery of the listed species.

20 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Figure 2. Revised Boundary for Dumont Allotment.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 21 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Changing Kind of Livestock Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the kind of livestock would be converted from cattle to sheep. To determine occupancy rates for sheep, a lower and upper limit was calculated to allow for adjustments in numbers depending on ecological condition and management objectives. To obtain the upper limit for stocking rates, an in depth file search of the allotment records was completed to compare stocking rates of the range over time. Stocking number estimates were divided into two time periods to display the differences in average stocking rates before and after implementation of the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan (table 6). Forage production was used in the calculation for past stocking rates utilizing REA data, as well as Forest Service personnel forage production calculations by weight. Utilization rates, actual use, and the corresponding ecological condition of the allotments was also reviewed and compared to the permitted stocking numbers for each time period. For all three allotments, stocking numbers had been reduced within the last ten years and ecological conditions in most areas were showing upward trends in recovery. Therefore the average stocking rates calculated for the post-1986 time period were determined to be an appropriate stocking number to maintain functioning ecological conditions (upper limit). Current range conditions on all three allotments are considered to be functioning-at-risk with stable to upward trends toward recovery. To move range conditions to satisfactory (functioning), the currently permitted numbers, which are lower than the average calculated for post-1986, were determined to be appropriate for initial stocking rates (lower limit). Table 6. Comparison of Average Stocking Rates Permitted on Cottonwood, Dumont, and Bagley Valley Allotments

PRE-1986 POST-1986 PRE-1986 POST-1986 CURRENT EQUIVALENT ALLOTMENT CATTLE CATTLE SHEEP SHEEP PERMITTED SHEEP NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS CATTLE NUMBERS

Bagley 7 yearlings or 4 7 yearlings or 4 103 cow/calf *515 ewe/lamb *20 ewe/lamb *20 ewe/lamb Valley cow/calf cow/calf

*2,805 *665 Cottonwood 561 cow/calf 161 cow/calf *805 ewe/lamb 133 cow/calf ewe/lamb ewe/lamb

*3,075 *1,000 *425 Dumont 615 cow/calf 200 cow/calf 85 cow/calf ewe/lamb ewe/lamb ewe/lamb

*Multiplied cow/calf numbers by 5 to compute sheep numbers. To convert cattle to sheep, a ratio of five sheep to one cow was used (tables 5 and 6). Table 5 compares the acres capable of supporting sheep grazing with those capable of supporting cattle grazing. Table 6 compares the average stocking rates permitted on the Cottonwood, Dumont, and Bagley Valley allotments before and after implementation of the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan with currently permitted stocking rates. This acceptable method for converting kinds of livestock is based on metabolic body size (MBS), a relationship between animal weight and surface area that determines differences in forage consumption rates. Using this method, a conversion can be made by dividing the average weight of the current livestock (cows) by the estimated average weight of the new livestock (sheep). Assuming an average of 1,000 pounds per cow/calf pair and 120 pounds per sheep, a ratio of one cow/calf pair to five sheep, or a conversion factor of ‘5’, is produced. Establishing a range for stocking would allow for greater flexibility in management depending on ecological conditions and management objectives. Because ecological condition on most of the allotments is currently considered unsatisfactory, sheep would be stocked at the lower range described in table 7. Stocking rates would be re-evaluated annually and adjusted when necessary to meet the desired ecological conditions of each allotment.

22 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 7. Proposed Range of Occupancy Rates for Cottonwood, Dumont, and Bagley Valley Allotments Based on Converting Currently Permitted Cow/calf Numbers to Ewes/ lambs.

CURRENT CONVERTED TO AVERAGE PERMITTED CONVERTED TO ALLOTMENT PERMITTED CATTLE SHEEP CATTLE NUMBERS SHEEP NUMBERS (Low Number) (Post 1986) (High number)

Bagley Valley1 Numbers would be based on AOI for trailing and would be adjusted annually (table 11)

Cottonwood 133 cow/calf 665 ewe/lamb 161 cow/calf 805 ewe/lamb

Dumont 85 cow/calf 425 ewe/lamb 200 cow/calf 1000 ewe/lamb

Bagley Valley Allotment would be used only for trailing livestock (within permitted numbers and use dates) between Cottonwood and Dumont Allotments. Therefore, the permittee would be allowed to trail larger bands of sheep originating from these allotments as long as utilization levels are not exceeded (table 11). As mentioned in the Proper Use section, sheep trailing would be concentrated along the uplands (except when watering) and would be for short durations (approximately one to three days each month during the four month grazing period). No bedding, resting, or other concentrated use would be permitted within ¼ mile of riparian areas. Analyzed Season of Use The season of use dates would be permitted from June 1 to October 31 with the typical grazing season lasting 3 to 3.5 months. However, the actual grazing season would be determined annually based on range readiness conditions (i.e. weather, soil, vegetation) and within season utilization monitoring. To account for these seasonal fluctuations, this analysis analyzes a wider timeframe. For the Cottonwood Allotment, this analysis considers the potential effects of grazing from May 1 to September 30. For the Bagley Valley and Dumont allotments, this analysis considers the potential effects of grazing from June 1 to October 20. The analyzed seasons of use represent the earliest and latest allowable dates for livestock to be on the allotments. Proper season of use would be directed at matching the timing of livestock grazing with the kind of plant community on the allotment, taking into consideration the long-term objectives for the range. Adjusting the season of use on pastures would allow plant species to be grazed at different phenological stages instead of being grazed at the same time every year. Grazing management for these allotments would consist of a rest rotation and deferred grazing strategy. This type of grazing system allows for the most efficient and non-impactive use of rangelands as pastures (or units) are rested for either a year or more at a time or deferred until the appropriate season for the plant community. For Bagley Valley the grazing strategy would consist of short duration trailing that would be focused in the uplands. Forage utilization monitoring is generally used to validate stocking rates and make adjustments when necessary. If livestock use is consistently within forage utilization levels and soils and vegetation conditions and trends are acceptable (i.e. generally stable or moving toward desired conditions for the allotment), then stocking is considered to be within capacity. When resource needs are not being met by the prescribed utilization standard, utilization rates are decreased and the new standard is monitored and/or grazing capacity (stocking rates) is adjusted.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 23 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Resource-Specific Design Features Soil and Watershed Resources General • To avoid impacts to fragile riparian soils and vegetation, no bedding, resting or other concentrated livestock use would occur within .25 miles of a stream or other waterbody. Irrigation Repair • To protect the stream from sedimentation, erosion control measures, such as a filter fence, would be put in place during maintenance work. • Disturbed areas would be covered with pine needles or other vegetative material to reduce erosion. • Stream crossing site for backhoe would be designated. • Impacts to vegetation would be reduced by flagging an access route for heavy equipment that includes traveling over the driest portions of the meadow and areas where trees and brush are absent. • All backhoe work would occur in the fall when stream flows would be low and the meadow would be dry and soils are more durable. • Backhoe and hauling equipment would be thoroughly cleaned prior to entering National Forest System lands to avoid inadvertent transport of noxious and invasive weed seeds. Equipment would be inspected by Forest Service personnel prior to entering National Forest System lands. Wildlife and Aquatic Resources • Re-delineation of the Dumont Allotment boundary will avoid habitat for two federally listed species, Lahontan cutthroat trout and Paiute cutthroat trout. In addition, the removal of forested habitat from the allotment boundary will reduce potential disturbance to the following Forest Sensitive, Management Indicator, and Sierra Nevada Framework Special Interest Species: northern goshawk, mountain quail, flammulated owl, spotted owl, white-headed woodpecker, hairy woodpeckers, Williamson’s sapsucker, American marten, and Sierra Nevada willow flycatcher. • Closure of Silver King Allotment will protect habitat for Paiute cutthroat trout, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs, Yosemite toads and many of the above listed species including potential habitat for great gray owl. • Sierra Nevada red fox (SNRF) are not currently known to occur in the project area and habitat for SNRF is considered marginal due to the lack of high elevation alpine habitat within allotments proposed for grazing (Bagley, Dumont, Cottonwood). However, SNRF are known to occur in relatively close proximity to the project area (approximately 12 miles south) on the Bridgeport Ranger District and little is known about their current distribution or home range. Under the Proposed Action, if SNRF are detected within the project area (although considered unlikely), agency officials from California Department of Fish and Game would be notified to determine the appropriate management action (Sierra Nevada Forest plan direction pp. 54 of 2004 ROD). If necessary, modifications to the grazing permit would be made to avoid SNRFs. • Habitat for sage grouse lekking and/or nesting is considered marginal due to the elevation, aspect, and habitat composition of the allotments (CDFG 2011). There are no verifiable records of lekking, nesting, or other breeding activities occurring in the area; however, occasional detections of sage grouse or their sign (i.e. feathers, droppings) have occurred in and near Bagley Valley and

24 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Cottonwood allotments. Surveys completed in 2011 in the Bagley Valley area by Forest Service and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) personnel resulted in no detections of sage grouse. Surveys for sage grouse will continue to be coordinated with the CDFG and conducted annually for at least three consecutive years (beginning 2012) to determine use patterns within suitable habitat. Although unlikely, if sage grouse nesting or lekking activity is detected, at a minimum the following design features will be incorporated into the Allotment Management Plan and Annual Operating Instructions to the permittee:  No concentrated livestock activity within 0.5 miles of a lek or known nesting area  Sage grouse leks will not be grazed during the lekking season (dates to be determined). • All water developments would be designed and fitted with escape ramps that meet Bat Conservation International standards (Taylor and Tuttle 2007). Wilderness • Impacts to vegetation will be reduced by flagging an access route for heavy equipment that includes traveling over the driest portions of the meadow and areas where trees and brush are absent. • All backhoe work will occur in the fall when the meadow will be dry and soils are more durable. • Equipment will be staged at the construction site over night to minimize the need for multiple cross-country trips through wilderness. • Permittee will be required to check and maintain the irrigation systems on an annual basis to keep the system functioning properly and minimize the potential need for future major repairs. Annual maintenance will be achieved with no motorized equipment and will include primarily clearing sediment and debris out of ditches and culverts with a shovel. Sensitive and Rare Plants • Surveys would continue to be conducted for rare plants as part of the general Forest inventory that is conducted annually throughout the district. If future surveys result in detections of moonworts or other rare plants, they would be avoided or otherwise protected based on assessments conducted by the district botanist. • If sensitive or other rare plants are found in the project area during future surveys, salting, placement of watering sources, sheep bedding areas, and placement of temporary handling facilities, shall not occur any closer than 0.25 miles of sensitive plant locations. • The re-delineation of Dumont Allotment boundary would avoid alpine plant communities near the top of Driveway Trail. Noxious/Invasive Weeds • To avoid inadvertently transporting noxious weeds to other locations, sheep would not be authorized to graze or trail through the River Ranch Unit of the Cottonwood Allotment until adequate restoration of this area has occurred. • Backhoe and hauling equipment would be thoroughly cleaned prior to entering National Forest System lands to avoid inadvertent transport of noxious and invasive weed seeds. Equipment will be inspected by Forest Service personnel prior to entering National Forest System lands.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 25 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Cultural Resources • Bedding, watering, or feeding activities will not occur within or near cultural sites. Locations of bedding and watering sites will be reviewed by archaeologist and will be approved prior to any activities. • For grazing activities within the project area, the National Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Forest Service and the Advisory Council on Natural Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), tiered on the National PA (PA) between the Forest Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would be followed to satisfy the Forest's compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA (USDA FS 1995). The Forest will provide the California and Nevada State SHPO with an informal written plan on how the Forest will meet the requirements of the National PA and the Nevada SHPO MOU. Recreation • Re-delineation of the Dumont Allotment boundary would avoid popular recreation areas such as Pacific Crest Trail, Driveway Trail, Poison Lake, Soda Springs Guard Station, and the Soda Cone. • While trailing along the Carson River, sheep would be kept to the east of the river to avoid conflicts with trail users and to minimize damage to the trail. Forage Utilization and Proper Use Criteria The 2001 and 2004 Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment set utilization standards for riparian and meadow plant communities at lower levels than stated in the Toiyabe Forest Plan (table 8). Utilization levels for riparian on all allotments on the Carson Ranger District have followed the SNFPA standards since implementation of the plan in 2001. The Maximum utilization standards described in the Forest Plan as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (SNFPA) and refined through ID Team collaboration are identified below (table 9). The grazing management system for all three allotments would consist of a rest rotation and/or deferred rotation strategy with the exception of Bagley Valley which is operated in conjunction with the adjacent BLM permit as an on/off allotment. The Forest Service portion of the Bagley Valley Allotment would be used for trailing (and watering) livestock between allotments. Trailing would consist of short duration grazing (one to two days) and would be concentrated in the uplands to avoid erosive soils located in the valley bottom. For all three allotments, utilization measurements would be based on within season triggers and end of the growing season conditions and streambank disturbance would be based on a percentage of natural streambank stability.

26 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 8. Comparison of Riparian Utilization Standards Now used under the SNFPA and no longer used standards from the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan.

MAXIMUM PERCENT UTILIZATION FOR RIPARIAN VEGETATION TYPES

GRASS OR FORB SHRUB

Condition Class Condition Class MANAGEMENT FOREST PLAN SYSTEM Unsatisfactory1 Unsatisfactory1 Satisfactory1 Satisfactory (Early-mid (Early-mid Seral2); (Late Seral2); Seral2); (Late Seral2); (Functioning-at- (Functioning3) (Functioning-at- (Functioning3) Risk3) Risk3)

Sierra Nevada 30% 40% Forest Plan (minimum 6” (minimum 4” 20% 20% Season-Long Amendment stubble height) stubble height)

Toiyabe Forest Plan 45% 55% 20% 30%

Sierra Nevada 30% 40% Forest Plan (minimum 6” (minimum 4” 20% 20% Rest/Deferred Amendment stubble height) stubble height)

Toiyabe Forest Plan 55% 65% 25% 35%

The Intermountain Region Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook (FSH 2209.21, Ch. Zero Code) defines proper use criteria as the “…limiting factor or factors which will be measured on a particular site to determine if the site has been properly used. It could be residual forage, impact on other resources or uses, or any other measurable factor on a particular site.” Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), proper use criteria (which could include forage herbaceous utilization, browse utilization, streambank disturbance, etc.) would be set for each allotment based on current rangeland ecological conditions. Proper use criteria are guides for managing livestock movement and for assessing forage use at the end of growing season. The assessment of proper use criteria determines if grazing maintains resources in an appropriate ecological condition for moving toward objectives. The proper use criteria are designed to manage livestock grazing at levels that would move the resources towards the desired conditions. The proper use criteria are not desired conditions, they are measurable limits on grazing that would allow the landscape features to meet or move towards desired conditions. Annual monitoring (short-term monitoring) alone cannot determine whether a proper grazing system is contributing to meeting ecological objectives. Long-term monitoring is necessary to determine the ecological condition and trend of the rangeland resources. In general, the highest proper use rates for each habitat group are assigned to allotments that are in functioning condition (table 9). Proper use at these levels is expected to move these areas toward functioning condition. Proper use rates for habitat groups that are in functioning-at-risk or non- functioning condition are lower than the functioning category. Proper use under these rates is expected to allow these habitat groups to move toward and become functioning.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 27 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Proper use criteria for the three allotments were established based upon the most current information available regarding the conditions and trends of resources within each allotment. These proper use criteria are based on Forest Plan established standards, as well as review of scientific literature on grazing and its effect on vegetation under conditions similar to those in the East Alpine Rangeland Project area. In general, the proper use criteria have been adjusted to more appropriately reflect levels of use that would protect resources and ensure stable and upward trends in vegetation and stream conditions. Proper use criteria would be re-evaluated annually and adjusted (if necessary) to the appropriate level to meet resource objectives. As displayed in table 9 and table 10, utilization levels and other proper use criteria are adjusted depending on the ecological condition of the range (non-functioning, functioning-at-risk, functioning). For example, if ecological conditions improve to satisfactory on a particular allotment, utilization rates may be increased. Likewise, if conditions deteriorate, utilization levels would be lowered.

28 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 9. Maximum forage utilization standards as described in the 1986 Toiyabe Forest Plan1 and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan2. (Standards for ‘Non-Functioning’ condition class derived from ID team assessments to adequately protect resources3).

Maximum Percent Utilization By Key Species

GRASS OR FORB SHRUB

Condition Class Condition Class Management Vegetation Type System Unsatisfactory1 Unsatisfactory1 Unsatisfactory1 Unsatisfactory1 Satisfactory (Early Seral2); (Early-mid Satisfactory (Early Seral2) (Early-mid (Late (Non- Seral2); (Late Seral2); (Non- Seral2); Seral2); Functioning3) (Functioning- (Functioning3) Functioning3) (Functioning- (Funtioning3 at-Risk3) at-Risk3) Aspen, Sagebrush, 35% 45% 55% 15% 40% 50% Mountain brush and Grassland, Rest 40% Rotation or 30% (minimum 4” Deferred Riparian/Meadow2 20% (minimum 6” 10% 20% 20% stubble stubble height) height)

Alpine1 30% 40% 45% 10% 25% 35%

East Alpine Rangeland Project 29 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 10. Ecological Conditions and Proposed Proper Use Criteria by Habitat Group and Allotment.

HABITAT GROUP/PROPER USE CRITERIA

UPLANDS (brush, aspen, ALPINE1 RIPARIAN/MEADOWS2 non-meadow grasslands) 1

UNITS WITHIN Allowable Allowable Allowable THE Utilization Utilization Utilization ALLOTMENTS

3

lteration Ecological Condition Ecological Woody Herbaceous Condition Ecological Woody Herbaceous Streambank A Condition Ecological Woody Herbaceous

Bagley Valley Allotment

Bagley Valley N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 40% 45%

Cottonwood Allotment

Cottonwood Unit N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 40% 45%

Haypress Unit N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 40% 45%

Leviathan Unit N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 40% 45%

River Ranch Unit N/A* N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 40% 45%

Dumont Allotment

E. Carson Unit N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% F 40% 45%

New Unit N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 40% 45%

Poison Flat Unit N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 40% 45%

Silver King Unit N/A N/A N/A FR 20% 30% 20% FR 25% 40% (F = Functioning, FR = Functioning-at-Risk, NF = Non-functioning) 1. Toiyabe Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1986) 2. Sierra Nevada Forest Plant Amendment (USDA ROD 2004) 3. Streambank disturbance is set at the following: Functioning: 20 percent ; Functioning-at-risk: 20 percent (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment), Non-functioning: 10 percent (ID Team collaboration and literature review) N/A= There are no community types classified as ‘Alpine’ within the allotment boundaries

30 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 11. Summary of Initial Grazing Strategy for East Alpine Rangeland Project

UTILIZATION UTILIZATION RIPARIAN UPLANDS PERMITTED MEADOWS PERMITTED STREAMBANK GRAZING ALLOTMENT ACRES SEASON OF NUMBERS DISTURBANCE STRATEGY USE Woody Woody Herbaceous Herbaceous

1-3 days each 1090 month Bagley 2,853 45% 40% 30% 20% 20% Trailing ewes/lambs2 between July- October Rest 665 Cottonwood1 17,703 June-October 45% 40% 30% 20% 20% Rotation/ ewes/lambs Deferred Rest 425 Dumont 15,735 July-October 45% 40% 30% 20% 20% Rotation/ ewes/lambs Deferred 1. Exception in Silver King Unit (uplands) that would be grazed at 25 percent woody and 40 percent herbaceous 2 Based on band numbers occupying Dumont and Cottonwood Allotments that have potential to trail through Bagley Valley

East Alpine Rangeland Project 31 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Monitoring Monitoring has the dual purpose of ensuring compliance with the design features and proper use criteria for an allotment and determining whether the current management of the allotment is maintaining or moving the area toward functioning condition. Implementation and focused effectiveness monitoring are necessary to determine when or if management changes should be made and to guide the direction that those changes take. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), monitoring would occur at varying levels on every allotment every year. The Forest Service would invite participation from rangeland users and other interested parties where feasible. The Forest would prepare an annual report regarding the previous year’s range management activities, including the results of any monitoring that occurred, both short-term and long-term, within each allotment. Key Areas Because the acreages these allotments cover is vast and soil and vegetation parameters cannot be monitored on every part of an allotment, the “key area concept” would be used for short-term and long-term monitoring efforts. A key area is a relatively small portion of rangeland that because of its location, grazing or browsing value, and/or use serves as a monitoring and evaluation site that is representative of conditions in the larger area. A key area guides the general management of the entire area of which it is a part, and would reflect the overall acceptability of current grazing management over the range. Key areas can be a short segment of stream or a small upland area. A key area can also be an entire stream reach or large upland basin. The initial key area locations for short-term and long-term monitoring for each allotment are included in the draft AMPs in appendix B. The locations of key areas for monitoring may be changed or adjusted over time as conditions change or new information becomes available. The process for selecting key areas is described in appendix C. Implementation Monitoring (Short-Term) Short-term monitoring would be used to determine if the actions described under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) are being implemented as planned and are meeting the proper use criteria and design criteria. It could also be used to conduct limited tracking on ecological condition and trend. Short-term monitoring encompasses a wide variety of monitoring activities. Overall monitoring of conditions on the Carson Ranger District, including the project area, occurs every year. This kind of monitoring is based on general observations of rangeland conditions by the Forest Service and reports from other visitors to the project area. This work is done in conjunction with rangeland management, as well as other resource management activities (i.e., fisheries, wildlife, archaeology, etc.). This information would be evaluated to determine if additional monitoring emphasis is desirable in a particular allotment. Short-term monitoring would involve the following actions: • The Forest Service would conduct short-term monitoring (including within season trigger and proper use criteria observations) on every allotment where grazing is authorized that year. Annual operating instructions (AOIs) and terms and conditions would be monitored for compliance. • Within season and end of season utilization would be monitored using the annual monitoring methodologies included in Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements (Interagency Technical Reference, 1734-3, 1996). Additional methods are included in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. Streambank alteration would be

32 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives monitored using procedures identified in the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol (USDI BLM 2011). • Proper use criteria monitoring for end of season utilization would be conducted in key areas. As discussed above, key areas are locations that are representative of conditions in the larger area. Monitoring locations would vary from year to year because livestock do not use the same place in the same way every year. • When feasible, permittees, other rangeland users, and interested parties would be invited ahead of time to participate in the short-term monitoring efforts. However, monitoring inspections may occur at any time as opportunities present themselves. • The responsibility for ensuring livestock moves occur on time remains with the permittee. To ensure they meet this responsibility, permittees would conduct monitoring of proper use criteria and compliance with the AOIs, which could include design features, improvement maintenance, and other standards, guidelines, and terms and conditions in the grazing permits. • Permittees, other rangeland users, and interested parties would be encouraged to share any short-term monitoring data they collect. Permit administrators would review this monitoring information to ensure compliance and prepare for the next grazing season. Monitoring information may include documentation of utilization measurements, photos, or other relevant documentation. • Inspections, monitoring, and continual dialogue with permittees (throughout and immediately following the grazing season) provide an ongoing feedback loop for the need to maintain or change management on the ground. Monitoring results for each allotment would be reviewed with the permittee and documented in following year’s AOI. Effectiveness Monitoring (Long-Term) Long-term monitoring would be used to determine if the proper use criteria and grazing management guidelines included in this alternative and the AMPs are effective in moving resources towards functioning ecological conditions and ensuring an upward or stable trend in resource conditions. Long-term monitoring would gauge the success of allotment management by comparing evaluations on rangeland condition and trend against previous evaluations. Rangeland condition (functioning, functioning-at-risk, non-functioning) has been discussed in detail above. Trend is characterized as “toward potential,” “away from potential,” or “static” (SRM 1989) or “direction of change over time” (FSH 2209.21). The appraisal of trend is simply the recognition of the nature, rate, and direction of ecological change (USDA FS 1951). As noted above in the Management Direction section, functioning ecological condition as defined by the Matrices is a general expression of desired conditions. Each matrix contains multiple attributes used to determine that general expression of the current ecological condition. While consideration of all of these attributes is appropriate when making a general determination of ecological condition, making project-level decisions or adjustments are not always warranted. This is because not all of the attributes used by the Matrices to assess ecological condition in a vegetation community are affected equally, or even at all, by project-level activities. For this project, future ecological condition assessments would be based on the attributes that have a cause and effect relationship with adjustments in livestock management. Data on all attributes would be collected when monitoring is conducted so the general condition of the area can be determined. After the monitoring data has been collected, attributes that are not in

East Alpine Rangeland Project 33 Chapter 2 – Alternatives functioning condition would be individually evaluated to determine if domestic livestock grazing is affecting them. This evaluation would be documented as part of the long-term monitoring report. If the evaluation does not identify a causal link between the authorized grazing activities and an attribute that is not in functioning condition, that attribute would not be considered in the project-level assessment of ecological condition or in a determination to adjust proper use criteria. Examples of situations where an attribute would not be used include conifer encroachment into aspen stands, pinyon-juniper encroachment into uplands, and water quality attributes affected by other activities. Current conditions and trends have been identified in the project area by using a variety of data and monitoring techniques which include ecodata plots, nested frequency studies, and general aquatic wildlife surveys (GAWS). Scorecards, including the Matrices (appendix A) and the Sierra Nevada Riparian Field Guide (USDA FS 1999), were used to evaluate the data and guide in the identification of current ecological condition. Long-term monitoring sites would be verified or reestablished by an interdisciplinary team and reviewed by the Forest ecologist and other resource specialists. Sites are representative of the dominant soil and vegetation types on the allotments. The locations of the long-term monitoring sites for each allotment would be included in the AMPs. The draft AMPs included in appendix B identify the initial key areas that would be used for long-term monitoring for each allotment. Long-term monitoring locations may be added or modified over time to adjust to new and/or updated information (FSH 2209.21, 42). The long-term monitoring sites would be re-evaluated approximately every 5 years to determine rangeland condition, using the appropriate scorecards discussed above. This time frame was chosen because measurable changes in conditions occur slowly in the project area. More frequent monitoring is unlikely to result in any information that documents that the conditions have changed. Approved monitoring methods and protocols are listed in FSH 2209.21, chapter 40 and include photograph points, nested frequency, point ground cover samples, line intercept, plant density, and riparian protocols described in Cowley and others (2005) and Winward (2000). To determine actual trend, the long-term monitoring sites would be re-evaluated using the appropriate parameter (composition, cover, etc.) and methodology (nested frequency, MIM, photo points, etc.). The condition and trend information, along with other data would be used to evaluate any needs for change in management, including adjustments to the proper use criteria or season of use. Allotment specific information and locations would be included within the individual AMPs. The AMPs would also include a long-term monitoring schedule. Although not required by Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), wildlife monitoring would continue, focusing on habitats for sensitive and management indicator species (MIS). Population monitoring would generally be conducted in cooperation with Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW). The Forest Service would continue to cooperate with NDOW to complete GAWS stream surveys on various streams within the project area. Permittees would be encouraged, but not required, to participate in long-term monitoring and to collect data on their allotment(s). Data collection could be done in cooperation with the Forest Service or entirely on their own. Any data collected by the permittees would be collected using Forest Service approved methodologies or protocols. The Forest Service would fully review all data collected by the permittees to determine the quality and reliability of the data. All data collected would be stored in the allotment monitoring files at the Carson Ranger District.

34 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives While long-term monitoring using the Matrices and other appropriate protocols to measure trend would generally occur on a 5-year cycle, individual attributes contained within the Matrices may be monitored more frequently at select locations to more closely track trends. Allotment specific monitoring sites and schedules would be included within the AMPs. If the methods for evaluating condition or trend have changed by the time of the monitoring, adjustments would be made to ensure that data can be “cross-walked” between the different methodologies so actual long-term trend can be determined. Management Adjustments Based on Monitoring Based on the successes or failures observed through short-term and long-term monitoring, adjustments to grazing strategies would be made. As discussed above, short-term monitoring would occur annually and long-term monitoring would generally occur on a 5-year cycle. Allotment specific monitoring sites and schedules would be included within the AMPs. The information obtained through this monitoring effort would be evaluated to determine if management of an allotment should be adjusted. The flowchart included below displays how monitoring results would be used to determine whether adjustments to grazing management are warranted and what kind of adjustments would be made. See figure 3. If adjustments were necessary, they would be included in the next year’s AOIs. As the flowchart indicates, monitoring results could lead to several different kinds of adjustments to livestock grazing or management. In some circumstances, prescribed adjustments would be made to the proper use criteria if ecological conditions decline or improve. Other situations would call for administrative adjustments, including any of the various livestock management tools discussed in detail in appendix D, a temporary reduction on within season triggers and proper use criteria, or a temporary reduction in the number of livestock on the allotment. New grazing improvements, such as fencing or water developments, would require additional environmental analysis. Finally, if the permittee is not in compliance with the terms of their permit, administrative action on the permit may be warranted. Only the prescribed adjustments to the proper use criteria are part of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). The administrative actions are included in this discussion to provide a complete picture on how the monitoring results would be applied. As is demonstrated by figure 3, the process of making adjustments based on monitoring begins with consideration of the results from short-term monitoring. If short-term monitoring indicates that the proper use criteria (PUC) are being met, the next question is whether long-term monitoring indicates that the ecological conditions have improved or declined. If conditions have improved, the adjustments described in tables 12, 13, and 14 would be applied. If conditions have declined, the adjustments described in tables 15, 16, 17 would be applied. These prescribed adjustments are the adaptive management process for this project. If short-term monitoring reflects that the PUC are being exceeded, this indicates different problems are occurring and requires different approaches to address them. In this situation, there is a need to consider whether the permittee is otherwise in compliance with the terms of their permit. For example, if the permittee is adhering to stocking levels, moving livestock as required, and maintain the range developments as required, this suggests that there may be a flaw in the design of the grazing strategy. In these circumstances, it may be appropriate to make an administrative adjustment to the grazing strategy. Examples of administrative adjustments are included in appendix D.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 35 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

However, if the PUC are being exceeded and the permittee is having other compliance issues, this indicates poor performance on the part of the permittee. In this situation, the appropriate response is to consider action against the permit as described in FSH 2209.13, 16.

Figure 3. Process Used to Determine Adjustments Based on Monitoring

Does short-term monitoring indicate PUCs were met?

Yes No

Does long-term monitoring Was Permittee otherwise indicate that habitat group is in in compliance? desired condition or has improved?

Yes No Yes No

Consider administrative adjustments to livestock Consider permit action Adjust PUC upward - Adjust PUC downward management - See per FSH 2209.13, 16 Use Table 9 - Use Table10 Appendix F for examples

36 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 12. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Desired Condition or Improvement in Ecological Condition of Aspen, Sagebrush, Mountain Brush, and Grassland Vegetation Communities.

ASPEN, DESIRED SAGEBRUSH, EXISTING END OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IF CONDITION THRESHOLD OF MOUNTAIN CONDITION SEASON THRESHOLD OF CONCERN IS MONITORING MANAGEMENT CONCERN BRUSH, AND AND TREND INDICATOR REACHED OBJECTIVE GRASSLAND

Long-term monitoring Continue allowing up to 55% Functioning 55% utilization indicates functioning condition utilization

Functioning Functioning-at- Long-term monitoring Herbaceous 45% utilization Allow up to 55% utilization Utilization measured at Ecological risk indicates functioning condition Vegetation end of growing season Condition Long-term monitoring Non-functioning 35% utilization indicates functioning-at-risk Allow up to 45% utilization condition

Long-term monitoring Continue allowing up to 50% Functioning 50% utilization indicates functioning condition utilization

Functioning Functioning-at- Long-term monitoring Woody 40% utilization Allow up to 50% utilization Browse use measured at Ecological risk indicates functioning condition Vegetation end of grazing season Condition Long-term monitoring Non-functioning 15% utilization indicates functioning-at-risk Allow up to 40% utilization condition

East Alpine Rangeland Project 37 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 13. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Desired Condition or Improvement in Ecological Condition in Riparian and Meadow Vegetation Communities.

DESIRED EXISTING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IF RIPARIAN / CONDITION END OF SEASON THRESHOLD OF CONDITION THRESHOLD OF CONCERN IS MONITORING MEADOW MANAGEMENT INDICATOR CONCERN AND TREND REACHED OBJECTIVE

40% utilization (min. Long-term monitoring indicates Continue allowing up to 40% Functioning 4” stubble height) functioning condition utilization (min. 4” stubble height) Functioning Utilization measured Herbaceous Functioning-at- 30% utilization (min. Long-term monitoring indicates Allow up to 40% utilization (min. Ecological at end of growing Vegetation risk 6” stubble height) functioning condition 6” stubble height) Condition season Long-term monitoring indicates Allow up to 30% utilization Non-functioning 20% utilization functioning-at-risk condition (minimum 4” stubble height)

Long-term monitoring indicates Continue allowing up to 20% Functioning 20% utilization functioning condition utilization Functioning Browse use Woody Functioning-at- Long-term monitoring indicates Ecological 20% utilization Allow up to 20% utilization measured at end of Vegetation risk functioning condition Condition grazing season Long-term monitoring indicates Non-functioning 10% utilization Allow up to 20% utilization functioning-at-risk condition

Long-term monitoring indicates Continue allowing up to 20% Functioning 20% alteration functioning condition alteration Functioning Streambank Functioning-at- Long-term monitoring indicates Alteration end of Ecological 20% alteration Allow up to 20% alteration Alteration risk functioning condition time in unit Condition Long-term monitoring indicates Non-functioning 10% alteration Allow up to 20% alteration functioning-at-risk condition

38 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 14. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Desired Condition or Improvement in Ecological Condition in Alpine Vegetation Communities.

DESIRED EXISTING END OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IF CONDITION THRESHOLD OF ALPINE CONDITION SEASON THRESHOLD OF CONCERN IS MONITORING MANAGEMENT CONCERN AND TREND INDICATOR REACHED OBJECTIVE

Long-term monitoring indicates Continue allowing up to 45% Functioning 45% utilization functioning condition utilization Functioning Herbaceous Functioning-at- Long-term monitoring indicates Utilization measured at Ecological 40% utilization Allow up to 45% utilization Vegetation risk functioning condition end of growing season Condition Long-term monitoring indicates Non-functioning 30% utilization Allow up to 40% utilization functioning-at-risk condition

Long-term monitoring indicates Continue allowing up to 35% Functioning 35% utilization functioning condition utilization Functioning Browse use measured Woody Functioning-at- Long-term monitoring indicates Ecological 25% utilization Allow up to 35% utilization at end of grazing Vegetation risk functioning condition Condition season Long-term monitoring indicates Non-functioning 10% utilization Allow up to 25% utilization functioning-at-risk condition

Long-term monitoring indicates Continue allowing up to 20% Functioning 20% alteration functioning condition alteration Functioning Streambank Functioning-at- Long-term monitoring indicates Alteration end of time in Ecological 20% alteration Allow up to 20% alteration Alteration risk functioning condition unit Condition Long-term monitoring indicates Non-functioning 10% alteration Allow up to 20% alteration functioning-at-risk condition

East Alpine Rangeland Project 39 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 15. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Decline in Condition of Aspen, Sagebrush, Mountain Brush, and Grassland Vegetation Communities.

ASPEN, DESIRED SAGEBRUSH, EXISTING END OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IF CONDITION THRESHOLD OF MOUNTAIN CONDITION SEASON THRESHOLD OF CONCERN MONITORING MANAGEMENT CONCERN BRUSH, AND AND TREND INDICATOR IS REACHED OBJECTIVE GRASSLAND

Long-term monitoring Functioning 55% utilization indicates functioning-at-risk Reduce to 45% utilization condition

Functioning Long-term monitoring Herbaceous Functioning-at- Utilization measured at end of Ecological 45% utilization indicates non-functioning Reduce to 35% utilization Vegetation risk growing season Condition condition

Long-term monitoring Non- Remain at 35% utilization, 35% utilization indicates non-functioning functioning consider additional actions condition

Long-term monitoring Functioning 50% utilization indicates functioning-at-risk Reduce to 40% utilization condition

Functioning Long-term monitoring Woody Functioning-at- Browse use measured at end Ecological 40% utilization indicates non-functioning Reduce to 15% utilization Vegetation risk of grazing season Condition condition

Long-term monitoring Non- Remain at 15% utilization, 15% utilization indicates non-functioning functioning consider additional actions condition

40 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 16. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Decline in Condition in Riparian and Meadow Vegetation Communities.

DESIRED EXISTING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IF RIPARIAN / CONDITION END OF SEASON THRESHOLD OF CONDITION AND THRESHOLD OF CONCERN MONITORING MEADOW MANAGEMENT INDICATOR CONCERN TREND IS REACHED OBJECTIVE

40% utilization (min. Long-term monitoring indicates Reduce to 30% utilization (min. Functioning 4” stubble height) functioning-at-risk condition 6” stubble height) Functioning Herbaceous 30% utilization (min. Long-term monitoring indicates Utilization measured at Ecological Functioning-at-risk Reduce to 20% utilization Vegetation 6” stubble height) non-functioning condition end of growing season Condition Long-term monitoring indicates Remain at 20% utilization, Non-functioning 20% utilization non-functioning condition consider additional actions

Long-term monitoring indicates Functioning 20% utilization Remain at 20% utilization functioning-at-risk condition Functioning Browse use measured Woody Long-term monitoring indicates Ecological Functioning-at-risk 20% utilization Reduce to 10% utilization at end of grazing Vegetation non-functioning condition Condition season Long-term monitoring indicates Remain at 10% utilization, Non-functioning 10% utilization non-functioning condition consider additional actions

Long-term monitoring indicates Continue allowing up to 20% Functioning 20% alteration functioning-at-risk condition alteration Functioning Streambank Long-term monitoring indicates Alteration measured at Ecological Functioning-at-risk 20% alteration Reduce to 10% alteration Alteration non-functioning condition end of time in unit Condition Long-term monitoring indicates 10% alteration, consider Non-functioning 10% alteration non-functioning condition additional actions

East Alpine Rangeland Project 41 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 17. Adaptive Management When Long-Term Monitoring Indicates Decline in Condition in Alpine Vegetation Communities.

DESIRED EXISTING END OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IF CONDITION THRESHOLD OF ALPINE CONDITION SEASON THRESHOLD OF CONCERN MONITORING MANAGEMENT CONCERN AND TREND INDICATOR IS REACHED OBJECTIVE

Long-term monitoring Functioning 45% utilization indicates functioning-at-risk Reduce to 40% utilization condition

Functioning Long-term monitoring Herbaceous Functioning-at- Utilization measured at end of Ecological 40% utilization indicates non-functioning Reduce to 30% utilization Vegetation risk growing season Condition condition

Long-term monitoring Non- Remain at 30% utilization, 30% utilization indicates non-functioning functioning consider additional actions condition

Long-term monitoring Functioning 35% utilization indicates functioning-at-risk Reduce to 25% utilization condition

Functioning Long-term monitoring Woody Functioning-at- Browse use measured at end Ecological 25% utilization indicates non-functioning Reduce to 10% utilization Vegetation risk of grazing season Condition condition

Long-term monitoring Non- Remain at 10% utilization, 10% utilization indicates non-functioning functioning consider additional actions condition

42 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Allotment Management Plans As part of the permitting process, an allotment management plan (AMP) would be developed for each allotment. This document incorporates Forest Plan management direction and other applicable laws, policies and programs (such as consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and direction from the project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision to provide specific management prescriptions for areas where grazing use is authorized. Each AMP would include goals and objectives for livestock management, appropriate stocking levels, livestock distribution strategies, range improvement needs, and any pertinent travel management guidelines or restrictions (FSH 2209.13 Chapter 90). Each AMP would also include a monitoring plan to help assure the grazing strategy is meeting the desired condition of the allotment. Draft versions on the new AMPs are included in appendix B. Developments and Improvements The Dumont portion of the project area contains an extensive irrigation system that is currently non- functional. A portion of the irrigation system is within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. The majority of repairs needed within and outside of the wilderness are minor. These repairs include non-mechanized methods for vegetation clearing within the existing ditch system, slide gate replacements, rock stacking and other minor bank stabilizing methods. However, culvert replacement and/or trench digging using heavy equipment (backhoe) would be necessary to re-establish waterflow from the diversion points of the upper west and lower east ditches to Silver King Creek. The upper west ditch occurs in the wilderness and the lower east ditch is outside of the wilderness. Replacement of the culverts involves digging a trench four to six feet deep with an excavator, removing the old culverts, placing new 30-inch wide and 20-feet long culverts in the trench, and burying the culverts. At the upper west ditch, the excavator would also be used to re-grade the ditch for approximately 200 feet so that water can flow through the culvert and down the existing ditch system. Other non-mechanized methods of replacing the culvert in the wilderness were analyzed in the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide prepared for this project and determined to not be feasible (project record). Design features (discussed above) were incorporated into Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) to assure that potential impacts from culvert replacement would be minor and short-term and would not impact wilderness character.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 43 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Figure 4: Silver King Valley Irrigation System

44 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

2.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action/No Grazing No action means one of two things: either 1) the proposed action, or any of the action alternatives to the proposed action, does not occur, or 2) there would be no change in current management (FSH 1909.15, 14.2). “No action” is synonymous with “no grazing” and means that livestock grazing would not be authorized within the project area (FSH 2209.13, 92.31). Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) is the no action alternative for this EA. Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not authorize grazing on any of the allotments within the East Alpine Rangeland Project area (figure 1). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would result in the allotments in the project area remaining vacant. Existing improvements that are no longer functional or needed including interior fences, cattleguards, and water developments may be removed over time as allowed by funding and management priorities. Resource-Specific Design Features Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not authorize grazing on any of the allotments in the project area. Accordingly, Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) does not include any of the design features incorporated in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for wildlife, sensitive plants, cultural resources, AMPs, best management practices, or proper use criteria.

2.3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and then briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not analyzed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Grazing Using Existing Allotment Boundaries As the IDT developed the Proposed Action, it initially considered using the existing boundaries of the four allotments in the project area. The IDT considered the purpose and need for this project and applicable Forest Plan direction. The IDT also considered the presence of Lahontan cutthroat trout and Paiute cutthroat trout, species listed under the Endangered Species Act, in the Dumont and Silver King allotments. This alternative was dropped due to the potential conflict with these listed species and the ongoing recovery efforts in the Dumont and Silver King Allotments. No Maintenance on Portion of Water System in Wilderness As the IDT developed the Proposed Action, it considered the possibility of not maintaining the portion of the Silver King Valley water system that is in wilderness. The IDT considered the purpose and need for this project, applicable Forest Plan direction, and the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (FSM 2323.23). The IDT considered the potential negative impacts on wilderness character by bring motorized equipment into the wilderness and maintaining and operating the water system. The IDT also considered the potential positive impacts on wilderness. The water system is designed to increase forage outside of the wilderness boundary, thereby reducing the amount of grazing that would occur in the wilderness. This alternative was dropped due to the potential benefit that the water system represented to wilderness and the direction from Congress that there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness. No Motorized Equipment in Wilderness As the IDT developed the Proposed Action, it considered the possibility of requiring the maintenance on the portion of the Silver King Valley water system that is in wilderness to be done with traditional tools and methods. This approach would have prohibited the use of motorized equipment. The IDT considered

East Alpine Rangeland Project 45 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

the purpose and need for this project, applicable Forest Plan direction, and the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (FSM 2323.23). The IDT also prepared a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (project record) to process and document the consideration of whether the prohibition of motorized equipment would be appropriate. The IDT considered the potential negative impacts on wilderness character by bringing motorized equipment into the wilderness and maintaining and operating the water system. This alternative was dropped due to the direction from Congress that there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness. Further, the Congressional Grazing Guidelines state that the Forest Service would allow for the occasional use of motorized equipment for supporting facilities such as fences, cabins, water lines, and water wells that existed prior to classification as wilderness. 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives The comparison of alternatives draws conclusions from the information and discussion presented throughout this EA and briefly summarizes the results of the analysis. This section contains several summary tables. Table 18 displays the various elements that help define the alternatives. Table 19 describes the differences in effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. The effects of implementing each alternative are described in detail in Chapter 3. Table 18. Comparison of Actions Proposed by Alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing

Close over 10,000 acres of designated wilderness Yes No in the Silver King Allotment to grazing

Add remaining 1,600 acres of Silver King Allotment Yes No to the Dumont Allotment

Close over 3,000 acres of designated wilderness in Yes No the Dumont Allotment to grazing

Change kind of livestock on Bagley Valley, Yes No Cottonwood, and re-configured Dumont allotments from cattle to sheep

Authorize grazing in Bagley Valley, Cottonwood Yes No and re-configured Dumont allotments

Set maximum utilization and streambank alteration Yes N/A limits based on adaptive management system Includes design features for riparian soil Implement design features to limit or eliminate N/A and vegetation, repair of the irrigation impacts on resources system, LCT, PCT, Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog, Yosemite toad, Sierra Nevada red fox, sage grouse, bats, wilderness character, sensitive and rare plants, noxious and invasive weeds, cultural resources, and recreation.

46 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing

Repair Silver King Valley irrigation system Yes No

Table 19. Comparison of Alternatives – Effects of Implementation.

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Resource Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing SOILS/WATERSHED Likely to remain about the same as compared to Without livestock use the percent bare Percent of Bare Ground the existing condition in the short term. ground would decrease over time. Implementation of proper use criteria would Recovery would occur faster than in allow for slow recovery. Bare ground may Alternative 1. increase in concentrated use areas. Bare ground would be reduced in Silver King Allotment and the excluded portion of the Dumont Allotment. Likely to remain about the same as compared to Without livestock soil compaction would Soil Compaction the existing condition in the short term. decrease over time. Recovery would Implementation of proper use criteria would occur faster than in Alternative 1. allow for slow recovery. Compaction may increase in concentrated use areas. Compaction would be reduced in Silver King Allotment and the excluded portion of the Dumont Allotment. Riparian and meadow systems currently in Movement towards functioning condition Riparian Condition functioning-at-risk condition would move towards would occur at a more rapid rate as functioning condition with implementation of compared to the Proposed Action. proper use criteria and project design features Most water quality parameters, including Water quality would not be impacted by Water Quality temperature and dissolved oxygen, would likely livestock grazing. meet both California and Nevada water quality standards. Fecal coliform levels may at times exceed the standards in the Lahontan Basin Plan. VEGETATION Proper use criteria and design features included Habitat conditions for riparian and Meadows/Riparian in Alternative1 will move the ecological condition meadows will move toward functioning of meadows and riparian habitat from functioning condition, possibly at a faster rate than at risk to functioning. Irrigation in Dumont Alternative 1 However, Silver King Allotment will improve the condition of the Valley will recover at a slower rate with meadows in Silver King Valley at a faster rate no irrigation than without irrigation. Proper use criteria and design features included Habitat conditions for uplands will move Uplands ( aspen, conifer, in Alternative1 will move the ecological condition toward functioning condition, possibly at brush, non-meadow grasslands) of upland habitats from functioning at risk to a faster rate than Alternative 1 Conifer functioning. Conifer habitats are currently will continue to be ecologically functioning and would not drop below functioning functioning. condition

East Alpine Rangeland Project 47 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Resource Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES The project area does not contain occupied or The project area does not contain Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep potential habitat for SNBS. There will be no occupied or potential habitat for SNBS. (SNBS) effect to habitat quality for SNBS There will be no effect to habitat quality for SNBS. The project area is outside of the historic and The project area is outside of the Pacific Fisher current distribution for fisher. historic and current distribution for fisher. No changes to the quality of nesting habitat for No impacts to habitat quality Bald Eagle bald eagles. Suitable foraging areas for bald eagles in Bagley Valley and Dumont Allotments are currently considered to be functioning-at risk with an upward trend. Under the Proposed Action, conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non- functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Foraging habitat for bald eagles may potentially be improved in Silver King Valley following irrigation repairs. Increased standing water and subsequent vegetation growth may improve habitat for bald eagle prey such as waterfowl. Habitat for other prey species (such as rabbits) would also likely improve under the proposed action, as plant communities are restored to a more functioning condition. Important habitat areas such as riparian and Quality of habitat for mountain quail Mountain Quail shrub communities are currently functioning-at- would continue to improve from risk within most allotments. Under the Proposed functioning-at-risk to a more functioning Action, conditions are expected to continue to ecological condition with the exception improve and would not fall within the non- of the meadows in Silver King Valley. functioning category (as described by the These meadows were historically Matrices) for any vegetation group. Foraging irrigated for many decades and habitat for mountain quail may potentially be underwent ecological changes improved within meadows in Silver King Valley associated with a more mesic following irrigation repairs. Increased standing environment. Although these meadows water and subsequent vegetation growth will are not expected to trend toward non- improve riparian and wet meadow habitats that functioning, they will likely stay in a can be important to mountain quail foraging. static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1. Important habitat areas such as conifer and Quality of habitat for flammulated owls Flammulated Owl aspen communities are currently functioning-at- would continue to improve from risk within most allotments. Under the Proposed functioning-at-risk to a more functioning Action, conditions are expected to continue to ecological condition. Under the No improve and would not fall within the non- Action alternative, conditions are functioning category (as described by the expected to continue to improve, Matrices) for any vegetation group. although possibly at a slower rate than Alternative 1. Important habitat areas such as conifer stands The quality of habitat for white-headed White-Headed Woodpecker are currently functioning within most allotments. woodpeckers would continue to improve Under the Proposed Action, conditions are from functioning-at-risk to a more

48 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Resource Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing expected to continue to be maintained as functioning ecological condition. Under functioning and will not fall within the non- the No Action alternative, conditions are functioning category (as described by the expected to continue to improve, Matrices) for any vegetation group. Aspen although possibly at a slower rate than communities are currently functioning-at-risk Alternative 1. within most allotments. Under the Proposed Action, conditions are expected to continue to improve and will not fall within the non- functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Important habitat areas such conifer stands and The quality of meadow habitat for great Great Gray Owl meadows are currently functioning to gray owls would continue to improve functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under from functioning-at-risk to a more the Proposed Action, conditions are expected to functioning ecological condition with the continue to improve or be maintained and will exception of the meadows in Silver King not fall within the non-functioning category (as Valley. These meadows were described by the Matrices) for any vegetation historically irrigated for many decades group. Foraging habitat for great gray owls may and underwent ecological changes potentially be improved in Silver King Meadows associated with a more mesic following irrigation repairs environment. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non- functioning, they will likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1. Conifer stands, which are primarily considered to be functioning would be maintained in functioning condition. The project area is not considered suitable The project area is not considered Desert Bighorn Sheep habitat for Desert bighorn sheep. Under suitable habitat for desert bighorn Alternative 1, there will no changes to habitat sheep. Therefore, similar to the conditions that would make it less or more Proposed Action, there will be no conducive to desert bighorn sheep changes to habitat conditions that would make it less or more conducive to desert bighorn sheep under the No Action alternative. Important habitat areas for goshawks such as Under Alternative 2, the quality of Northern Goshawk conifer are currently considered to be functioning meadow and aspen habitat types would throughout most of the project area. Design continue to improve from functioning-at- features and proper use criteria associated with risk to a more functioning ecological the Proposed Action would maintain the condition with the exception of the ecological condition of conifer stands. Aspen meadows in Silver King Valley. These stands and meadow communities are currently meadows were historically irrigated for functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under many decades and underwent the Proposed Action, conditions are expected to ecological changes associated with a continue to improve and will not fall within the more mesic environment. Poor non-functioning category (as described by the livestock management and interrupted Matrices) for any vegetation group. irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows now where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they will likely stay in a static condition longer

East Alpine Rangeland Project 49 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Resource Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1. Conifer stands, which are primarily considered to be functioning, would be maintained in functioning condition. Important habitat areas such as riparian and The quality of habitat for sage grouse Sage Grouse shrub communities are currently functioning-at- would continue to improve from risk within most allotments. Under the Proposed functioning-at-risk to a more functioning Action, conditions are expected to continue to ecological condition with the exception improve and will not fall within the non- of the meadows in Silver King Valley. functioning category (as described by the These meadows were historically Matrices) for any vegetation group. Foraging irrigated for many decades and habitat for sage grouse would potentially be underwent ecological changes improved in Silver King Valley following irrigation associated with a more mesic repairs. Increased standing water and environment. Although these meadows subsequent vegetation growth will improve are not expected to trend toward non- riparian and wet meadow habitats that can be functioning, they will likely stay in a important to sage grouse foraging. static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1. Important habitat areas to yellow warblers such The quality of habitat for yellow warblers Yellow Warbler as riparian and meadows communities are would continue to improve from currently functioning-at-risk within most functioning-at-risk to a more functioning allotments. Under the Proposed Action, ecological condition with the exception conditions are expected to continue to improve of the meadows in Silver King Valley. and will not fall within the non-functioning These meadows were historically category (as described by the Matrices) for any irrigated and underwent ecological vegetation group. Suitable habitat for yellow changes associated with a more mesic warblers would improve within meadows in Silver environment. Although these meadows King Valley following irrigation repairs. are not expected to trend toward non- Increased standing water in the meadows would functioning, they will likely stay in a promote vegetation growth of riparian shrubs static condition longer and recover at a including willow, alder, and rose thereby slower rate than when compared to improving habitat for yellow warblers. Alternative 1. Important habitat areas such as conifer stands The quality of habitat for yellow-rumped Yellow –Rumped Warbler are currently functioning within most allotments. warblers would be maintained either in a Under the Proposed Action, conditions are functioning condition or continue to expected to continue to be maintained as improve from functioning-at-risk to a functioning and will not fall within the non- more functioning ecological condition. functioning category (as described by the Under the No Action alternative, Matrices) for any vegetation group. Aspen conditions are expected to continue to communities are currently functioning-at-risk improve. within most allotments. Under the Proposed Action, conditions are expected to continue to improve and will not fall within the non- functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Important habitat areas such as conifer stands The quality of habitat for Williamson’s Williamson’s Sapsucker/Hairy are currently functioning within most allotments. sapsuckers and hairy woodpeckers Woodpecker Under the Proposed Action, conditions are would be maintained either in a expected to continue to be maintained as functioning condition or continue to functioning and will not fall within the non- improve from functioning-at-risk to a functioning category (as described by the more functioning ecological condition.

50 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Resource Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing Matrices) for any vegetation group. Aspen Under the No Action alternative, communities are currently functioning-at-risk conditions are expected to continue to within most allotments. Under the Proposed improve. Action, conditions are expected to continue to improve and will not fall within the non- functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group Important habitat areas to mule deer such as The quality of habitat for mule deer Mule Deer riparian and shrub communities are currently would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under functioning-at-risk to a more functioning the Proposed Action, conditions are expected to ecological condition with the exception continue to improve and will not fall within the of the meadows in Silver King Valley. non-functioning category (as described by the The meadows in Silver King Valley were Matrices) for any vegetation group. Summer historically irrigated and underwent habitat for mule deer would potentially be ecological changes associated with a improved in Silver King Meadows following more mesic environment. Although irrigation repairs. Increased standing water and these meadows are not expected to subsequent vegetation growth will improve trend toward non-functioning, they will riparian and wet meadow habitats that can be likely stay in a static condition longer important to mule deer foraging. and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1. Important habitat areas to marten such as The quality of habitat for marten would Marten conifer stands are currently functioning within continue to be maintained in functioning most allotments. Under the Proposed Action, ecological condition. conditions are expected to continue to be maintained as functioning and will not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Under the Proposed Action there will be no There will be no changes to the quality Sierra Nevada Willow Flycatcher changes to the quality of existing habitat for of existing habitat for willow flycatchers. willow flycatchers. According to the East Alpine Riparian areas in upper and lower Fish Vegetation Report (project record), riparian Valley and portions of Falls Meadows areas in upper and lower Fish Valley and are currently functioning-at-risk with an portions of Falls Meadows are currently upward trend. Under the No Action functioning-at-risk with an upward trend. Under Alternative, conditions would continue the Proposed Action, conditions would continue improve and would not fall within the to improve and would not fall within the non- non-functioning category (as described functioning category (as described by the by the Matrices) for any vegetation Matrices) for any vegetation group. The quality group. of habitat for willow flycatchers may improve over time in Silver King Valley following repeated and consistent irrigation. Under the Proposed Action, habitat quality is Plant communities in the project area Migratory Birds expected to improve or remain stable throughout are currently functioning-at-risk. Under all habitat types in the project area. According to the No Action Alternative, conditions the East Alpine Vegetation Report (project would continue improve and would not record), most habitat groups, with the exception fall within the non-functioning category of conifer are currently functioning-at-risk with an (as described by the Matrices) for any upward or static trend. The majority of conifer vegetation group. Conifer stands would stands are considered functioning. Under the be maintained as functioning. Under the Proposed Action, conditions would continue to No Action Alternative, irrigation in Silver improve and would not fall within the non- King Valley would not occur. These functioning category (as described by the meadows were historically irrigated and

East Alpine Rangeland Project 51 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Resource Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing Matrices) for any vegetation group. The quality underwent ecological changes of habitat for migratory birds would improve over associated with a more mesic time in Silver King Valley following repeated and environment. Although these meadows consistent irrigation. are not expected to trend toward non- functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 Both alternatives would exclude grazing from occupied and historic range for PCT and LCT. Lahontan and Paiute Cutthroat Both alternatives are expected to have beneficial effects for PCT and LCT. Trout Should not have an effect on macroinvertebrates Would likely result in the most Macroinvertebrates that would cause the BCI to drop below 85 which immediate improvement in stream would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan. habitat conditions. WILDERNESS Minimal impacts to Untrammeled, Natural The no action alternative will have a

Quality, Undeveloped Quality, Special Features, beneficial effect to Wilderness Character and Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive in general. The no-action alternative will Recreation wilderness characteristics. Impacts not contribute to trends in wilderness from mechanized equipment in Dumont character. Allotment will be short term. SENSITIVE AND RARE PLANTS There are no known populations of rare plants There will be no effect to sensitive and

within the project area although potential habitat rare plants from this alternative. for some species is present. Under the Proposed Action, design features and proper use criteria will protect potential habitat for rare plants. CULTURAL RESOURCES Design features within Alternative 1 incorporate There will be no effect to cultural

strategies outlined in the Programmatic resources from this alternative Agreement between the Forest Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to address the effects of rangeland management activities on historic properties. This will include but not be limited to inspecting all concentrated use areas (bedding and watering locations) prior to grazing and incorporating avoidance or other mitigation measures into the Allotment Management Plans if cultural resources are detected. RECREATION Livestock grazing has the potential to affect There will be no effects to recreation

recreation in the project area where there is from this alternative recreation use including trails, trailheads, and dispersed camping. Potential effects are generally social in nature including the sights, sounds, ground disturbance, animal excrement, and visual evidence of grazing or trailing along trails or in dispersed camping areas. The proposed action has been designed to avoid

52 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 2 – Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Resource Proposed Action No Action/No Grazing conflicts with recreation to the extent possible. In the Carson-Iceberg wilderness the project area has been moved away from the Pacific Crest trail, Driveline Trail, Poison Lake, Soda springs and other higher use trails

East Alpine Rangeland Project 53 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.

54 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3.0 Introduction This chapter provides information concerning the existing environmental condition of the East Alpine Rangeland Management Project area and the potential consequences to that environment if the project is implemented. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis using the best available science for the comparison of alternatives presented in chapter 2. Chapter 3 provides an analysis of existing condition and the resulting effects of each alternative. This chapter will describe each resource that is potentially affected by the alternatives. The discussion of resources and potential effects uses existing information included in the Forest Plan, other environmental analyses, project-specific resource reports, agency and scientific studies, and related information. Where applicable, such information is briefly summarized and referenced to minimize duplication. The project record for the East Alpine Rangeland Project includes all project-specific information, including resource reports, documentation of field investigations, and information resulting from public involvement efforts. The project record is located at the Carson Ranger District office, and is available for review during regular business hours. Analysis Area Each resource section in this chapter defines the analysis area appropriate for that resource and the reason why the area was selected. Resources may use different analysis areas for direct effects and cumulative effects. Analyzing Effects Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the physical, biological, social, and economic environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) included a number of specific categories for use in the analysis of environmental consequences. Several are applicable to the analysis of the proposed project and alternatives and form the basis of much of the discussion that follows. They are explained briefly here. Direct and Indirect Effects Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity but could be significant in the near future. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects result from incremental effects of actions, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (but not speculative), regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects are the combination of the effects from other activities that overlap, in time and space, the direct and indirect effects of an alternative. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over time (40 CFR 1508.7). The effects of many past and ongoing activities (for example, existing range developments and past mining activity) are reflected in the descriptions of current conditions in this chapter. The IDT identified

East Alpine Rangeland Project 55 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

five reasonably foreseeable activities that could have effects that would overlap in space and time with the direct and indirect effects from the alternatives: Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) are taking steps to reintroduce Paiute cutthroat trout to Silver King Creek. This project involves the reach of Silver King Creek between Llewellyn Falls and the confluence with Snodgrass Creek, and Tamarack Creek and Tamarack Lake Creek. As part of this project, CDFG would apply rotenone (CFT Legumine™) to these creeks to remove non-native fish. A generator-powered auger would be used, above the confluence of Snodgrass Creek with Silver King Creek to neutralize the rotenone. After the non-native fish have been removed, Paiute cutthroat trout would be reintroduced to these creeks. The project is intended to restore Paiute cutthroat trout to its historic range as stated in the 2004 Revised Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2004), and would thereby satisfy a critical Recovery Plan component for delisting the subspecies. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project (USDI FWS 2010) are included in the project record. Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement The Forest Service is proposing to improve the condition of aspen stands on approximately 800 acres within the Monitor Pass area. Approximately 300 acres of the project occurs within the boundaries of the Cottonwood Allotment. Aspen stands in this area are currently in a state of decline due to encroachment from conifers. Heavy encroachment is occurring in some areas with relatively few aspen stems remaining. These heavily encroached stands are also considered to be contributing to high fuel loading due to the amount of down logs, dense conifer, and ladder fuels. Treatment activities would include removing conifers up to 30 inches in diameter from within 50 to 100 feet of any aspen greater than 2” in diameter. Prescribed burning, including both pile burning and understory burning, may also occur throughout the entire project area to meet resource needs. Any large diameter “legacy” trees or smaller diameter trees that exhibit legacy (old-growth) characteristics would be retained. Tree cutting activities and burning would not occur April through July to avoid the majority of the breeding season for migratory and non-migratory birds. No trees would be removed where they provide stream bank stability. After conifers have been removed, livestock grazing would not be allowed until the aspen regeneration is taller than the browsing height (3 ¾ feet and 5 feet for cattle). Leviathan Peak Communication Tower The Forest Service is proposing to amend a Special Use permit to allow Alpine County to construct, operate and maintain a new communication site facility and ancillary improvements, including an electrical service line, at Leviathan Peak Communication Site. The project is located approximately one mile from the Cottonwood Allotment boundary and within the Pine Nut Population Management Unit (PMU) for sage grouse. The project is needed to improve communication facilities to increase public safety and support first responders in the rural eastern Sierra region of California and western Nevada. Several new improvements would be constructed within and adjacent to the existing footprint of the current facility. This portion of the project would result in approximately .5 acres of new disturbance including construction of a retaining wall, up to 6 feet tall, that would extend along the western edge of the access road and a retaining wall, up to 5 feet tall, that would extend along a portion of the eastern edge of the facility. In addition to the communication site, a 12-kilovolt (kV) electrical service line would be installed to provide commercial power to the proposed communication facility at Leviathan Peak. The electrical service line would stretch approximately 6.02 miles in length from Indian Springs, following a Forest Service Road to Highway 89 where it would follow the highway and the Leviathan Road to the communication facility. Approximately .5 miles of the line would be installed above ground and the rest would be buried underground. Total disturbance area for the electrical line would be approximately 15 acres.

56 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

OHV and Dispersed Recreation Motor vehicle use off designated routes is prohibited throughout the entire project area. Only the Cottonwood Allotment is open to public, motorized vehicles. The other three allotments in the analysis area either occur in the wilderness or are otherwise closed to public motorized access. Within the Cottonwood Allotment, National Forest System routes are frequently used by the public primarily to access the East Fork of the Carson River. Impacts to vegetation and soils have been observed particularly along roads near the river including increased erosion and soil compaction. Signage, education, and enforcement regarding the designated road system are addressing these issues. Noxious and invasive weeds appear to be more prevalent along some roads in the Cottonwood Allotment, particularly within the River Ranch Unit. Recreation activities such as motorized dispersed camping can impact vulnerable plant communities such as meadows and riparian areas due to compaction and trampling of vegetation. Within the analysis area, notably disturbed sites have only been observed in the Cottonwood Allotment, where motorized dispersed camping frequently occurs. For example, several sites near the Carson River are now compacted from repeated use and are devoid of vegetation. Most of these camping areas area associated with designated routes. However, some sites are associated with user-created trails and roads that have been constructed to access desirable camping areas. Wildfire Within the last decade, wildfire has burned thousands of acres of sage grouse habitat within the Pine Nut PMU, including important nesting habitat near the Mill Canyon Dry Lake Lek site which was burned during the 2007 Adrian Fire (Bi-State Plan 2012). Adjacent to the project area and within the very south end of the PMU, the Larson Fire of 2007 and the 2008 Slinkard Fire burned almost 2,000 acres. Cheatgrass and other invasives are present in some of these burned areas; however, post fire restoration efforts, such as seeding and active weed management have helped with native plant restoration. To reduce the threat of future high intensity fires, the BLM and other local agencies have completed or are in the process of completing eight fuels reduction projects in or near important breeding habitat within the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2012). Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Unavoidable Adverse Effects Implementation of any action alternative may cause some adverse environmental effects that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided. Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the land for one resource at the expense of the use or condition of other resources. Many adverse effects can be reduced, mitigated, or avoided by limiting their extent or duration. The interdisciplinary procedure used to identify specific impact locations was designed to eliminate or lessen the significant adverse consequences. The application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices (BMPs), project-specific design criteria, and monitoring are all intended to limit the extent, severity, and duration of potential effects. Such measures are discussed throughout this chapter. Regardless of the use of these measures, some adverse effects may occur. The purpose of this chapter is to disclose those effects. Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity Under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), all renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. Short-term uses, and their effects, are those that occur annually or within the first few years of project implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue producing goods and services long after the project has been implemented. Domestic livestock grazing can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, forage on rangelands can be sustained if the long-term productivity of the land is maintained. This long-term productivity is maintained through the application of the allowable utilization, streambank alteration

East Alpine Rangeland Project 57 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

levels, and allotment management plan (AMP) guidance described in chapter 2. These protection measures are also discussed throughout this chapter, in particular for soils, water quality, vegetation, and wildlife. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Irreversible commitments “describe the loss of future options.” Irreversible “applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time” (FSH 1909.15, Zero Code, 05 – Definitions). Once these resources are gone, they cannot be replaced. Irretrievable commitments describe “the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources.” For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable; the action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production” (FSH 1909.15, Zero Code, 05 – Definitions). Irreversible and irretrievable commitments associated with the alternatives considered in this analysis are addressed in further detail in this chapter by resource. Geographic Information System Much of the HTNFs resource data resides in an electronic database formatted for use by geographic information systems (GIS). The Forest Service often uses GIS software to assist in the analyses of this data. The GIS data is available in tabular (numerical) format and as plots displaying data in map format. For this environmental assessment (EA), all the maps, and most of the numerical analyses, are based on GIS resource data supported by field verification. Available Resource Information During this analysis, the interdisciplinary team determined that there is incomplete knowledge about many of the conditions and relationships of forest resources and social needs related to this project. Forest management is a complex and developing science. Wildlife population dynamics and habitat relationships are not completely understood. Metrics used to measure and describe past rangeland conditions change and become incompatible with new methods. However, the interdisciplinary team determined that the basic data and central relationships within the project area were sufficiently established for each of the pertinent resources to allow the responsible official to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives and to adequately assess and disclose the possible adverse environmental consequences. 3.1 Soil and Watershed Resources Livestock grazing may affect water and soil quality in several ways. Loss of effective ground cover in the uplands may increase overland flow and soil erosion. Soil compaction, loss of ground cover and plant vigor in riparian areas can decrease the ability of riparian areas to filter pollutants and function as a floodplain.

3.1.1 Scope of the Analysis The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the soil resource is the project area. The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to water resources is the hydrologic unit code (HUC 6) watershed that the project area is within. The time period for consideration of effects is ten years, the length of time for the term grazing permit. The HUCs are listed in table 20. Streams in the project and surrounding area are displayed in figure 5.

58 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 20. Watersheds and Major Streams.

Watershed Name HUC Number Major Streams Allotment Name

Silver King Creek Tamarack Creek Silver King Creek 160502010101 Corral Valley Creek Snodgrass Creek Dumont East Fork Carson R. Bryant Creek 160502010102 Bryant Creek Poison Creek Bagley Valley Creek Bagley Valley Bagley Valley 160502010105 East Fork Carson R. Dumont Heenan Lake Markleeville Creek 160502010108 Bagley Valley Monitor Creek Mountaineer Creek Aspen Creek Leviathan Canyon 16050210201 Poison Creek Barney Riley Creek Cottonwood Bryant Creek East Fork Carson River Cottonwood Canyon 160502010202 Cottonwood Canyon

East Alpine Rangeland Project 59 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Figure 5: Streams in Project Area.

60 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Management Direction Forest-wide management direction for soil and water resources includes the following goals: • High quality water yields will be enhanced for approximately 949,500 acre feet to meet state water quality standards. Water rights and instream, flows will be acquired as necessary for management and use of the National Forest (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6). • The Forest will improve water quality and manage riparian areas to satisfactory condition. All riparian area-dependent resources will be maintained or enhanced. Water resource improvement projects and other projects will be designed to improve and maintain the quality of water and soil resources (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6). The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework), as amended in 2004, added the following goals and objectives for wildlife and fish to portions of the Forest in the Sierra Nevada: • Water Quality: Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment (USDA FS 2004, p. 32). • Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction (USDA FS 2004, p. 32). • Floodplains and Water Tables: Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats (USDA FS 2004, p. 32). • Watershed Condition: Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable conditions of stream flows (USDA FS 2004, p. 32). • Streamflow Patterns and Sediment Regimes: Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved (USDA FS 2004, p. 33). • Stream Banks and Shorelines: Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity (USDA FS 2004, p. 33).

3.1.2 Desired Condition The Humboldt Forest Plan provides the following desired condition for soil and water resources: • Greater emphasis on environmental quality will have had positive effect on the soil and water resources (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6). • Specific riparian area standards and guidelines, and greater emphasis on rangeland management will have significantly benefited riparian area-dependent resources (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6). • Monitoring will provide information for quicker response to management-induced impacts on soil and water resources (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6). • Knowledge to properly implement projects will also be gained from continued monitoring (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6). • Water yields will not have increased on the Forest (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6).

East Alpine Rangeland Project 61 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework), as amended in 2004, added the following management direction for soil and water resources located in the Sierra Nevada: • Water quality meets the goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; it is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for drinking after normal treatment (USDA FS 2004, p. 42). • Spatial and temporal connectivity for riparian and aquatic-dependent species within and between watersheds provides physically, chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction (USDA FS 2004, p. 43). • The connections of floodplains, channels, and water tables distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats (USDA FS 2004, p. 43). • Soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover absorb and filter precipitation and sustain favorable conditions of stream flows (USDA FS 2004, p. 43). • In-stream flows are sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian biota evolved (USDA FS 2004, p. 43). • The physical structure and condition of stream banks and shorelines minimizes erosion and sustains desired habitat diversity (USDA FS 2004, p. 43). • The ecological status of meadow vegetation is late seral (50 percent or more of the relative cover of the herbaceous layer is late seral with high similarity to the potential natural community). A diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present and regeneration is occurring (USDA FS 2004, p. 43). • Meadows are hydrologically functional. Sites of accelerated erosion, such as gullies and headcuts are stabilized or recovering. Vegetation roots occur throughout the available soil profile. Meadows with perennial and intermittent streams have the following characteristics: (1) stream energy from high flows is dissipated, reducing erosion and improving water quality, (2) streams filter sediment and capture bedload, aiding floodplain development, (3) meadow conditions enhance floodwater retention and groundwater recharge, and (4) root masses stabilize stream banks against cutting action (USDA FS 2004, p. 43). The Forest has developed scorecards (appendix A), referred to as the Condition Assessment Matrices (Matrices), that define specific standards for vegetation condition. The Matrices include measurable attributes regarding soil health, water quality, stream condition, hydrology, and vegetation for each vegetation community, as appropriate. The attributes related to water quality included in the functioning condition category are the desired conditions for soil and water resources for the project area.

3.1.3 Current Condition Soils Soil quality in the project area was evaluated using the Matrices (appendix A). The Matrices were developed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest to provide an indicator-based assessment of current site condition as compared with a desired condition. The Matrices are a scorecard that provides an ecological approach and include measurable parameters for soil, vegetation, hydrology, and disturbance factors that indicate whether a vegetation community, and the habitat it represents, is functioning, functioning-at-risk, or non-functioning. More detailed information on the Matrices can be found in the Vegetation section (Section 3.2) of this document. A review of the available data on the Matrices soil quality data indicates that generally the percent bare ground is in the functioning category, while root depth tends to be in the non-functioning and functioning-

62 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

at-risk categories. These conditions reflect prior grazing and uses in the project area. Root depth was not collected as often as percent bare ground. A slope analysis was conducted for the project area. The results of that analysis indicated that over half of the project area is on slopes greater than 25 percent. Table 21 summarized the results of the slope analysis. Table 21. Acres of Slope Categories by Allotment.

Slope Category Allotment Moderate Very High Low (0-10%) High (25-40%) (10-25%) (over 40%) Dumont 1,500 3,690 4,880 5,830 Bagley Valley 1,350 3,770 3,290 1,300 Cottonwood 2,630 6,570 6,220 4,890 Water Resources The Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Board (WQCB) manages a Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Thirty surface water sites within the Lahontan Region were sampled by the USGS from 2000-2005; one of these sites was the East Fork Carson River below its confluence with Markleeville Creek (LRWQCB 2007). This site is downstream of the Dumont and Bagley Valley Allotments, and upstream of the Cottonwood Allotment. Major tributaries to the East Fork Carson River above this sampling point include Silver King Creek, Bagley Valley Creek, Wolf Creek, Silver Creek, and Markleeville Creek. The monitoring includes 63 values comparable to Basin Plan criteria, with 15 potential exceedances. Potential exceedances were observed for total dissolved solids, sulfate, total phosphorus, boron, and fecal coliform bacteria. Seven samples were collected for fecal coliform bacteria between Nov. 2003 and May 2005. One of these samples exceeded the 30-day log mean objective of 20 (cfu) per 100 ml. There were no exceedances of the Basin Plan’s criteria for pH, dissolved oxygen, chloride, or total nitrogen (LRWQCB 2007). The Lahontan Region WQCB also collected water samples from 37 eastern Sierra Nevada streams in 2011 (Nilson et al. 2012). The samples were analyzed for two bacterial indicators, fecal coliform, and E. coli. One of the sites was on the East Fork Carson River below Markleeville Creek, the same location as described above. Seven samples were collected at this site between January and October 2011. Cattle were present in the watersheds above this site during the sampling periods in June to October. The results show that fecal coliform were 15 cfu/100 ml and below for all samples collected on the East Fork Carson River (Nilson et al. 2012). Bacterial contamination of water by livestock grazing has been highlighted recently by media coverage. UC Davis researchers, in collaboration with five National Forests in California, undertook a two –year survey of the microbiological, chemical, and physical quality of 19 rangeland streams (UC Davis 2010). Samples of stream water were collected during storm runoff, snowmelt, and summer low flow conditions. In addition to fecal coliform and E. coli, samples were also analyzed for nutrients, conductivity, turbidity, and total suspended solids. In general, the research found that most sites had relatively low values for all constituents. Concentrations of nutrients were found to be low relative to state and federal water quality standards. However, fecal coliform and E. coli indicator bacteria commonly exceeded standards set by the Lahontan Region Basin Plan (UC Davis 2012). Results from this research showed that 50 percent of the samples overall collected on 155 sites on 12 allotments exceeded the Lahontan Regional WQCB standard of 20cfu/100ml. This sampling included a

East Alpine Rangeland Project 63 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

48 percent exceedance in both key grazing areas and recreation sites. Ten percent of the samples in key grazing areas exceeded the Central Valley Regional WQCB fecal coliform standard of 200/100 ml, and seven percent exceeded the U.S. EPA E. coli standard of 126 cfu/100ml (Kromschroeder et al. 2012).

3.1.4 Environmental Consequences Livestock have the potential to degrade soil quality directly by trampling soils and indirectly by consuming or trampling vegetation that protect and help form soils (Kruger and Sanderson 2002, Reid 1993, USDA NRCS 2001). Soil compaction reduces water infiltration and storage, physically restricts root growth, and reduces nutrient availability. These effects, coupled with trampling and consumption of vegetation, reduce the overall vegetation cover, creating bare ground, which is more susceptible to water and wind erosion, has increased precipitation runoff, and has less organic matter available for nutrient cycling. Vegetation and litter cover protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, slows runoff, and enhances infiltration. Reductions in the amount of vegetative cover, standing vegetation, and litter results in less organic matter being incorporated into the soil, which is an important component of soil fertility and structure. As vegetative cover is decreased, there is the likelihood for increased levels of soil erosion. Poorly managed livestock grazing has the potential to degrade soil quality directly by trampling soils and indirectly by consuming or trampling vegetation that protect and help form soils (Krueger and Sanderson 2002, Reid 1993, USDA NRCS 2001). Livestock grazing has the potential to adversely affect water resources through consumption of vegetation, trampling of soil, and deposition of wastes in and near streams. These actions can result in increased runoff and erosion, increased water temperatures, increased concentrations of nutrients and bacteria, and changes to stream morphology. The impact of livestock grazing on beneficial uses depends on site characteristics and the effectiveness of allotment management. Soil compaction and ground cover removal caused by livestock grazing, especially in riparian areas, have the potential to increase runoff and sediment transport into streams by reducing the amount of infiltration and interception of precipitation and by capturing and channeling water (Belsky et al. 1999). Livestock grazing has the potential to detrimentally affect water quality. According to published scientific literature reviews, poorly managed livestock grazing can potentially have the following detrimental effects on water quality: • Increased bacteria levels from livestock urine and fecal wastes (Belsky et al. 1999, Buckhouse 2000, Meehan 1991). • Increased turbidity/sedimentation due to soil disturbance and vegetation loss along stream banks (Belsky e al. 1999, Branson et al. 1981, Buckhouse 2000, Krueger and Sanderson 2002, Meehan 1991). • Higher water temperatures resulting from increased width to depth ratios and loss of shade producing vegetation along stream banks (Krueger and Sanderson 2002, Meehan 1991) and lower dissolved oxygen levels (Belsky et al. 1999, Buckhouse 2000).

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Soils Direct and Indirect Effects: The percent of bare ground and compaction associated with sheep grazing is likely to remain about the same as the existing condition. Implementation of the utilization standards would maintain a healthy vegetative cover and protect the soil. The percent bare ground and compaction may increase in areas of concentrated use, such as bedding areas and the water development in the

64 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Cottonwood Allotment. Soil quality in the Silver King Allotment, which would be closed, and the excluded portion of the Dumont Allotment would recover over time. Use of a backhoe to conduct maintenance work on the Silver King Creek irrigation ditch system may result in soil compaction along the route designated to access the diversion point. The backhoe would take up to two trips to the worksite. Potential effects to soil would be minimized by working in the fall when the area is dry, and designating the route. The allowable utilization would be 20 percent for woody vegetation, such as willow, and 30 percent for herbaceous vegetation. Streambank disturbance would not exceed 20 percent of the stream reach (USDA FS 2004). These standards and guidelines are associated with riparian conservation objectives in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD. In addition, no concentrated livestock use would occur within .25 miles of a stream or other waterbody. Under these grazing conditions, the riparian vegetation can maintain health and function to maintain stream channel integrity and water quality. If the site is functioning-at-risk, light to moderate grazing (less than 35 percent) should allow the site to begin to decrease the amount of bare ground, and the site’s vulnerability to the establishment of noxious weeds or other undesirable plants should be reduced (Platts 1982). Grazing would not occur in the closed Silver King Allotment and parts of Dumont Allotment. Riparian and stream condition in these areas would be expected to improve. Water Resources Direct and Indirect Effects: Implementation of proper use criteria and project design criteria would result in maintenance of riparian vegetation and limited streambank disturbance. These actions would likely result in most water quality parameters meeting state standards, including temperature and dissolved oxygen. Dr. Ken Tate’s research with UC Davis (described above) has demonstrated that the concentration of nutrients has generally met state standards in allotment streams. Fecal coliform levels may at times exceed Lahontan Basin Plan standards due to sheep grazing in these allotments. Exceedance of these standards may occur less often as compared to the research results previously described since sheep do not tend to congregate in riparian areas as cattle do. As noted above, the Lahontan Basin Plan fecal coliform standards are very low as compared to other California water quality board regions, the state of Nevada and the federal standards. The Board is considering plans to revise the coliform standard (LRWQCB 2012b). The fecal coliform standards for the East Carson River in Nevada may not be exceeded, since that standard is much higher than the Lahontan Basin Plan. Work on the irrigation diversion on Silver King Creek would result in soil disturbance near the stream channel. There are several project design features to address potential impacts from this activity. Temporary erosion control measures, such as filter fence or coir logs, would be installed to prevent sediment from entering the stream. Disturbed areas would be covered with pine needles or other vegetative material to reduce erosion. To access the diversion point Silver King Creek would be crossed by the backhoe. This crossing would be designated and the work done during the fall when flows are low. There is the potential for increased turbidity at the crossing site. This impact would be limited and short-term. A permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a certification from the Lahontan WQCB would be required before work along the stream is implemented. Water quality in the closed portions of the Silver King and Dumont allotments would not be affected by grazing. Cumulative Effects: Although the direct and indirect effect from sheep grazing to soil and water quality in the Cottonwood Allotment and the East Fork Carson River is likely to be small, there is the potential for cumulative effects under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) when combined with impacts from OHV use and dispersed recreation.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 65 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Under this alternative sheep grazing would not be authorized for the Cottonwood, Bagley Valley, and Dumont Allotments. Existing improvements that are no longer functional or needed, including fences and the water trough in the Cottonwood Allotment, would be removed over time. The irrigation system in the Dumont Allotment would not be repaired. Because no livestock trampling or grazing in the riparian zones would be authorized under this alternative, natural processes would move the vegetation and soils toward recovery. There would no longer be any livestock urine and fecal material to contribute bacteria to streams. With no stress from livestock grazing, it is also likely that stream and riparian areas would move towards desired condition at a much faster rate than with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). The rate at which an area moved towards desired condition would depend on its current condition and the cumulative effects of other actions. Cumulative Effects: There would no cumulative effects under this alternative because there are no direct or indirect effects to soil and watershed resources.

3.1.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments The placement of a livestock development (i.e., water trough or fence) can concentrate livestock use in a small area which can lead to an irretrievable commitment of the resources surrounding that development. Although this project does not propose any new developments, the existing development in the Cottonwood Allotment would continue to be used under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Soils in the area immediately surrounding the trough would be compacted and devoid of vegetation. The total area affected would be less than one acre. This is considered an irreversible commitment because the time involved for soil recovery is extremely long.

3.1.6 Forest Plan Consistency Both of the alternatives considered in this project would be consistent with management direction for soil, water, and riparian resources in the Toiyabe Forest Plan and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

3.1.7 Specialist Report This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Watershed Resources Specialist Report in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Watershed Resources Specialist Report is located in the Watershed folder in the Resources section of the project record and contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA. 3.2 Vegetation Rangeland health is the degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, water and air, and the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystems are balanced and sustained (O’Brien et al. 2003). Maintaining the health of the sagebrush, riparian, aspen, and forested ecosystems within rangelands is important for wildlife and their habitat, watershed values (such as water quality and quantity), and livestock grazing. Vegetative components of rangeland health include: • Composition (variety and amount of different plant species). • Ground cover (area covered or protected by vegetation or litter). • Structure (height, width, and density of plants within the plant community).

66 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Livestock grazing has the potential to affect the composition, structure, and health of the various vegetative communities in the project area. These vegetative communities include riparian areas, aspen, and upland vegetation. Grazing also has the potential to introduce and/or expand noxious weed infestations within these vegetative communities. How livestock are managed determines the effects and their extent. These effects would impact the functioning of natural ecological processes, such as the capture, storage, and redistribution of water; conversion of sunlight to plant and animal matter; and the cycling of nutrients through the physical and biological environments. Properly-managed livestock can eliminate or minimize these negative impacts.

3.2.1 Scope of the Analysis For direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the project area serves as the analysis area for the vegetation resources because livestock grazing would only occur within the boundaries of the allotments. The timeframe considered for this analysis is looking out ten years because that is the length of the grazing permit. Management Direction Forest-wide management direction for wildlife and fish include the following goals: • Rangelands will be in satisfactory condition or better (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). • All grazing allotments and wild and free-roaming horse and burro territories will be under approved management plans (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework), as amended in 2004, added the following goals and objectives for aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems to portions of the Forest in the Sierra Nevada: • Riparian Conservation Objective #2: Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species (USDA FS 2004, p. 33). • Riparian Conservation Objective #5: Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas (USDA FS 2004, p. 33). Forest-wide management direction for rangeland vegetation includes the following standards and guidelines: • Describe ecological sites, develop SCORE cards to rate ecological status and resource values, and define management strategies for rangeland management. (pg. IV-26). • Strive to achieve or maintain a minimum of 60 percent ground cover on upland rangelands with the exceptions of low sagebrush types, Wyoming big sagebrush types, crested wheatgrass seedings, pinyon/juniper types, and south facing sagebrush types on granitic slopes of the Sierra Nevada (pg. IV-26). • Conduct monitoring and evaluation in accordance with FSH 2209.21, Range Environmental Analysis Handbook, and the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook (pg. IV-26). • Achieve or maintain rangeland in satisfactory condition which is defined as: (1) having a resource value rating (RVR) of 50 or above for vegetation or other features; or (2) being in a

East Alpine Rangeland Project 67 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

mid-succession or higher class of ecological status; and (3) having a stable or upward trend in soil and vegetation (pg. IV-26-27). • Implement non-continuous use management systems on all livestock grazing allotments. When feasible, use a rest rotation system when significant range is in unsatisfactory condition (IV-27). • Forage utilization standards obtained from the 1986 Forest Plan are to be used as maximum standards for the development of proper use criteria. In 2001 and 2004, the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan amended the Toiyabe Plan and provided new grazing standards for riparian areas. Design of management systems will include the specific utilization standards to be applied. These standards should be applied based on utilization of key plant species by key area. Soil disturbance may also be used to determine proper use and is often the best measure of proper use on sheep ranges and on granitic slopes (USDA 1986 IV-28-29). • Proper use criteria will be established, in writing, for each unit of each grazing allotment. Proper use criteria are a mandatory part of each allotment management plan. Long-term trend studies are also mandatory to determine if proper use criteria are correct and to determine what is occurring in regard to range condition. Establishing proper use criteria requires Interdisciplinary (ID) team involvement. Proper use criteria define the permissible grazing level in the range unit or pasture (IV-30). • Allow livestock conversions based on resource needs, capability, and management objectives and not solely based on the desires of the livestock user. Conversions will be made in accordance with a management plan, and current range analysis, and if the necessary range improvement structures are in place. Alpine Management Area • Complete nine initial range allotment plans and update one plan (USDA FS 1986, IV-90). • Complete 10,240 acres of initial range analysis and 3,100 acres of updated analysis (USDA FS 1986, IV-90). • Administer and manage 14 grazing allotments, and complete examinations on 14 allotments (USDA FS 1986, IV-90). Existing Wilderness Management Area • Coordinate livestock trailing with adjacent National Forest allotments (USDA FS 1986, IV-109). • Livestock grazing operations, where established prior to designation of wilderness, shall, pursuant to Sec. 4(d) (4) (2) of the Wilderness Act, be permitted to continue, subject to provisions of 36 CFR 293. "Committee Guidelines and Policies Regarding Grazing in National Forest Wilderness Areas" (H.R. Report No. 96-1126, dated 6/24/80) will be applied in a practical, reasonable, and uniform manner in all National Forest wildernesses. These guidelines and policies are applicable only to livestock grazing operations (USDA FS 1986, IV-109-110). The Framework, as amended in 2004, added the following standards and guidelines for several Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs): • Under season-long grazing on meadows in early seral status, livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants is limited to 30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). For meadows in late seral status livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants is limited to a maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). Ecological status is to be determined by using Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks. If meadow ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, grazing is to be modified or suspended (USDA FS 2004, RCO #5-120, p. 65).

68 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

• Under intensive grazing systems (such as rest rotation and deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization levels can be higher than the levels described above if the meadow is maintained in late seral status and meadow-associated species are not being impacted. Degraded meadows require total rest from grazing until they have recovered and have moved to mid- or late seral status. Degraded meadows are defined as those in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meadow area in bare soil and active erosion (USDA FS 2004, RCO #5- 120, p. 65). • Browsing is limited to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Livestock are to be removed from any area of an allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation (USDA FS 2004, RCO #5-121, p. 65). • Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots (USDA FS 2004, RCO #2-103 p. 63).

3.2.2 Desired Condition The Forest Plan provides the following direction for management of vegetation: • Ninety-five percent of all rangelands will have been brought to satisfactory condition (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). • Management plans will have been approved for all grazing allotments and wild and free-roaming horse and burro territories (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). • Livestock and wild horse/burro use will have been maintained at pre-existing levels (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). • Noxious farm weeds will be under control (USDA FS 1986, IV-4). The Toiyabe Forest Plan was amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) in 2001 and 2004 and includes additional direction related to desired conditions and livestock grazing within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). Riparian Conservation areas are land allocations that are managed to maintain or restore the function of aquatic, riparian and meadow ecosystems (USDA 2001 ROD pp. A- 7). RCAs generally include all vegetation within 300 feet of the bank full edge of a perennial stream and 150 feet from seasonally flowing streams. Desired conditions for meadows within RCAs includes maintaining the “ecological status of meadow vegetation in late seral condition” (50 percent or more of the relative cover of the herbaceous layer is late seral with high similarity to the potential natural community) (USDA 2004 ROD pp. 42).

3.2.3 Current Condition The project includes the following allotments: Cottonwood, Bagley Valley, Dumont, and Silver King. The total acreage of the allotments is approximately 60,904 acres; this total includes only Forest Service administered lands within the project area. The acreage for the entire project area, including BLM, private, and California State Lands is approximately 69,266 acres. Permitted use by allotment is shown in table 22.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 69 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 22. Current Livestock Allotments and Permitted Use within the Project Area.

ALLOTMENT PERMIT ON OFF NUMBER OF HEAD TYPE NAME EXPIRATION DATE DATE ANIMALS MONTHS

Bagley Valley C&H 2015 6/11 10/20 7 yearlings 30

Cottonwood C&H 2016 6/26 10/25 133 cow/calf 533

Dumont C&H 2015 7/16 9/30 85 cow/calf 216

Silver King C&H N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Permitted Livestock Grazing Totals 225 779

The East Alpine Rangeland Project area vegetation components are characterized by diverse plant communities of mixed conifer, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, mountain brush, aspen, and meadows and streams that create riparian corridors. Elevation ranges from 5,200 feet at the East Fork Carson River to 10,833 feet at Whitecliff Peak, which is the highest peak in the project area. Vegetation types for the project area were characterized (table 23) and mapped (Appendix A) by dominant land cover, dominant vegetative cover, and overstory tree diameter (USFS Vegetation). Mapping methods included using automated, systematic procedures, remote sensing classification, photo editing, and field based observations. Map attributes consist of land use Anderson 1, life form cover type, FGDC physiognomic order, class and subclass, vegetation types using the Classification of California Vegetation (CALVEG) classification system and forest structural characteristics. Table 23. Acreage by Dominant Community Type

COMMUNITY TYPE ACRES IN PROJECT AREA

Pinyon/Juniper Woodland 5,703

Riparian 872

*Aspen 1,166

Uplands** 25,831

Mountain Big Sagebrush 8,670

Basin Big Sagebrush 2,247

Low Sagebrush 2,622

Basin Mixed Scrub 4,108

Mixed Sage/Bitterbrush 2,454

Mountain Shrub 1,723

Grassland 1,594

70 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

COMMUNITY TYPE ACRES IN PROJECT AREA

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 2,413

Conifer Forest/ Woodland 22,291

Other (barren/snow/agriculture) 2,142

Total 58,005 *Acreage was calculated using Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC), Existing Vegetation Map of Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, as well as CALVEG data. Several years of ground verification has found an error pertaining to the amount of aspen. Many of the aspen sites are small and consequently were underestimated. **The total upland acres is equal to the sum of the sub-categories of uplands. This value was included in the total number of acres in the project area. Monitoring Methods Short-term and long-term (effectiveness) monitoring has been completed across the project area in key areas and would continue in high priority areas in the future. Monitoring has the dual purpose of ensuring compliance with the proper use criteria for an allotment and determining whether the current management of the allotment is maintaining or moving the area toward functioning condition. Implementation and focused effectiveness monitoring are critical to determine when or if management changes should be made and to guide the direction that those changes take. Short-term monitoring occurs across the Carson Ranger District annually. This kind of monitoring is based on general observations of rangeland conditions by the Forest Service and reports from other onlookers. This monitoring is done in conjunction with rangeland management, as well as other resource management activities (i.e., fisheries, wildlife, archaeology, etc.). End of season utilization would be monitored using the annual monitoring methodologies included in the Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements from the Interagency Technical Reference (Interagency Technical Reference, 1734-3,. 1996). These are the methods referred to in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. Long-term studies serve as both a baseline for future trend monitoring assessments as well as an inventory of raw data to support current rangeland health conditions. Range field crews have established permanent long-term trend studies within upland sites across the project area. In addition, the Forest ecology team established eco-plots in dry to wet meadow systems, as well as aspen stands. Rangeland health data was collected across the Carson Ranger District in key areas representative of the allotment using a variety of methods; which include; nested frequency, line intercept, photo points, and point intercept cover. The long-term monitoring sites are to be re-evaluated approximately every 5 years, using approved monitoring methods, which are listed in Forest Service Handbook 2209.21, chapter 40 and riparian protocols described in Cowley and others (2005) and Winward (2000), to determine rangeland condition. Monitoring locations may be added or modified over time to adjust to new and/or updated information (FSH 2209.21, 42). Determining Functionality Using raw data from the long-term monitoring, species composition and frequency figures were rated according to the appropriate dominant community type scorecard and/or matrix to determine an ecological status of each study area. The results were classified as functioning, functioning-at-risk and non-functioning for the Matrices, and high, moderate, low, or very low similarity to potential natural vegetation for the riparian scorecards.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 71 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Based on review of all available data sources, site visits, and district personnel’s professional observations and knowledge of the project area, the interdisciplinary team was able to determine the condition of each allotment. The original studies can be found in the project record. Assessment Methods Upland study sites were analyzed using the Matrices. Riparian studies in meadow systems were evaluated using the Eastern Sierra Nevada Riparian Field Guide scorecards to determine current condition. Using these assessments as a starting point, the Matrices can be used later to determine site- specific conditions of riparian areas. Eastern Sierra Nevada Riparian Scorecards Eastern Sierra Nevada Riparian ecological scorecards were developed to ascertain riparian ecological type classification across Forest Administered Lands in the Sierra Nevada (USDA FS 1999). The sampling was conducted from 1994 through 1997 by the Forest ecology team, within the sub-watersheds of the Walker, Carson and Truckee rivers in the Sierra Nevada, Sweetwater Mountains, Excelsior and Carson ranges. Ecological status is determined by comparing collected vegetation data to potential natural community (PNC), defined by appropriate ecological type scorecard. The ecological status is classified as low, moderate, or high similarity to potential natural community (table 3). Matrices The Matrices were developed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest for making community type assessments (USDA FS 2009). The Matrices provide an ecological approach and include measurable parameters for soil, vegetation, hydrology, and disturbance factors that indicate whether a vegetation community, and the habitat it represents, is functioning, functioning-at-risk, or non-functioning. The Matrices supply quantitative measures for field personnel to use to determine the ecological condition of various community types (for example, mountain big sagebrush, wet meadows, aspen, and mountain mahogany). Through the Matrices, a community type would be correlated to a plant alliance (table 24) at the field data collection level. The Matrices are based on field research, literature reviews, and National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ecological site descriptions. Trend/Apparent Trend Trend is a quantitative assessment of change based on repeated measurements at the same location over time of the kind, proportion, and/or amount of plant species and soil surface properties. It provides quantitative data for interpreting the direction of change, often before it is detectable by repeated photographs over time. Trend provides feedback to indicate if management objectives are being reached. Under adaptive management processes, if progress is unsatisfactory/non-functioning, modification in management practices may be needed after information is evaluated. Trend in a desired condition attribute when compared to management objective(s), refers to the change in an attribute at a particular location. The direction of trend is based on whether the changes in vegetation and soil conditions are desirable or undesirable for specific management objectives. Trend can be described in desired conditions as “meeting,” “moving toward,” or “not meeting”, as well as “stable,” or “away” (FSH 2209.13- 44.1). Also, trend is characterized as “toward potential,” “away from potential,” or “static” (SRM 1989), or “direction of change over time” (FSH 2209.21). For this analysis, apparent trend is used because the same monitoring method was not used to collect data for many of the long-term monitoring plots. Apparent trend was initially gathered in the 1960s, and is referred to as Rangeland Environmental Analysis (REA) data per Range Analysis Handbook 22.4-2. Apparent trend is based on the conditions at hand without repeated or comparable methods of data collection.

72 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 24. CrosswalksVegetation Cover Types (CALVEG) to the Vegetation Groups Used by the Matrices (USDA FS 2009).

CATEGORY MAPPED COVER TYPE MATRICES VEGETATION GROUP

Pinyon- Juniper Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinyon-Juniper Mixed Woodland

Dry-to-moist meadow Riparian Grassland Riparian Wet meadow

Riparian Shrub Stream

Aspen Aspen

Low sagebrush Low sagebrush

None if sagebrush <50%; add to Mountain Mixed sagebrush/bitterbrush brush site if <50% sagebrush

Mountain big sagebrush Mountain big sagebrush Upland Basin Big Sagebrush None

Curly leaf mountain mahogany Mountain mahogany

Mountain shrub Mountain brush

Grassland Appropriate upland vegetation group

Basin mixed scrub None

Conifer forest/ woodland None Other Non-vegetated – Barren, Snow, Mining, None Urban, Agriculture The criteria and process included in the Matrices was scientifically peer reviewed. The Matrices describe categories of specific conditions for these same vegetative types that would be considered to be in a declining state from functioning. The attributes included in the functioning condition category are the desired conditions for the project area. The Matrices also describe categories of specific conditions for these same vegetative types that would be considered to be “functioning-at-risk” and “non-functioning” or unsatisfactory. Vegetative communities in either of these conditions would be considered less than desired. However, for vegetation communities that are functioning-at-risk or non-functioning, it is important to determine if the community condition is improving, stable, or declining. This may also be described as trending upward or downward. East Alpine Project Area The vegetative component of the project area is the most readily recognizable and obvious part of the landscape. The overall category of vegetation can be separated into two individual components: upland and riparian. Each of these can be further broken down into specific community types. For the project area, dominant community types have been grouped into conifer forest/woodland (mixed conifers),

East Alpine Rangeland Project 73 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

pinyon-juniper woodland, aspen, riparian (wet, dry, and dry-to-moist meadows), and uplands (mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, Basin big sagebrush, mountain brush, mixed sage/bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, and grasslands). The groups analyzed are depicted on maps (Appendix A). Table 2 displays the acreages of these vegetative community types within the project area based on available data. A more detailed breakdown of vegetative types by allotment is in the existing condition by allotment section of this document. Not all of these vegetative communities are affected to the same degree by changes in livestock grazing, nor are all-vegetative types accessible or capable for livestock grazing. The vegetative communities most affected by changes in livestock grazing management over the expected life of this analysis are uplands, riparian, and aspen. Riparian Vegetation Riparian vegetation communities are generally characterized as being scattered throughout the project area, and are associated with streams, seeps, and springs. These communities comprise some of the most valuable forage and habitat for livestock, fisheries and wildlife, as well as playing a critical function in providing abundant and clean water. Riparian vegetation communities include wet meadows, moist-to- dry meadows, aspen, cottonwood, and stream communities. Meadow complexes within the project area are typically associated with streams, seeps, or springs. This analysis will discuss both wet meadows where the water table is closer to the surface and dry-to-moist meadows where the soil is dry part of the year, and the water table is not as close to the surface. Isolated meadows, springs, and seeps are more common and scattered throughout the project area. Meadow types are most likely the first plant communities to experience livestock impacts and have been impacted by livestock grazing more than any other vegetation community on the Carson Ranger District. Wet Meadow Group Wet meadow community types are generally associated with seeps and springs at a groundwater depth of 0 to 100 centimeters, and occur from 5,200 to 10,000 feet in elevation (USDA FS 2009). In a functioning condition, they typically have deep soft granular soils that are saturated most of the year, support a dominance of deep rooted, broad-leafed perennial grasses and grass-like species plus a variety of forbs. There should be minimal bare ground. Several wet meadows within the project area may be smaller now due, in part, to early twentieth-century grazing. Soil compaction and down cutting of stream channels have reduced available soil moisture to the extent that it prohibits the growth of wet meadow species such as Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis). Perennial grasses and sedges were replaced by shallow rooted annual and perennial grasses, tap rooted forbs, and shrubs such as curly dock (Rumex sp.), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinate), western yarrow (Achillea millifolium), aster (Symphyotrichum sp.), cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis), and silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana). Manning and Padgett (1995) suggest that management of these communities should allow for regrowth at the end of the grazing season in order to replenish spring growth. The typically wet, fine textured soils are susceptible to compaction and hummocking by excessive livestock use, particularly if the sod layer is broken and hummocks are present. Under severe grazing pressure, especially when accompanied by a drop in the water table, Nebraska sedge can be replaced by species with wider ecological amplitude, such as Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) (Manning and Padgett 1995).

74 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Dry-to-Moist Meadow Group Dry-to-moist meadow community types occur within the project area. Depth to ground water in moist meadows is 55 to 100 centimeters; 100+ centimeters in a dry meadow system. These meadow systems occur from 5,200 to 10,500 feet in elevation. In a functioning condition, these meadows would be occupied by species such as Sandberg bluegrass, (Poa secunda), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), Great Basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), and Douglas sedge (Carex douglasii). For those dry-to-moist meadows that are functioning-at-risk, or not as desired, there may be a large component of Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis). These areas are often the places where livestock concentrate first, because of an increase in the abundance of grasses over the uplands, and because the soils are not as wet as in the wet meadows. Therefore, these areas were some of the most heavily impacted during the historically excessive grazing periods. Early in the grazing season when water is more abundant, livestock generally stay out of the wet meadow areas, congregating in the dry-to-moist meadow vegetation. Many of the dry-to-moist meadows within the project area have experienced a loss of soil moisture resulting in a conversion to drier meadow or upland plant species. The typically clayey or clayey skeletal soils are susceptible to compaction when wet. As sites dry, they are less likely to be compacted under light to moderate grazing (Manning and Padgett 1995). Early twentieth-century grazing has contributed to the conversion of many of these meadows to species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), foxtail barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), and Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus), annual grasses may be present as well. California false hellebore (Veratrum californicum), aster species (Symphyotrichum spp.), cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis), and sagebrush species are becoming more and more common in moist-to-dry meadows. Sagebrush species seem to be encroaching into dry-to-moist meadows because of a drop in the water table as well. Stream Stream communities are found in most allotments within the project area. Streams range from steep gradient willow dominated streams to lower gradient systems with a mixture of meadows, willows. Several willow species (Salix sp.) occur in the project area within riparian communities. Willows provide habitat and shade to wildlife, stream bank stability, and root structures that withstand high water flows. Willow species that occur in the project area include Geyer willow (Salix geyeriana), coyote willow (Salix exigua), lemon willow (Salix lemmonii), and mountain willow (Salix eastwoodiae). Graminoids and forbs would include rooted sedges (Carex sp.), rushes (Juncus sp.), and other wetland grasses. Monkeyflower (Mimulus sp.), cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), monkshood (Aconitum columbianum), and tall bluebells (Mertensia ciliata) are often associated with stream communities. As a general observation, willow dominated perennial streams within the project area have shown the best improvement in conditions. In the Bagley Valley and Dumont Allotments, willow regeneration is evident, and streams are recovering/re-establishing a floodplain due to long periods of rest- However, several concerns remain. Past grazing practices have affected willow species due to browsing of new lateral shoot growth and young seedlings, particularly in the low gradient streams in the broad valley bottoms. Mature willow species found in areas where livestock tend to congregate for long periods, lack lateral shoots resulting in mushroom-shaped willows; also called “high-lining”. This is a concern for the northern portion of the Cottonwood Allotment as livestock distribution was a problem.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 75 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Upland Vegetation Sagebrush The major sagebrush communities found in the project area are mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), and low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula). Other sagebrush species such as basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) and silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) also exist in the project area but to a lesser extent. Basin big sagebrush and silver sagebrush is often intermixed with the major species or occurs in small patches within the major communities identified above and has similar impacts and potential risks as the adjacent sagebrush types. This sagebrush community varies widely and is found throughout the project area between 5,200 to 10,000 feet in elevation. Sagebrush communities on the project area are generally mature sagebrush stands due to the long fire frequency, few are a mix of young stands with an understory of cheatgrass due to recent large fires. Mountain Big Sagebrush Group Mountain big sagebrush communities are found within all allotments in the project area. Mountain big sagebrush occurs between 6,000 and 10,000 feet in elevation, occupying the upper sagebrush precipitation zone of 10 to 25 inches annually. Slopes are typically between 2 to 50 percent. Soils are moderately deep, well drained, and include a high rock or gravel component. These communities are also found on relatively mesic mountainside slopes and drainages, as well as high elevation valley bottoms. The graminoid understory is generally composed of basin wildrye (Leymus cinerus), slender wheatgrass (elymus trachycaulus), Thurber’s needle grass (Achnatherum thurberianum), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), mountain brome (Bromus marginatus), and other associated species. Shrubs, which may be present, include snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus), serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.), and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). Isolated individuals of curlleaf mountain mahogany are also found within this community. Mountain big sagebrush stands generally produce forage for livestock and wildlife. On these sites, cheatgrass may increase over time, although not to the extent of drier sagebrush stands. Mountain big sagebrush is easily impacted by fire; however, reestablishment is quicker due to the abundance of available seed. Other shrubs (e.g. rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus ssp.) and gray horsebrush (Tetradymia canescens) are quick to sprout after fire and increase with reoccurring fire events, forming dense stands. Livestock grazing and fire frequency are two factors that have been noted as influencing the percent cover of sagebrush, percent bare ground, and understory species composition. Mountain big sagebrush is a fire- adapted system. The lack of fire can lead to an increase in the shrub canopy, and loss of the understory. In the project area, the lack of fire has resulted in large patches of homogenous stands of mature sagebrush. Heavy grazing can also lead to a loss of the understory and increase in bare ground. Shrubs, including sagebrush, may become more abundant and have an increase in canopy cover with a potential loss in ground cover. As herbaceous cover is decreased through heavy grazing, soil loss is accelerated and the changes result in a downward spiral (Pieper et al. 1999). Low Sagebrush Group Low sagebrush is generally located at moderate to high elevations between 5,000 and 11,800 feet in elevation with 10 to 22 inches of precipitation, and 2 to 30 percent slope. Soil surface has loose to granular structure, often with high clay content and is stabilized by organic matter decomposition, surface gravel, and/or biological crust (USDA FS 2009). The graminoid understory in functioning low sagebrush communities, consist of Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), onion grass (Mellica bulbosa) and Idaho fescue

76 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

(Festuca idahoensis). Forbs, which may be present, include Rydberg’s penstemon (Penstemon rydbergii), phlox species (Phlox ssp.), silvery lupine (Lupinus argenteus), Indian paintbrush (Castilleja sp.), tapertip hawksbeard (Crepis acuminata) and other associated forbs. Associated shrub species may include yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentate), and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius). Mountain Brush Several shrub-dominated types have been grouped under mountain brush. Mountain brush dominant shrub species may include antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), wax current (Ribes cereum), snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos ssp.). The mountain brush group occurs between 6,000 to 10,000 feet in elevation and receives 12 to 22 inches of precipitation annually, mostly in the form of snow (USDA FS 2009). The graminoid understory is generally composed of basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), wheatgrass ssp., western needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale), tall squirreltail (Elymus multisetus), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), and mountain brome (Bromus marginatus). Stands of mountain brush are most common within allotments in the project area, on sites more moist than sagebrush and near or within large aspen stands. The mountain brush community supports a diverse group of plant species; provides important watershed values, cover, and protection for wildlife; and provides good forage for many wildlife species. Mountain Mahogany Curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) is an evergreen shrub or small tree up to 23 feet tall. It occurs where soils are typically shallow, nutrient-poor rock outcrops and steep slopes, and ridges. Mountain mahogany forms small to large stands on the drier slopes. Mountain mahogany is intolerant of fire and is a valuable browse plants for game animals within the project area. Mountain mahogany is among the most palatable of shrubs to all classes of browsing animals, although locations are often on hard-to-reach slopes. The largest stands are located within Silver King Allotment. This community type includes woodlands and shrublands dominated by mountain mahogany with scattered junipers (Juniperus sp.), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and pines (Pinus sp.) (USDA FS 2009). Common shrubs include mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), with species of rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.), currant (Ribes), or snowberry (Symphoricarpos). The understory is often very sparse and dominated by bunch grasses including needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata) and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda). According to district personnel, most stands within the project area are mature with young trees being established on the outer edges of the stands. This expansion of the stands is occurring because of fire suppression allowing the fire intolerant mahogany to expand into mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush communities. Stands typically occur on steep, rocky hill slopes and ridges on south and west facing slopes. The majority of the mountain mahogany stands are located on incapable rangeland (i.e., too steep) and are not typically impacted by grazing. Flatter and lower elevation sites are more accessible by livestock. These areas are commonly used for shading which can cause bare soil and increased soil disturbance leading to increased erosion, reduced availability of leader growth, and increases in undesirable species such as cheatgrass. Other Shrub Types Other shrub types include mixed sagebrush/bitterbrush. These community types are similar to mountain big sagebrush, and mountain brush sites. Areas dominated by mixed sagebrush/bitterbrush are found at low to mid elevation. These stands generally lack a diversity of age classes and are dominated by mature

East Alpine Rangeland Project 77 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

and over-mature plants. In some areas, the understory of these stands has an ever-increasing component of cheatgrass. These areas are at risk for fire and ultimately conversion to cheatgrass. Matrices have not been developed for these shrub types; however, it is likely that the condition of these shrub types would be similar to the surrounding sagebrush types. This group will not be discussed in detail below, but it is recognized as an important component of the landscape. Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands Pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation communities include pinyon, juniper, pinyon-juniper, mixed woodland communities. Within the Great Basin, pinyon-juniper has expanded its range greatly since settlement, primarily in the last 100 years (Barney and Frischknecht 1974). It has been suggested by many researchers/managers that one of the causes of the pinyon-juniper expansion is the exclusion of fire. The expansion has been primarily into the shrub-grass community types located in lower elevations; however, high elevation shrub-grass communities have also been affected by the expansion. If unmanaged, trees become dominant and eventually crowd out herbaceous and shrub species (Barney and Frischknecht 1974). Specifically, increasing densities of pinyon-juniper will reduce light, water, and nutrient availability, which causes the decline in understory shrub and herbaceous vegetation (Naillon et al. 1999, Miller et al. 2000, Johnson 2005). Pinyon-juniper woodlands are identified by phases. Phases are organized by tree stand cover and understory characteristics. In Phase I trees are present on the site, however, the shrub and herbaceous layers are the dominant influence on ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles). In Phase II trees are co-dominant with shrub and herbaceous layers. All three layers influence ecological processes. In Phase III trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary layer influencing ecological processes. Shrubs no longer dominate the understory- a lot of bare ground and limited scattered brush and grasses (Stebleton and Bunting 2009). According to vegetation modeling and district knowledge, pinyon-juniper woodlands are present within the project area, mostly Phase I and II; with a smaller portion in Phase III. Phase II is characterized by active expansion of pinyon-juniper, moderate to high seed production, active tree recruitment, and a nearly intact understory layer (Miller et al. 2007, Miller et al. 2000). Phase III is characterized by reduced expansion of pinyon-juniper, low to moderate seed production, limited tree recruitment, and a dead/thinning understory (Miller et al. 2007, Miller et al. 2000). Phase I, II and III pinyon-juniper are intermingled throughout the project area, and mostly occurring on the Cottonwood Allotment. The progression of Phase II to Phase III marks the increase in tree density on sites well occupied by pinyon-juniper. Phase I pinyon-juniper stands are generally associated with sagebrush communities. Vegetation such as shrubs, forbs, and grasses are commonly found in the understory of Phase I pinyon-juniper, and contribute to the overall species diversity of the Phase I pinyon-juniper plant community. Phase I stands produce adequate forage to support livestock, and was considered in the rangeland capability analysis, and are included in analysis for sagebrush plant communities. In general, Phase II and III stands exhibit low understory production and are therefore not commonly utilized by livestock. Use in these areas by livestock is typically for shading only. Minimal impacts from livestock shading and bedding have been noted during district staff observations. While Phase II and III pinyon-juniper stands are recognized as an important component of the landscape, they will not be analyzed in detail because of expected minimal use by livestock. Mixed Conifer Mixed conifer species make up 38 percent of the dominant cover type within the project area. A protocol for accessing mixed conifer stands has not been made because livestock grazing generally does not occur in in this vegetation community. Based on the capability/suitability analysis, the majority of conifer stands in the project area are considered to be non-capable for livestock grazing. This is due primarily to

78 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

conifers being in late seral condition with dense understory vegetation and down woody debris that is not conducive to sheep grazing. Any grazing in conifer stands would be considered incidental. In these areas proper use criteria associated with upland habitat types would be applied. Some bedding may occur in more stands with little to no understory vegetation. Aspen Aspen stands are found from approximately 6,100 feet in elevation along streams to approximately 9,000 feet in elevation just below some of the highest peaks on the district. Aspen communities have high species biodiversity, second only to riparian areas on western ranges (Nevada Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2004). These stands are also important for watershed protection, wildlife, and recreational values. Aspen communities typically occur along stream banks or areas that have a supply of moisture (seeps, snowdrifts, etc.) at lower elevation and form larger, broad patches at higher elevations. Snow aspen with stunted and twisted tree growth occur where snow banks remain into early summer. Soils in aspen sites have deep nutrient rich surface layers, a thick mollic layer and are well drained. The high water holding capacity of this community is much higher than surrounding sites. These characteristics allow for a diverse understory of grasses, forbs and shrubs (Sheppard et al. 2006). Aspen is continuing to decline throughout the west. Fire suppression, livestock grazing, and conifer encroachment are recognized as players in the species overall decline (Kay 1997, Bartos and Campbell 1998, Mueggler 1988). A lack of fire disturbance, as well as heavy ungulate browsing of young saplings, can reduce quaking aspen regeneration, age-class distribution, and understory diversity. Historic livestock grazing, as well as wild ungulate grazing can modify the understory species composition (Kay and Bartos 2000, Mueggler 1988). Based on exclosure studies, livestock grazing reduced the abundance of native grass and increased the amount of non-native species and bare soil (Kay and Bartos 2000). The heavy grazing has altered the species creating grazing-induced successional stages of aspen communities (Mueggler 1988). Species that are likely to increase due to grazing are Kentucky bluegrass, common dandelion, California false hellebore, annuals, mule ears, forget-me-nots, timber milkvetch and western yarrow. Furthermore, modification of natural fire regimes coupled with excessive browsing by livestock have resulted in competition from conifer establishing within aspen stands (Jones et. al. 2005). Noxious and Invasive Weeds Noxious weeds are highly invasive plants that generally possess poisonous, toxic, parasitic, invasive, and aggressive characteristics. Noxious weeds are defined by federal or state laws. Cheatgrass, an invasive species, will be discussed in this section. Known weed infestations are depicted on maps 2a, and 2b located in the appendices. The presence of noxious weeds signifies an area is at risk from a health and sustainability viewpoint, whether or not the landscape is disturbed or pristine (O’Brien et al. 2003). Noxious weeds are highly invasive and have the potential to spread throughout the project area if not managed intensely. Infestations reduce the amount of available forage for wildlife and livestock, and have the ability to take over large areas of land, reducing valuable public land resources. Noxious weeds are capable of producing highly viable seeds, which can persist in the soil for several decades (D’Antonio and Meyerson 2002). Majority of the project area is relatively free of noxious and/or invasive weeds with the exception of a few isolated infestations. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest utilizes an integrated pest management program that includes early detection, mapping, mechanical, biological, and herbicide treatments, however, no herbicides are used in California. Weeds occurring in small populations across the project

East Alpine Rangeland Project 79 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

area include; hoary cress (Cardaria draba), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). These species typically dominate areas after major disturbances such as fire, overgrazing, or heavy recreational use. Noxious weed seed is transported and dispersed by livestock, wildlife, recreation, and motor vehicles (USDI BLM 1998, Freilich et al. 2003). The Intermountain Regional Forester signed a Noxious Weed Free Hay Order in February 2003. Pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50 (a) and (b) CFR 261.58(t), order 04-00-097, a Regional Forester may prohibit possessing, storing, or transporting any part of a tree or other plant, as specified in the order. This order prohibits the transport and storage of any hay products onto National Forest System lands unless the products are certified by the state of Nevada as noxious weed free. Hoary Cress (Cardaria draba) Hoary cress or whitetop is common along the East Fork of the Carson River within the Cottonwood Allotment. Patches occur along roadways and the river banks, as well as adjacent riparian areas within the allotment. Hoary cress is spread by livestock (private land), motor vehicles, and the East Fork Carson River within the project area. Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans) Musk thistle occurs in small patches along hiking trails, roads, and streambanks within the project area. Musk thistle typically is a biennial, but it may complete its life cycle as a winter annual or occasionally as an annual (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Musk thistle depends upon seed production for reproduction and spread (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Bull thistle occurs in small patches along roads, hiking trails, and streambanks within the project area. Bull thistle is typically a biennial with a short, fleshy taproot, but it occasionally acts as an annual. It depends upon seed production for reproduction and spread (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Other Noxious Weeds Various weedy mustards occur within the project area. Such species include tall tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). The following species are not known to occur within the project area; however, there are infestations adjacent to the project area, with potential for them to become established. These include: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). Both species could affect the northern portion of the Cottonwood Allotment. District personnel annually monitor for weed infestations. New infestations would receive the highest priority for treatment. Table 25 displays the acreage of noxious weeds by allotment.

80 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 25. Mapped Acres of Noxious Weeds by Allotment.

HOARY CRESS BULL THISTLE *MUSK THISTLE GRAND TOTAL ALLOTMENT (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)

Bagley Valley 0 0 0 0

Cottonwood 150 51.4 .298 201

Dumont 0 0 0 0

Silver King 0 0 0 0 *Although musk thistle is not mapped in the Bagley Valley and Dumont Allotments, district personnel have manually treated approximately .1 acre or less within these allotments. Musk thistle is located along hiking trails in Dumont, and along streams that cross roads in Bagley Valley. Cheatgrass Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) is one of the most notorious invasive species in North America; the impacts of cheatgrass have been widely documented. The magnitude of the invasion and effects on native ecosystems makes this possibly the most significant plant invasion in North America (Chambers et al. 2007). Various adaptive characteristics make this annual plant successful- including prolific seed production, rapid root growth at low temperature, high nutrient uptake rates, and, most significantly, an adaptation to frequent wildfire (Chambers et al. 2007). The competitive strategy of cheatgrass within native plant communities includes rapid growth and development before perennial plants break winter dormancy. As a winter annual, cheatgrass will use available early spring soil moisture and soil nutrients to the competitive disadvantage of native plants. However, unlike perennial grasses, cheatgrass is less able to respond to grazing with regrowth, unless the plants are grazed at flowering, when it has been noted that grazing may trigger a regrowth of flowering stalks yielding more seeds than ungrazed plants (Hendrickson and Olsen 2006). Cheatgrass invasion is primarily limited by temperatures at upper elevations followed by available water (Chambers et al. 2007). Below 6,700 feet elevation, there is a greater risk of invasion of cheatgrass and conversion of sagebrush steppe communities to annual grassland after wildfire. The spread of cheatgrass is often presumed to have been exacerbated by heavy cattle grazing in the late 1800s and early 1900s; however, cheatgrass will also infest ‘ungrazed’ sites as some other form of disturbance acts as a vector. Other vectors may include pack stock, hikers, 4WD and OHV users. Climate change in the Sierra Nevada may also enable invasion by cheatgrass (Ratliff 1985, Menke et al. 1996). Earlier snowmelt is shrinking snowpacks, decreasing stream flows and ground water supply, and increasing drought stress on plants (McCarty 2001, Walther et al. 2002, and Hamlet et al. 2005). Invasion by non-native species is an expected consequence of this change to Sierran habitats (Menke 1996, Schwartz et al. 1996) and exotic plants are increasingly recorded throughout the Sierra Nevada (Manley et al. 2000). Montane meadows, which play important roles in hydrology, erosion control, nutrient cycling, provision of forage for wildlife and shelter, and recreation (Kattelmann and Embury 1996), may be especially sensitive to climate change because of their high sensitivity to drying (Anacker et. al. 2010). The most effective way to reduce the impact of invasive species is to identify new occurrences and eradicate them. In the beginning of an invasion, there is a window of opportunity where eradication is possible and economically feasible.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 81 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Figure 6. Ecology Plot Locations for the Project Area

82 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Existing Condition by Allotment The following sections summarize the current condition and trends for the various vegetative groups by individual allotments. The locations of conducted plot studies are shown on figure 6. Cottonwood Allotment The Cottonwood Allotment is located within the East Fork Carson River watershed. The allotment is split into four grazing units: River Ranch, Cottonwood, Leviathan, and Haypress unit. In 1992, a soil reconnaissance was made by the Forest’s Ecology team of some key areas on the Cottonwood Allotment and a landscape scale analysis was completed following data collection. The 1992 soil reconnaissance report can be found in the project record. Riparian areas, allotment-wide were on a downward trend except for River Ranch meadows due to irrigation. Wet meadows showed reduced plant vigor, and drying trends. Erosion from headcuts was severe in some areas, particularly in the Leviathan Unit. Poor livestock distribution and cattle congregation in meadows and adjacent uplands led to slight to extreme soil compaction in areas. Season-long cattle grazing with heavy actual use levels had occurred for many years on the allotment. This caused poor growing conditions to develop. According to the 1992 landscape assessment, uplands appeared to be in good condition. The report also stated that although cattle use in aspen stands was evident, negative effects on aspen from grazing were not widespread. Vegetative communities being analyzed within this allotment include mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, mountain brush, mountain mahogany, aspen, riparian meadow, and mixed conifer. Based on review of all available data sources, site visits, and district personnel’s professional observations and knowledge of the project area, the interdisciplinary team was able to summarize the ecological condition for each dominant vegetation type across the Cottonwood Allotment (table 26). • Meadow systems are functioning-at-risk. • Upland vegetation communities are functioning-at-risk. • Aspen stands are functioning-at-risk. • Mixed conifer stands are functioning. Apparent Trend Condition and trend data (REA data) obtained during 1967 field collection indicated that the apparent trend of the allotment was approximately 1 percent in an upward trend; 35 percent was in a downward trend, and 64 percent was static. The sagebrush communities indicated a downward apparent trend across the allotment, while riparian communities were on a downward apparent trend only within the Leviathan Unit. Both vegetative and soil attributes similarly contributed to the apparent trend ratings. Reference 1972 Cottonwood Allotment Management Plan, and REA data maps located in the project record. A designation of static indicated that trend was not discernible. Table 26. Data Summary for the Cottonwood Allotment.

PLOT CODE DATE PLOT NAME COMMUNITY TYPE CONDITION

10159 5/20/2010 Lower Cottonwood Meadow Moist Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10161 6/9/2010 Haypress Meadow Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10163 6/10/2010 Spring 052 Silver Sagebrush Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10162 6/9/2010 Junction 056 Low Sagebrush Functioning

East Alpine Rangeland Project 83 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

PLOT CODE DATE PLOT NAME COMMUNITY TYPE CONDITION

10164 6/10/2010 Upland 190 Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning-at-Risk

10204 7/7/2010 River Ranch Upland Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning-at-Risk

10205 7/8/2010 N. Cottonwood Canyon Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning-at-Risk

10200 6/22/2010 Bear Side Hill Mountain Brush Functioning-at-Risk

10198 7/24/2010 Last Stand Aspen Functioning-at-Risk

10211 7/24/2010 Best Aspen Aspen Functioning-at-Risk

Based on recent ecological monitoring conducted in 2010, vegetation communities within the River Ranch unit are currently at a functioning-at-risk condition. The apparent trend within riparian areas at River Ranch can be considered downward because of the vegetative attributes. Unlike in 1967, soil conditions are improved. The condition of the River Ranch riparian areas is functioning-at-risk due to the presence of several noxious and invasive weed species interspersed with native vegetation within the unit. Several early seral species also exist within the unit, altissimum, and Chlorospora spp. These circumstances could be attributed to the disrepair of the irrigation system within the River Ranch Unit, as well as previous unauthorized livestock grazing, and motorized use in the area. Vegetation communities within the southern portions of the allotment (Cottonwood, Leviathan, and Haypress Units) also yield a functioning-at-risk condition, but with an upward apparent trend. Although there is an abundance of early seral plant species, there is a uniform ground cover in riparian systems, and the uplands are in good condition. Soil conditions for the allotment are considered to be in an upward apparent trend due to the uniform ground cover in meadow systems, and the recovery of headcuts along creeks. The greatest improvement can be seen on the Leviathan Unit both in sagebrush and riparian plant communities. Noxious weed infestations are limited to certain units on the Cottonwood Allotment (201 acres, table 25). Noxious weeds known to occur on the Cottonwood Allotment include hoary cress (Cardaria draba), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), as well as weedy mustards. In general, invasive and noxious weed infestations are concentrated in the River Ranch Unit; small, isolated pockets of bull and musk thistle are located throughout riparian areas in the allotment, and cheatgrass is common. Hoary cress is mainly along the streambanks of the East Fork Carson River, and the private land within River Ranch unit. As part of the Carson Ranger District noxious weed program, ongoing treatments, including hand pulling, and the use of herbicides is conducted for portions of the infested areas. Mapping of noxious weeds along the river corridor was completed in 2010 and 2011. Inventory data will be used to complete the East Carson River Weed Management Strategy in 2013. Active permit management, a changed grazing strategy, and Forest Service lead treatments of noxious and invasive weeds have contributed to the overall allotment condition. As stated in FSH2209.13- 44.1, “trend is a quantitative assessment of change based on repeated measurements at the same location over time…”, and apparent trend is based on the conditions at hand without repeated or comparable methods of data collection. For this analysis we can only use apparent trend. Bagley Valley Allotment The Bagley Valley Allotment is located within the East Fork Carson River watershed. In 1998, an environmental analysis was completed for the Bagley Valley Allotment. Bagley Valley was highly

84 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

erodible, and 57 percent of the main channel was an actively expanding gully system. Gullies started circa 1910-1912; large rock dams were constructed in the main channel during the 1940’s as an attempt to control the erosion, but proved unsuccessful. The fine textured soils of the gullies are sensitive to disturbance and have a very low recovery potential. Bagley Valley was rated non-functional in 1998. In a 1999 decision notice, non-use by livestock was continued for Bagley Valley except for trailing purposes. It would remain in non-use until watershed restoration activities were completed, and desired conditions reestablished. A large watershed restoration project was completed in Bagley Valley in 2000 to provide for a stable, self-maintaining system. The project moved the road system, as well as improved headcuts that developed over time on Bagley Valley Creek. It also encouraged the reestablishment of desired species, and promoted bank stabilization. The creek has since established a new floodplain, and is vegetated with proper stream bank stabilizer species such as Carex nebrascensis. This project was successful, and its effects have become stable at this time. Similar to the USFS, BLM active management of lands includes maintenance of existing rangeland improvements and monitoring of grazing permits. The BLM Bagley Valley permit coincides with Forest Service Bagley Valley permit, and would be managed as a natural grazing unit. The BLM uplands are utilized during the early spring. By distributing use across both agency boundaries, over the long term would have positive effects upon upland and riparian vegetation communities. Spreading grazing pressure across a larger landscape would decrease areas of concentrated use and the possibility of heavy grazing on sensitive systems. Data to be used in this vegetative analysis was collected in 2010. Vegetative communities being analyzed within this allotment include mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, silver sagebrush, aspen, and riparian meadows. Based on review of all available data sources, site visits, and district personnel’s professional observations and knowledge of the project area, the interdisciplinary team was able to determine condition for each dominant vegetation type across the allotment (table 27). • Meadow systems are functioning-at-risk. • Upland vegetation communities are functioning • Aspen communities are functioning-at-risk. Apparent Trend Condition and trend data (REA data) obtained during 1967 field collection indicated that the apparent trend of the allotment was static, and the condition was fair. A designation of static indicated that trend was not discernible. Apparent trend was only taken at sagebrush and conifer sites within the allotment because the riparian areas were privately owned at the time. Both vegetative and soil attributes similarly contributed to the apparent trend ratings. REA data maps are located in the files at the Carson Ranger District. In 1998 (prior to the watershed restoration project), the vegetative condition rating for Bagley Valley was non-functioning. Based on recent ecological monitoring conducted in 2010, sagebrush vegetation communities, and riparian communities within the allotment are currently at a functioning-at-risk condition. The apparent trend within the allotment is considered upward because of the improved condition rating for vegetation and soil attributes. The condition of the allotment is functioning-at-risk due to the disproportionate amount of early seral stage plants in riparian areas; however, a more uniform ground cover in riparian and sagebrush communities, and improved soil conditions support the upward apparent trend. The watershed restoration project and lack of heavy grazing pressure has aided in the recovery of riparian and meadow, and sagebrush vegetative communities in Bagley Valley. As stated in FSH2209.13- 44.1, “trend is a quantitative assessment of change based on repeated measurements at the same location over time…”, and apparent trend is based on the conditions at hand

East Alpine Rangeland Project 85 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

without repeated or comparable methods of data collection. For this analysis apparent trend can only be used for Bagley Valley. Table 27. Data for the Bagley Valley Allotment.

PLOT CODE DATE PLOT NAME COMMUNITY TYPE CONDITION

10166 6/11/2010 Muddy Boots Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10170 6/14/2010 Knob Hill Moist Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10167 6/12/2010 Bagley Aspen Aspen Functioning-at-Risk

10165 6/11/2010 Hooker’s Hill Low Sagebrush/Silver Sagebrush Functioning

Noxious weed infestations are limited in the Bagley Valley Allotment, and have not been mapped, however, district personnel have located individual plants (less than one acre, table 25). Noxious weeds known to currently occur on the Bagley Valley Allotment include bull thistle. In general, invasive and noxious weed infestations are located in small isolated pockets, predominantly along streambanks. Treatments have focused on controlling and reducing the spread of this invasive and noxious species by hand pulling. Noxious weed treatments appear to be effective at controlling and minimizing infestations; infestations do not appear to be increasing in size. Dumont Allotment The Dumont Allotment is located within the East Fork Carson River watershed. The Dumont Allotment is made up of four grazing units: Silver King, East Carson River, Poison Flat, and under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) the new “Snodgrass unit.” The Dumont Allotment has an expired AMP from 1975. A 1999 decision notice authorized light grazing in the Silver King Valley, all other areas of the allotment remained in non-use by livestock until desired conditions reestablished. Light grazing occurred for six years in Silver King Valley until the permit was waived to another permittee. Livestock trailing was authorized in Silver King Valley from 2008-2012. The rest of the allotment has not been grazed in more than 10 years. An excerpt from the 1999 ROD describes desired condition… “Within 20 years rangelands would be in satisfactory condition (rated as excellent or good, or fair with upward trend, OR would be in mid-seral or later seral status) or progressing toward satisfactory condition. Maintain the maximum amount of riparian vegetation through existing irrigation systems. Promote an upward trend in range conditions. Strive for a minimum of 60 percent ground cover on upland range types.” Noxious weed infestations are limited on the Dumont Allotment, and have not been mapped, however, district personnel have located individual plants (less than one acre, table 25). The only noxious weed known to currently occur is bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). In general, invasive and noxious weed infestations are located in small isolated pockets, predominantly along hiking trails. Mechanical treatments have focused on controlling and reducing the spread of this invasive and noxious species by hand pulling. Noxious weed treatments appear to be effective at controlling and minimizing infestations, infestations do not appear to be increasing in size. Silver King Valley Irrigation Silver King Valley is currently converting to a dry meadow system, and is dominated by two species: Carex nebrascensis, and Juncus balticus. The meadow has a small component of early seral forb species, and cheatgrass. The disrepair and disuse of the irrigation system has allowed the water table to drop. Currently, it cannot support a diverse array of species. Sagebrush is encroaching in the meadow, which is

86 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects the natural ecological progression of a lowered water table. There are three main, historical, non- functioning to partially functioning water diversions on Silver King Creek, two are within the Carson- Iceberg Wilderness, and one is outside of the wilderness boundary. The subsequent ditches branch out to allow for approximately 500 acres of irrigation. The upper west ditch (inside wilderness), and lower east ditch (outside wilderness) diversion points require heavy maintenance with mechanical equipment to replace culverts. The five irrigation ditches throughout Silver King Valley require minor maintenance (removal of sagebrush, downed trees, and structure maintenance). Although the diversions and ditches are in disrepair, the Forest Service along with the permittee and NRCS are proposing to fix the system to provide approximately 500 acres of irrigated pasture. The Forest Service owns the water rights for irrigation. Vegetative communities being analyzed within this allotment include riparian wet meadows, dry-to-moist meadows, mountain big sagebrush, aspen, and streams. Based on review of all available data sources, site visits, and district personnel’s professional observations and knowledge of the project area, the interdisciplinary team was able to determine condition for each dominant vegetation type across the allotment (table 28). • Meadow systems are functioning-at-risk. • Aspen communities are functioning. • Woody riparian/Stream systems are functioning-at-risk. • Upland vegetation communities are functioning. Apparent Trend Condition and trend data (REA data) obtained during 1967 field collection indicated that the apparent trend was mostly static, with the exception of the E. Carson River Unit which appeared to be on a downward trend due to the poor condition rating in sagebrush communities. The rest of the allotment had a fair to good condition rating; with excellent ratings in Silver King Valley (due to irrigation). A designation of static indicated that trend was not discernible. REA data maps are located in the project record. Table 28. Data for the Dumont Allotment.

PLOT CODE DATE PLOT NAME COMMUNITY TYPE CONDITION

10168 6/12/2010 Vaquero Camp Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10169 6/13/2010 Dumont Silver King Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10192 7/20/2010 Backache Meadow Moist Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10194 7/21/2010 Falls Meadow Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10195 7/22/2010 Colorado Meadow Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

10171 6/14/2010 Mosquito Alley ASPEN Functioning-at-Risk

10191 7/20/2010 PF Aspen ASPEN Functioning

10196 7/22/2010 SS Aspen ASPEN Functioning

10193 7/21/2010 Falls Meadow Upland Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning

East Alpine Rangeland Project 87 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

PLOT CODE DATE PLOT NAME COMMUNITY TYPE CONDITION

10197 6/22/2010 T Fork Upland Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning

10201 6/23/2010 Upland By Aspen Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning-at-Risk

10203 6/30/2010 Silver King West Upland Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning-at-Risk

10207 7/22/2010 Mineral Mountain Upland Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning-at-Risk

10208 7/14/2010 Rodriguez Flat Mountain Big Sagebrush Functioning-at-Risk

28116 8/10/2008 Poison Flat Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

Based on recent ecological monitoring conducted in 2010, vegetation communities within the allotment are currently at a functioning-at-risk condition, with the exception of upland communities, which are functioning. Meadow systems yield a disproportionate amount of early seral stage plants, but show a more uniform ground cover in riparian systems; improved soil conditions also support the condition rating. The apparent trend within the allotment is considered upward because of the improved vegetation and soil attributes. In a 2008 repeated apparent trend analysis for the Poison Flat Unit, desirable plant species were limited and not establishing. It was speculated that a drying trend in the meadow could move the vegetative attributes away from desired condition within Poison Flat. Future repeated trend data will confirm or disconfirm this speculation. As stated in FSH 2209.13- 44.1, “trend is a quantitative assessment of change based on repeated measurements at the same location over time…”, and apparent trend is based on the conditions at hand without repeated or comparable methods of data collection. For this analysis apparent trend can only be used for Dumont. Silver King Allotment The Silver King Allotment is entirely within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. Sheep grazing occurred in this area from the early 1900s until about the 1930s when cattle predominantly grazed the area. In 1912, and again in 1924, Paiute cutthroat trout (PCT) were transported below and above Llewellyn Falls, which is within the allotment boundary. PCT are classified as a threatened species. Streambank restoration work occurred within the allotment throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was determined that rested areas were in a significant upward trend with respect to vegetation; grazed areas were in unsatisfactory condition with a static trend. In 1995, the term grazing permit was cancelled due to noncompliance- excess use by livestock. Because of the excess use, the Forest Service was out of compliance with Fish and Wildlife Service standards. The allotment has remained vacant since 1995. Summary of Current Vegetation Conditions/Trends Data to be used in this vegetative analysis was collected in 2008. Vegetative communities being analyzed within this allotment include riparian meadows. Based on review of all available data sources, site visits, and district personnel’s professional observations and knowledge of the project area, the interdisciplinary team was able to determine condition for each dominant vegetation type across the allotment (table 29). • Meadow systems are functioning-at-risk. • Noxious weeds do not occur.

88 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Apparent Trend Condition and trend data (REA data) obtained during 1967 field collection indicated that the apparent trend was mostly static, with a condition rating of good. REA data maps are located in the project record. Table 29. Data for the Silver King Allotment.

PLOT CODE DATE PLOT NAME COMMUNITY TYPE CONDITION

R-2-3 #28117 8/11/2008 Corral Valley Dry Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

R-2-1 #28118 8/12/2008 Four Mile Canyon Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

R-2-2 #28121 8/14/2008 Upper Coyote Valley Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

R-2-2 #28122 8/14/2008 Upper Coyote Valley Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

R-2-2 #28123 8/14/2008 Upper Coyote Valley Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

#28119 8/13/2008 Upper Fish Valley Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

#28120 8/13/2008 Upper Fish Valley Wet Meadow Functioning-at-Risk

Based on recent ecological monitoring conducted in 2008, vegetation communities within the allotment are currently at a functioning-at-risk condition. The apparent trend within the allotment is considered upward, or moving toward desired conditions with the exception of low plant vigor for desirable species. A more uniform ground cover in riparian systems; improved soil conditions; and the removal of livestock grazing support the upward apparent trend. As stated in FSH 2209.13- 44.1, “trend is a quantitative assessment of change based on repeated measurements at the same location over time…”, and apparent trend is based on the conditions at hand without repeated or comparable methods of data collection. For this analysis apparent trend can only be used for Silver King. Noxious weed infestations are not known to occur on the Silver King Allotment. No species have been mapped, and district personnel have not located any plants along hiking trails or streams (table 25).

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences Riparian Vegetation The effects of livestock grazing on meadows vary depending on the level or intensity (duration) of grazing. Excessive grazing, especially season long, would weaken the desirable fibrous heavy rooted grasses and grass-like species (Platts 1990). Under heavy grazing, livestock can trample and compact the soils, which over time would create hummocks, increase bare ground, and lower the water table (1990). As plants weaken, less desirable plants move in that survive and thrive on areas with lowered water tables. Several different studies have been done on stubble height and utilization in riparian areas to determine the appropriate grazing level for maintaining the integrity of these areas. Maintaining a minimum streamside stubble height of approximately 10 cm. (4”) may be near optimal in many, but not all, situations when considering several riparian issues, such as maintaining plant vigor, entrapping and stabilizing sediment under inundated flow, and trampling of stream banks (Clary and Leninger 2000). 40–50 percent utilization and 3–4 inch stubble height are suggested to be equivalent for maintenance of

East Alpine Rangeland Project 89 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

plant vigor (Clary and Webster 1989). A 3”–4” of stubble height would maintain riparian components where use on willows begins when use on herbaceous plants reaches about 45 percent (Clary and Webster 1989). The appropriate stubble height can change depending on the type of stream and soil components (Clary and Leninger 2000). There are times when 15–20 centimeters (6 to 8 inches) may be required to reduce willow browsing or limit animal impact on vulnerable stream banks. Grazing strategies in riparian areas must provide for regrowth of riparian plants for healthy plant vigor, or should leave sufficient vegetation at the time of grazing for maintenance of plant vigor and stream bank protection (Clary and Webster 1989). Maintaining a minimum stubble height can help preserve forage plant vigor, reduce browsing on willows, stabilize sediments, and indirectly limit stream bank trampling (Clary and Leninger 2000). Livestock grazing in wet meadow communities (rhizomatous species) with higher utilization, along with compaction can reduce herbage production (Clary 1995). Because meadows, springs, and seeps are dispersed throughout the uplands, livestock tend to favor these areas, and higher utilization levels are often noted in many of these communities. Dry-to-moist meadows often make up different dominant plant species. Although the drier meadows are closely associated with wet meadows, livestock may use the drier areas at different times. The timing and intensity of the impacts may differ. Livestock use in spring and early summer tends to be on the dry-to- moist meadows due to the higher percent of favored grasses within the dry-to-moist sites and the saturation of the soils in the wet meadows. Although a small percentage of the project area is riparian, proper management of these areas is critical to the overall health of the entire project area. The continued use of grazing systems that do not include the requirements of riparian vegetation would only perpetuate riparian problems (Elmore and Beschta 1987).

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Meadow Group Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) sets proper use criteria set forth in the Sierra Nevada Framework, for the representative vegetative groups in the project area. With these criteria in place there are expected to be no negative effects to the condition or the meadow community. These levels of utilization vary based on the forage being utilized (herbaceous or woody), the vegetative group type, and the ecological condition of that group. The proper use criteria levels are based on end of season utilization measurements on the various habitat groups. To ensure that these end of season levels are not exceeded, appropriate within season triggers would also be applied. In consideration of the Forest Plan and the Sierra Nevada Framework, Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) proposes use criteria of 40 percent on desirable forage species for most areas that are properly functioning. These areas are classified as late seral status, where fifty percent or more of the relative cover of the herbaceous layer is late seral with high similarity to potential natural community, a diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present, and regeneration is occurring. It is estimated that 40 percent is equivalent to a 4 inch stubble height. The comparable value for areas functioning-at-risk/early seral conditions is 30 percent. These areas are classified as early seral status, where an early stage of succession in a plant community or vegetation type is taking place. Early seral is generally characterized by plant species that are adapted to colonizing disturbed areas with a high portion of bare soil. 30 percent utilization is estimated to be equivalent to a 6 inch stubble height. Furthermore, in meadows that are degraded (such as those in early seral status with a greater than ten percent meadow area in bare soil and active erosion), total rest from grazing is required until they have recovered and have moved to a mid or late seral condition.

90 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Under more conservative grazing levels (for example, residual stubble heights that promote plant vigor and sediment capture), the desired plants can maintain their health, and the site retains its integrity. If the site is functioning-at-risk, light to moderate grazing (<35 percent) should allow the site to begin to decrease the amount of bare ground, and the site’s vulnerability to the establishment of noxious weeds or other undesirable plants should be reduced (Platts 1982). There is relatively little research on the interventions and use limits needed to restore non-functioning areas. Many researchers have observed that areas that have crossed ecological thresholds may require other interventions to restore function and that merely eliminating grazing may not be sufficient (Holechek et al. 2004, Pieper 1999, Miller et al. 1999). Besides putting strict limitations on grazing use in riparian areas, which could affect the season of use on adjacent upland areas, additional riparian area fencing and head cut repair may be needed. These actions would require a separate NEPA analysis and decision. Under proper management including reduced use levels, riparian areas can exhibit somewhat resilient recovery pattern, especially if water table levels are maintained or restored. Currently, the project area does not have non-functioning riparian areas. Range Developments These sites tend to experience concentrated use. Livestock developments are located within the project area on the Cottonwood, Dumont, and Silver King Allotments. The proposal to change the kind of livestock from cattle to sheep would have a positive affect because sheep do not require fence lines. Existing fence lines would not be maintained, and would be removed as time and budgets allow. Water developments would remain on allotments within the project area to ensure appropriate management of livestock. Existing cattle troughs would be replaced with sheep troughs within the Cottonwood Allotment. Some water developments are occasionally relocated to improve or protect resources, and to alleviate concentrated use in a single location. Monitoring and continued assessments would identify areas of concern (watering sites), and management adjustments. Utilization standards, and general guidelines associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would maintain or improve ecological conditions in concentrated use areas. The proposal to change the kind of livestock from cattle to sheep would have a positive affect because sheep require a 24-hour herder who would regulate time spent at watering sites in riparian areas. In the future, additional structures may be required; however, approval would be obtained by future environmental analysis. Water Diversions The proposal to use the existing irrigation system in Silver King Valley has a wide range of effects within the meadow system of Silver King Valley. By irrigating the meadow the water table is expected to rise, which would provide habitat for more vegetation species diversity, which can be utilized by wildlife and livestock. Furthermore, it would preserve the quality of the view shed for recreationists by maintaining a large riparian landscape; it would reduce cheatgrass invasion; it would enhance habitat for wildlife; it would provide the greatest forage for livestock across the entire Dumont Allotment, and help sustain a successful grazing operation. Refer to the MRDG in the project record for more information on Silver King irrigation. Stream Group Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the maximum allowable herbaceous utilization would remain at 40 percent on all streams. If a stream is functioning-at-risk, the maximum allowable utilization would be reduced to 30 percent, and where streams are generally non-functioning, or determined to be in a downward trend, utilization would be further reduced to 25 percent, or suspended. In addition, maximum utilization standard of riparian woody species including willows would be set at 20 percent. In cases where the condition of the stream community is non-functioning/early seral, utilization would be reduced to 10 percent. This alternative would result in an upward trend in the condition of most

East Alpine Rangeland Project 91 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

stream communities. Communities that are currently functioning as desired would continue to maintain that level (Clary 1995). Impacts for herbaceous understory would be similar to those disclosed for meadow systems. Disturbance of meadow-associated stream banks and natural lake and pond shorelines would not exceed 20 percent of the stream reach or 20 percent of the natural lake or pond shoreline. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the maximum utilization standard is further reduced to 25 percent for herbaceous and 10 percent for browse for non-functioning areas. There is relatively little research on the interventions and use limits needed to restore non-functioning areas. Many researchers have observed that areas that have crossed ecological thresholds may require other interventions to restore function and that merely eliminating grazing may not be sufficient (Holechek et al. 2004, Pieper 1999, Miller et al. 1999). Providing rest one out of three years or every other year and additional protection from livestock grazing during the hot season on some of the years in which the area is grazed should allow for maintenance or improvement in the woody species composition (Clary et al. 2000). Design criteria would require rest one out of every three years. Research shows if utilization remains around 45 percent, substantially less browsing of willows and other riparian shrubs should occur (Clary et al. 2000). Water Diversions The proposal to reinstate irrigation in Silver King Valley would have an effect on Silver King Creek. The project would be designed by Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) engineers to limit the effects to the water source (Silver King Creek) such as alterations in channel morphology. Channel alterations can lead to channel incision and can cause changes to water retention along the riparian zone. This can amount to less water being available during low flow periods. The water that does flow beyond the points of diversion would continue to flow in the creek and converge with the East Fork Carson River. Refer to the MRDG in the project record for more information on Silver King irrigation. Cumulative Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), most other management actions and uses that currently occur on the Carson Ranger District would continue resulting in impacts on riparian resources. The total cumulative effects on vegetation resource would generally be reduced, as the potential impacts of livestock grazing would be reduced under proper use criteria. Monitoring and continued assessments would identify areas of concern, and procedures outlined in this alternative would move resource conditions toward desired conditions.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Meadow Group Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would remove livestock grazing from the project area. After removal, the condition of seeps, springs, and meadows is expected to improve; however, permanent removal of grazing would not guarantee sustained increases in herbaceous plant production. One study indicated the following: “the meadow reached peak production in 6 years and then declined until production was similar to the adjacent area grazed season-long"; “the accumulation of litter over a period of years seems to retard herbage production in wet meadow areas” (Clary and Webster 1989). Stream Group Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would remove livestock grazing from the project area. After removal, the condition of some streams is expected to improve in the Cottonwood Allotment, and continue to improve in the remaining allotments (Myers and Swanson 1995). Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), willow communities would regenerate more rapidly on most

92 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

streams. Streams that are dominated by early seral species such as Kentucky bluegrass would improve rapidly and over time the species component would become more dominated by later seral species such as sedges (Schultz and Leininger 1990). Bare ground is expected to decrease. Cumulative Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), most of the other management actions and uses that currently occur on the Carson Ranger District would continue resulting in impacts on riparian vegetation resources. The total cumulative effects on vegetation resources would improve at a faster rate, because the impacts of livestock grazing would be eliminated under this alternative, the potential cumulative effects would be reduced. Upland Vegetation Grazing livestock can directly impact upland communities by trampling on specific plants and injuring or killing them or by removing too much of the plant too often, which could affect its ability to process sunlight and grow healthy vigorous roots, leaf material, and seeds. As discussed previously, plants subjected to overgrazing would weaken over time and be less able to grow adequate healthy roots, thus reducing above ground production of leaf material, its capability to store carbohydrates for the following year’s growth, and to withstand drought, extreme winters, or additional grazing from herbivores. Over time, if desired plants are weakened through repeated heavy grazing or environmental conditions, other less desirable species that are more adaptable to the impacts may establish and the existing desirable grasses, forbs, and shrub species would decrease. As the less desirable species become more abundant, they may make use of available nutrients and water before, or more efficiently, than the desirable plants even further reducing the ability of the desirable plants to exist in the community. Some of the less desirable plants may be annuals that die at the end of the year, leaving bare ground that is susceptible to erosion. Shrubs, including sagebrush, may become more abundant and have an increase in canopy cover with a potential loss in ground cover. As herbaceous cover is decreased through heavy grazing, soil loss is accelerated, and the changes result in a downward spiral (Pieper 1999).

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Sagebrush, and Mountain Brush Groups Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the maximum utilization for each upland community was identified to provide forage for livestock, for healthy plant growth and reproduction, and to allow adequate residual cover for wildlife habitat needs. The maximum utilization values would be measured at the end of the growing season and are expected to help ensure that plants would be able to produce adequate root growth to remain vigorous and healthy. To ensure these end of season measurements are not exceeded, appropriate within season triggers would be applied to grazing systems and site-specific conditions. Adequate litter to help protect the soil is expected to remain at the end of the grazing season. Increased litter would increase organic matter content in the soil that would improve water holding capability and, in turn, is expected to improve seedling growth. More vigorous plants would be able to produce more seed, which is expected to increase seedlings and over time increase ground cover by desirable herbaceous species and decrease the amount of bare ground. Removal of above ground foliage directly affects a plants ability to grow roots (Dietz 1989). When up to 50 percent of the leaves are removed on a plant, root growth continues unimpaired (Dietz 1989). One study has occurred in mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush habitat with cattle. At moderate use (35 to 45 percent use with rest rotation), grazing had no impact on forage production, cover, or species composition for mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush habitats in fair to good condition after 7 years when compared to no grazing (Laycock and Conrad 1981). Smith and others (2007) note that utilization between 30 and 50 percent, based on total annual production, would provide for continued productivity of the range.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 93 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

In areas where the condition of mountain big sagebrush or mountain brush is functioning-at-risk, the end of season utilization would be 45 percent (rest rotation/deferred) herbaceous, depending on the grazing system; and 40 percent (rest rotation/deferred) browse. To ensure this end of season measurement is not exceeded, appropriate within season triggers would be applied. Review of existing literature showed that conservative grazing can increase forage production and improve vegetation composition on degraded rangelands (Holechek et al. 1999). Non-functioning areas would be reduced further. These levels of use are expected to result in maintaining mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush communities that are either functioning-at-risk or non-functioning. However, if areas functioning-at-risk or non-functioning are at that level because of a high canopy cover, a change in livestock management may not restore the community to functioning (review in Laycock 1999). These areas may currently have increased cover of sagebrush but remnants of the perennial grass and forb understory remain and are expected to allow for recovery of this system (Anderson and Inouye 2001, Robertson 1971). The time for recovery would depend on many factors including site capability and other factors such as fire and drought. Those uplands would still require more active management, such as fire or mechanical treatment, to move the area toward functioning. However, livestock use could further reduce the recovery from other disturbances such as fire. Holecheck and others (2004) recommended 30 to 40 percent use of key species for sagebrush/grassland range types that receive 8 to 12 inches of precipitation depending on condition. Mountain big sagebrush responds rapidly to disturbance; a healthy understory reduces the risk and increases the likelihood of recovery after disturbance. Range Developments Range developments effect the upland vegetation within the project area. These sites tend to experience concentrated use. Livestock developments are located within the project area on the Cottonwood, Dumont, and Silver King Allotments. The proposal to change the kind of livestock from cattle to sheep would have a positive affect because sheep do not require fence lines. Existing fence lines would not be maintained, and would be removed as time and budgets allow. Water developments would continue to effect the vegetation in the project area because these sites tend to have concentrated use. Water developments would remain on allotments within the project area to ensure appropriate management of livestock. Existing cattle troughs would be replaced with sheep troughs within the Cottonwood Allotment. Some water developments are occasionally relocated to improve or protect resources, and to alleviate concentrated use in a single location. Monitoring and continued assessments would identify areas of concern (watering sites), and management adjustments. Utilization standards, and general guidelines associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would maintain or improve ecological conditions in concentrated use areas. In the future, additional structures may be required; however, approval would be obtained by future NEPA documents. Mountain Mahogany Group Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the maximum allowable utilization on browse would be 40 percent (rest rotation/deferred) and herbaceous use would be 45 percent (rest rotation/deferred), depending on the grazing system. These maximum utilization values would be measured at the end of the growing season. To ensure this end of season measurement is not exceeded, appropriate within season triggers would be applied. However, utilization of browse of mountain mahogany at 35 percent should allow for seed production on mature stems to continue (Williams 2009). Seed production is critical to recruitment of mountain mahogany seedlings. Utilization of herbaceous cover at 45 percent should allow for increased seedling survival and improvement of the understory species composition. Most stands are mature and have young trees establishing on the outer edges of the stands. Livestock may loaf or noon in or around mahogany stands due to shade, but there would be limited impacts to just a few stands that are generally less than 0.50 acres in size. Furthermore, sheep generally do not browse on mahogany.

94 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Cumulative Effects: There are no reasonably foreseeable activities planned with in the project area that would either improve or impair the condition of the upland vegetation. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), no additional grazing impacts would be incurred; therefore, resource conditions would remain stable or improve in areas with infrequent use.

Alternative 2: No Livestock Grazing (No Action) Sagebrush and Mountain Brush Groups Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) provides for the greatest rate of change towards maintaining a functioning condition or improving as functioning-at-risk for the upland vegetative communities. Under this alternative, livestock grazing would not continue. The rate of change would be dependent on the current vegetation condition, presence of noxious or invasive weeds, and the impacts and influences of other management actions, and uses within the project area. With the removal of livestock grazing from the sagebrush and mountain brush communities, areas that are functional would continue to function, and the remaining ecological communities would continue to improve over time. Adequate litter would be left every year to provide ground cover to protect soils from erosion and add organic matter; thus, producing the lowest percent of bare ground of the two alternatives. Grasses and forbs would be able to produce seed in adequate quantities to establish new seedlings. Over time more desirable herbaceous species would be reestablished and incorporated in the understory vegetation, improving species composition, for which the site is capable. Some areas functioning-at-risk or are near a new stable condition, and would not show improvement with the removal of livestock (Laycock 1999). For example, sagebrush with an understory of cheatgrass may not improve under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). The conversion to cheatgrass dominated systems is usually caused by fire; however, grazing may have been an important factor in achieving that condition. Perennial grasses did not increase in Basin big sagebrush community after 13 years without livestock grazing (West et al. 1984). Once sagebrush dominates the community and the understory is reduced, other disturbances such as fire may be necessary to restore the system. However, the response can depend on the site and past grazing systems. After 22 years without livestock grazing (Holechek and Stephenson 1983), the response of native grasses and shrubs in a degraded Basin big sagebrush community depended on the site. All of the sagebrush systems are functioning to functioning-at-risk. These areas may currently have increased cover of sagebrush but remnants of the perennial grass and forb understory remain and are expected to allow for recovery of this system. The time for recovery would depend on many factors including site capability and other factors such as fire and drought. The project area is dominated by mountain big sagebrush and mountain brush which is a productive system in areas with higher precipitation. This system should respond to the removal of livestock grazing at a fairly rapid rate. Over time, this alternative would result in the increase of litter and fine fuels which may contribute to the return of fire to the sagebrush community. In the mountain big sagebrush communities, fire serves as a beneficial mechanism to achieve the desired ecological condition. Mountain Mahogany Group Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), most mountain mahogany stands would see little to no change due to the minimal impacts of livestock grazing. After removal of grazing, the condition of the few mahogany stands that are currently being impacted by grazing would improve due to the increased regeneration by mountain mahogany seedlings and improved understory composition. Cumulative Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), most of the other management actions and uses that currently occur on the Carson Ranger District would continue resulting in impacts

East Alpine Rangeland Project 95 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

on upland vegetation resources. The potential impacts of livestock grazing would no longer occur. In areas where the vegetative community is functioning, resource conditions would remain stable or continue to improve. In areas where the vegetative community is functioning-at-risk, resource conditions are expected to trend upward and improve overall health of the site through increased productivity or vigor of individual plants and an increase in the number of plants and a decrease in bare ground due to the entire plant being left as residue. In non-functioning sites, resource conditions would remain stable without restoration treatments. Aspen Light to moderate grazing on species such as willow and cottonwood appears to have little adverse effect and in some cases may stimulate growth. In addition, stem wounds caused by browsing and trampling by domestic livestock, and deer appear to be particularly susceptible to infection. These wounds usually are near the ground. The stem is girdled by the fungus in 2 to 3 years, and Cytospora colonizes the remaining live bark. Because the small canker near the ground is often over looked, Cytospora or the wound is blamed for the mortality. Its frequency of occurrence has not been determined; but the amount of infection and mortality appears to be related to the amount of animal damage within a regenerating stand. Stress from drought causes cankers as well (USDA FS 1985). Defoliation of 75-100 percent of the leaves causes larger Cytospora cankers. Limited browsing does not seem to negatively impact stands. If too many livestock congregate in the aspen stands when soils are wet (such as early in the season), there is potential for soil compaction that could reduce the soil’s ability to absorb and retain water. This could contribute to drying out of the soils with an increase in bare ground and a change in the desired species composition. The larger stands are not usually impacted by herbivores as much as the smaller stands because it seems to be too difficult to access the interior of the larger stands due to the heavy understory, as well as dead and downed trees. These larger stands seem to be impacted mostly on the edges. The smaller stands (less than 5 acres) can be the most heavily impacted.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the condition of aspen and cottonwood stands would be determined within each allotment. Maximum allowable utilization in this community would allow a maximum of 40 percent browse utilization (measured at the end of the growing season) on the available saplings and suckers. To ensure that these end of season levels are not exceeded, appropriate within season triggers would also be applied. Where utilizations are set to 40 percent or less, this alternative would result in an upward trend in the condition of most aspen communities by increasing the success of recruitment of suckers and saplings, decreasing soil compaction and bare ground, and improving the understory species composition. This alternative would result in an upward trend in the condition of most aspen and cottonwood communities. Specific sites may be impacted by other factors (dispersed camping), which increases soil compaction. Those sites may not improve under this alternative. Communities that are currently functioning as desired would continue to maintain that level. Understory herbaceous species composition is also considered as part of a functioning aspen stand. Stands with diverse, healthy understory with reduced bare ground would be more resilient to disturbance and invasion by weedy and noxious species. Livestock Grazing and Range Developments Livestock developments including fences and water developments can affect aspen stands. In the past some water developments were located within or adjacent to stands, which resulted in livestock congregating within and affecting the stands. Fences can also affect aspen communities by concentrating livestock use adjacent to or within aspen communities. These effects are generally isolated and result in

96 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

impacts from livestock trailing along fence lines. Water developments would remain on allotments, however, most fences would be taken down due to the use of a sheepherder instead of a fence within the project area. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), proper use criteria, along with a sheepherder would reduce the impacts to the aspen stands Cumulative Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), most other management actions and uses that currently occur on the Carson Ranger District would continue resulting in impacts on aspen stands. However, most cumulative effects are only within the Cottonwood Allotment. The total cumulative effects on vegetation resource would generally be reduced, as the potential impacts of livestock grazing would be reduced under proper use criteria, and the use of a sheepherder. Monitoring and continued assessments would identify areas of concern, and design features and proper use outlined in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would ensure an increased rate of recovery and move resource conditions towards desired conditions.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would remove livestock grazing from the project area. After removal, the condition of aspen communities would remain in a stable condition. Without livestock grazing, browsing of suckers and saplings and trampling would be reduced. Survival of suckers and saplings is expected to increase. Stands that are currently affected by other influences such as degraded understory species composition, genetic issues, and recreational impacts (Cottonwood Allotment) would remain stable or continue to decline. Cumulative Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), most of the other management actions and uses that currently occur on the Carson Ranger District would continue resulting in impacts on aspen vegetation resources. The total cumulative effects on vegetation resources would be reduced. Noxious and Invasive Weeds Whether or not a landscape is disturbed or in pristine condition, the presence of noxious weeds signifies an area that is at risk. Degraded or stressed plant communities can provide open habitat or sites for the establishment and increase of noxious weeds. Activities associated with livestock grazing can have many effects related to noxious and invasive weeds. Livestock can selectively forage on desired species, transport seeds from undesired species, and cause disturbance to soils and microbiotic crusts. By selectively foraging on desired plants, livestock can give noxious and invasive weeds a competitive advantage over desired plants (Belsky and Gelbard 2000). Selective grazing of palatable plant species reduces their fitness relative to neighboring plants with lower palatability (Augustine and McNaughton 1998). Palatable, native perennial plant species may produce fewer seeds and seedlings in heavily grazed or browsed situations (Crawley 1983, Vavra et al. 2007) and thereby place unpalatable invasive species at a competitive advantage. Domestic livestock can play a role in transporting weed seed on the Forest in several ways. Livestock can enter the Forest with seeds in their fur, hooves, or digestive system from some other area (Chambers and MacMahon 1994, Olsen 1999). The likelihood of animals spreading seeds within a given allotment is much greater because they would be utilizing the allotments through the flowering season. Long distance seed dispersal between pastures may occur when livestock are rotated (Parks et al. 2005). Equipment used to manage livestock may also be a source of seed transport; this can include OHVs, trucks, campers, and stock trucks. Trunkle and Fay (1999), Parendes and Jones (2000), and Gelbard and Belnap (2003) showed that vehicles and roads were major vectors for noxious weed dispersal. For this discussion, the measurement indicator for comparison of the alternatives is the number of acres affected by noxious and invasive weeds.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 97 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the application of moderate end of season utilization levels and rest or deferment every 2 years is expected to maintain or improve vegetative communities that are in functioning ecological condition. These utilization levels are expected to reduce the effects of selective foraging by giving desired plant species greater opportunity to compete with the noxious and invasive weeds. Adding rest or deferment to the allotment grazing system would reduce the impacts to soil conditions and microbiotic crusts. For habitat groups that are in functioning-at-risk ecological condition, the maximum utilization values would be reduced and measured at the end of the growing season. Utilization adjustments are expected to help ensure that plants would be able to produce adequate root growth to remain vigorous and healthy. To ensure these end of season measurements are not exceeded, appropriate within season triggers would be applied to grazing systems and site-specific conditions. These utilization levels are expected to reduce the effects of selective foraging by giving desired plant species greater opportunity to compete with the noxious and invasive weeds. Increased cover of native plants reduces the likelihood of invasion from noxious weeds (Anderson and Inouye 2001). More of the vegetation would be in stable or upward trend, which would result in decreasing open habitat or sites and increased competition from native species. The increases in native plant cover would increase the vegetation communities’ resistance to invasion of non-native species (Anderson and Inouye 2001). Livestock may continue to disperse the seeds of noxious and invasive plants by picking up or ingesting seeds in other areas and then depositing them in the project area. Activities associated with permittee administration such as off road use of vehicles would also continue. Locations along trails and near sheep congregation areas within the project area would continue to provide areas for noxious weed establishment. However, where noxious weeds are present and the area is determined to be functioning- at-risk, the proper use criteria would be adjusted to reduce the influence of livestock on the spread of noxious weeds. Infestations of noxious weeds generally occur within riparian vegetative communities within the project area. Thistle and hoary cress can be found near springs, streams, and meadows in the project area. Infestations by cheatgrass in mountain brush, low sagebrush, and higher elevation mountain sagebrush communities are generally isolated and limited in size. Noxious weeds have a competitive advantage in areas where the native bunchgrasses and forbs are stressed and degraded which can result in areas of disturbance. The simplest effect of some invasions is the displacement of native plant species by simple crowding, competition for resources, or other mechanisms (USDI BLM 1998). An aggressive identification and treatment program on the Carson Ranger District has minimized the effects of noxious weeds within the project area. Cumulative Effects: Roads and trails create soil disturbance that can easily become infested by noxious weeds. Thistle can be found where trails cross a stream. Livestock, wildlife, road maintenance, and vehicles (OHVs, cars, trucks, etc.) contribute to the movement of noxious weed infestations on the Cottonwood Allotment. Noxious weed seed, such as hoary cress, is easily dispersed along roadways and can spread quickly along these routes. Weed infestations are easily located along roads and can be treated efficiently (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Schmidt 1989). The key is early detection and treatment. Furthermore, weeds are located in areas where the trail crosses a stream. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), OHV use on the Cottonwood Allotment would continue to contribute to the dispersal and creation of new infestations. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is expected to reduce acres affected by noxious and invasive weeds because of the proper use criteria associated with condition and grazing system adjustments.

98 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), livestock grazing would be eliminated. Without grazing there would be a reduction in selective foraging or areas of soil or microbiotic crust disturbance resulting from livestock grazing activities. This would result in fewer locations where noxious weeds can be easily established. With the removal of livestock from the allotments, the risk that livestock would transport noxious weed seed into the project area would be reduced. After removal of grazing, activities associated with permittee administration would not continue. The scientific literature previously discussed suggests that the removal or prevention of livestock grazing, as envisioned by Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), does not necessarily inoculate a site against cheatgrass invasion. A variety of studies and observations by Davies and others (2009), Sheley and others (2008), Courtois and others (2004), Edwards (1992), and other researchers indicate that a moderate amount of disturbance, including that envisioned by light to moderate grazing, could build site resistance to invasive plants. Cumulative Effects: Under this alternative, cumulative effects are expected to be the low due to the removal of livestock and livestock related actions from the project area. The noxious weed program would have an even higher rate of success in the control of noxious weed infestations if new infestations or the spread of infestations by livestock were eliminated. The removal of livestock, coupled with this higher rate of success is expected to result in fewer acres affected by noxious and invasive weeds.

3.2.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Disturbance to vegetation from concentrated use areas such as bedding and water developments (i.e. troughs) can lead to irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the resources surrounding the use area. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), short term irretrievable commitments to vegetation near bedding areas would occur. However, bedding areas would be designated in areas that have minimal vegetation such as rocky sites or already disturbed areas (i.e. roads) and would have minimal impacts to vegetation. Furthermore, bedding sites would not be used more than once in each grazing year allowing vegetation to recover (except on roads). Although this project does not propose any new water troughs, the existing trough in the Cottonwood Allotment would continue to be used under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Use of the water development would be regulated. A herder would control the amount of time spent at the water development and proper use criteria (utilization) would apply adjacent to the water development. There would still be effects from the concentrated use. Soils in the area immediately surrounding the trough would be compacted and devoid of vegetation. The total area affected would be less than one acre. This is considered an irreversible commitment because of the consistent disturbance to vegetation and soils that would occur in this area over a long period of time.

3.2.6 Forest Plan Consistency Both of the alternatives considered in this project would be consistent with management direction for vegetation resources in the Toiyabe Forest Plan and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 99 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.2.7 Specialist Report This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Vegetation Specialist Report in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Vegetation Specialist Report is located in the Vegetation folder in the Resources section of the project record and contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA. 3.3 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources The way livestock are managed affects wildlife and aquatic resources and their habitats. This is especially true of areas where native species depend on particular habitat elements. Grazing and the resulting condition of the vegetation, habitat structure, soils, and the disturbances by livestock influence wildlife, habitat distribution and condition, and population status across the district. Habitat for wildlife species is primarily linked to the vegetation groups that individual wildlife species use during their various life stages. The analysis in this section relies on information from the Soil and Watershed and Vegetation sections of this chapter to identify the condition of vegetation groups (habitat types) applicable to special status species analyzed below. The ecological condition for habitat types within the project area were determined by using the Eastern Sierra Nevada Riparian Field Guide and the Matrices protocol for monitoring. The Matrices provide parameters for soil, vegetation, hydrology, and disturbance factors that indicate whether a vegetation community, and the habitat it represents, are functioning, functioning-at-risk, or non-functioning condition. Vegetation communities in non- functioning ecological condition would likely result in negative effects to wildlife and their ability to utilize important habitat. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to analyze the potential effects to two species, the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep which is listed as endangered and the Pacific fisher which is considered a Candidate for listing. The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) was not included in the species list obtained from the FWS (File No: 2012-SL-0320); however, SNBS are known to occur on the adjacent Bridgeport Ranger District and are therefore included in the analysis. The sage grouse was included on the list obtained from FWS as a Candidate species. However, sage grouse are also listed as a Forest Sensitive species and a Management Indicator Species and are therefore analyzed in both the Biological Evaluation (project record) and in the Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report. A separate Biological Assessment was prepared for federally listed and Candidate aquatic species including Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and Yosemite toad (project record). Forest Sensitive Species A Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared for the East Alpine Rangeland Project to analyze impacts to Region Four Forest Sensitive species which have potential to occur in the project area (project record). Based on this analysis, the following sensitive wildlife species were determined to potentially be impacted from the proposed action and are therefore brought forward into the EA: Northern goshawk (analyzed here as MIS), sage grouse (analyzed here as MIS), bald eagle, mountain quail, flammulated owl, white-headed woodpecker, great gray owl, and desert bighorn sheep. Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are identified in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as representing a group of species having similar habitat requirements. MIS habitats are monitored to determine what population changes, if any, are induced by management activities. A review was conducted to determine: 1) if the project is within the range of any MIS, 2) if habitat is present within the proposed project area, and 3) if there are potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effects

100 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

on habitat components. MIS associated species with habitats that may be affected by the alternatives will be analyzed below. The following MIS were selected for analysis for the East Alpine Rangeland Project: • *Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis • *Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus • Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia • Yellow-Rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata • Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus • Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius • Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus • American Marten Martes americana • **Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi • **Paiute Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris • **Macroinvertebrates *These species are also listed as Forest Sensitive and are therefore analyzed in the BE as Forest Sensitive and in this document as a Management Indicator Species. **These species are analyzed in the East Alpine Aquatic Specialist Report and Biological Assessment for Aquatic Species (project record) The following species were not selected for further analysis due to absence of habitat or because the project will not directly or indirectly affect the habitat: • Palmer’s Chipmunk Eutamias spp. Other Species Considered: Two additional species (or species groups) were selected for analysis in this Specialist Report: the Sierra Nevada willow flycatcher (Empidomax traillii adastus) and migratory birds. The Sierra Nevada willow flycatcher is listed as a California State Endangered species and is also considered to be a Species at Risk under the Sierra Nevada Framework. Willow flycatchers are often vulnerable to impacts from livestock grazing due to the overlap in habitat. According to the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service the conservation of migratory birds is to be promoted by ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.

3.3.1 Scope of the Analysis Unless otherwise state below, the analysis area to determine potential direct and indirect effects of the alternatives encompasses the entire East Alpine Rangeland Project area. The cumulative effects area for this project also includes the entire project area and where pertinent, adjacent public and private lands outside of its boundaries. For example, the cumulative effects analysis area for sage grouse includes the entire Pine Nut Population Management Unit (PMU) which extends into Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) lands. Effects that have occurred in the past 10 years, are occurring presently, and/or are expected to occur within the next ten years within suitable habitat within the analysis area will be addressed. Ten years is the period for a livestock permit and is assumed to be an adequate timeframe to gauge how stochastic or longer term events may be affecting population trends and or viability. Management Direction Forest-wide management direction for wildlife and fish include the following goals: • Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will be recognized and protected through habitat management and coordination with state wildlife agencies. Habitat will be in good-to-excellent condition. Lahontan cutthroat trout will be delisted. Paiute trout species will be firmly

East Alpine Rangeland Project 101 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

established. Bald eagle habitat will be maintained and peregrine falcons successfully reintroduced in the Sierra (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6-7). • Fish and game populations will be enhanced and managed at levels commensurate with habitat conditions with an emphasis on improving overall quality of wildlife habitat (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-7). The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework), as amended in 2004, added the following goals for wildlife and fish to portions of the Forest in the Sierra Nevada: • Species Viability: Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate state and federal wildlife agencies to reduce impacts to native populations (USDA FS 2004, p. 32). • Plant and Animal Community Diversity: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions (USDA FS 2004, p. 32). Forest-wide management direction for wildlife and fish include the following standards and guidelines: • Use dropping casts, sage grouse sightings, and historical records to reveal location and importance of sage grouse habitat (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-49). • Maintain 20 percent to 55 percent canopy cover on sage grouse range (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-49). • Maintain meadows in sage grouse range in high ecological status. Where meadows have lost their natural characteristics because of lowered water table, trampling, overgrazing, road building, or for other reasons, take measures to restore the meadows (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-49). • Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat within two miles of leks (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-49). • Maintain desirable sagebrush habitat on known sage grouse wintering (USDA FS 1986, p. IV- 49). • Protect critical areas for sage grouse brood rearing (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-49). • Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-50). • Coordinate management practices which may affect threatened and endangered animal species with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and California and Nevada state wildlife agencies (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-50). • Apply grazing management system aimed at improving key habitat for big game animals and fisheries. As a maximum, browse utilization by livestock or wild horse on key winter ranges will not exceed 30 percent on those areas prior to big game use (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-50). • Minimize disturbing activities (grazing, timber, mining, etc.) on key mule deer habitat (fawning areas, winter rage, riparian areas, holding areas, migration corridors, etc.) (USDA FS 1986, p. IV- 50). • Manage habitats of wolverine, Mount Lyell salamander, yellow warbler, and other wildlife species that may have declining populations or narrow habitat requirements, to assure viable populations at reasonable distributions (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-50).

102 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

• Manage Forest habitats and activities to achieve recovery of threatened and endangered plant species and to ensure that sensitive plant species do not become threatened or endangered (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-51). Alpine Management Area • Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies will be provided for the key resources of developed and dispersed recreation, wildlife, aesthetics, and watershed (USDA FS 1986, p. IV- 87). • Cooperate with the California Department of Fish and Game in securing and maintaining conservation pools in as many of the small reservoirs along the Sierra Crest as possible (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-90). Existing Wilderness Management Area • Maintain and improve Paiute cutthroat trout habitat in Silver King, Coyote Valley, and Corral Valley. Paiute cutthroat trout will have the highest priority in these areas and will be managed to provide for recovery. All conflicts will be mitigated. Improve fishery habitat to good condition in all other portions of the area (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-109). • As opportunities arise, coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game, and provide reintroduction of California bighorn sheep and peregrine falcon in Mono County (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-109). Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework), as amended in 2004 • Detection of a wolverine or Sierra Nevada red fox will be validated by a forest carnivore specialist. When verified sightings occur, conduct an analysis to determine if activities within 5 miles of the detection have a potential to affect the species. If necessary, apply a limited operating period from January 1 to June 30 to avoid adverse impacts to potential breeding. Evaluate activities for a 2-year period for detections not associated with a den site (USDA FS 2004, p. 54). • Conduct additional surveys to established protocols to follow up reliable sightings of great gray owls (USDA FS 2004, p. 54).

3.3.2 Desired Condition The Forest Plan provides the following direction for management of wildlife and fish: • Habitat conditions for Paiute and Lahontan cutthroat trout (threatened species-federal list) will be “good” to “excellent,” and both fish will have been delisted (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-7). • Habitat conditions for the bald eagle and peregrine falcon will have been maintained (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-7). • Peregrine falcons will be present on the Sierra districts (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-7). • Management of habitat for MIS, sensitive species, fish, and big game species will have been emphasized. • Riparian habitats will have been improved by emphasizing their protection and restoration. • The Toiyabe will have continued to work with other agencies, particularly the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game, to determine what opportunities exist for habitat management. The Forest has developed scorecards (appendix A), referred to as the Matrices, that define specific standards for vegetation condition. For each vegetation community (or habitat group), the Matrices

East Alpine Rangeland Project 103 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

include measurable attributes regarding wildlife habitat, including water quality, vegetation condition, and amount of disturbance. The attributes included in the functioning condition category related to water quality, vegetation condition, and disturbances are the desired conditions for wildlife for the project area. The specific vegetation communities that are used by wildlife are identified below in the Current Condition sections for the species considered. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework), as amended in 2004, added the following management direction for Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) located in the Sierra Nevada: • Stands in each northern goshawk Protected Activity Center (PAC) have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh [diameter at breast height]; (3) at least 60 to70 percent canopy cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average (USDA FS 2004, p. 38).

3.3.3 Wildlife Species Analyzed in Detail Federally Listed (or Candidate) Species 3.3.3.1 Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Endangered) Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) herds were once scattered along and east of the alpine crest of the Sierra Nevada from the Sonora Pass area south to Olancha Peak and in similar habitat west of the Kern River as far south as Maggie Mountain (USDI 2007a). Much of the historic habitat of the SNBS occurs on National Forest System lands within the Pacific Southwest Region (Inyo, Sequoia, Sierra, and Stanislaus National Forests) and the Intermountain Region (Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest-Bridgeport Ranger District) (Ibid). The current populations primarily occupy the Inyo and Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forests Bridgeport Ranger District, but some use also occurs in the Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Park, Yosemite National Park, and the Sierra National Forests (figure 7). Herd units are not shown on figure 7, the dense cluster of black dots generally represents the Mt. Warren Herd Unit area. Additional points on figure 7 extending north are individual sheep foray distances. (Tom Stephenson). Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) were listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 20, 1999. Potential for Occurrence: Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep are not expected to occur in or near the project area. Historically, SNBS were not known to occur south of Sonora Pass and were never known to occur in the project area. The last verifiable records for SNBS near Sonora Pass were from 1878 (USDI 2007a). The closest occupied herd unit to the East Alpine Rangeland project area is the Mt Warren which is located approximately 35 miles south of the project area (see figure 7). The dense cluster of black dots on figure 7 generally represent the Mt. Warren Herd Unit area. Additional points extending north are individual sheep foray distances. In 2005, a radio-collared SNBS was recorded in the Green Creek area, likely foraying from the Mt. Warren herd unit (Runcie, personal communication 2012; Stephenson, personal communication 2012). This foray location is approximately 27 miles south of the Dumont Allotment (the southern-most allotment where sheep grazing is proposed). The Twin Lakes and Green Creek herd units are the closest herd units to the East Alpine Rangeland Project but are currently not occupied. These units are between 27 and 30 miles south of the project area. In 2008, critical habitat was designated and included for all recovery units that were listed as essential for recovery (USDI 2008). The Twin Lakes and Green Creek herd units both contain suitable habitat and are expected to contain SNBS in the future, but neither are designated as critical habitat.

104 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Figure 7. Nearest Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Activity to Project Area.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 105 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Potential habitat maps for SNBS were not available for the East Alpine Rangeland Project area. However, based on the known habitat requirements for SNBS, which includes high elevation (above 10,000 feet) canyons with steep terrain and sparse vegetation, the project area would likely not be suitable for SNBS. The project area consists of lower montane conifer, meadow and sagebrush scrub habitat types that are not typically associated with SNBS. Furthermore, expansive, wide open high elevation corridors between the Mt. Warren herd and the proposed grazing allotments occur in a discontinuous pattern and would not be conducive to SNBS migration. Threats: Disease transmission from domestic sheep or goats is considered to be one of the greatest threats to bighorn sheep. Disease transmission can kill large numbers of bighorn sheep with devastating consequences, particularly for smaller, isolated herds (Martin et al 1996). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep based on the following assessment: Disease transmission from domestic sheep or goats is considered to be one of the greatest threats to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS). Disease transmission can kill large numbers of bighorn sheep with devastating consequences, particularly for smaller, isolated herds (Martin et al 1996). The nearest occupied herd unit for SNBS occurs 35 miles south of the project area. See figure 7. To determine the potential risk of disease transmission between Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and domestic sheep use on the Dumont, Bagley Valley and Cottonwood Allotments, a risk assessment was conducted by using a modification of methods and outcome criteria used for the Payette and Shoshone National Forests (USDA 2006, USDA 2012a). Although there is no occupied habitat in or near the project area, bighorn sheep, particularly individual rams, can occasionally travel long distances, or ‘foray’ from their home range during the rutting season. Foray distances vary considerably depending on the herd, topography and other factors. According to the California Department of Fish and Game, two different rams from the Mt. Warren herd in Yosemite have been documented making long forays (up to 33 miles) out of bighorn habitat during the late fall mating season (CDFG 2012a). On the Payette National Forest, most desert bighorn sheep forayed from 0-16 miles outside of their core home range with the longest foray being approximately 22 miles (USFS 2006). Similar distances were recorded by at least three male wild sheep in Montana (DeCesare and Pletscher 2006). The Desert Bighorn Council Technical Staff developed guidelines that include leaving a buffer of at least 8.5 to nine miles between domestic and wild sheep (DBC 1990). This distance was presumably based on anecdotal observations of wild and domestic sheep encounters that resulted in disease outbreaks. For example, researchers in Colorado witnessed a single domestic ram grazing with a group of bighorn sheep, 8.6 miles from the nearest herd of domestic sheep (George et al 2008). The sighting coincided with a disease outbreak that eventually spread to two additional herds (Ibid). The principle assumption for rating disease transmission risk is that the closer domestic sheep and bighorn sheep get to one another, the higher likelihood of disease transmission and outbreak in wild sheep herds. This assumption was used in determining the following five potential outcomes where domestic and wild sheep are separated by varying distances. Using foray distances known for SNBS as well as for desert bighorn sheep on the Payette, the following potential risk outcomes were developed: Outcome 1 (Very low risk): Occupied herds 33 miles or more from a domestic sheep allotment: Very low risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of very low likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns.

106 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Outcome 2 (Low Risk): Occupied herds 22 miles or more from domestic sheep allotment: Low risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of low likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep or goats and bighorns. Outcome 3 (Moderate risk): Occupied herds 16 miles or more of proposed East Alpine domestic sheep allotments: Moderate risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of moderate likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns. Outcome 4: (High risk) Occupied herds within 9 to 16 miles of proposed East Alpine domestic sheep allotments: High risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of high likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns. Outcome 5: (Very high risk): Occupied herds within 0 to 9 miles of proposed East Alpine domestic sheep allotments: Very high risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of very high likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns. Based on the above, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep have a “very low” risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep grazing within any of the East Alpine Range allotments. This is due not only to the distance of occupied herd units, but also the lack of potential habitat for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep within the East Alpine project area. Wildlife biologists from the California Department of Fish and Game who have considerable knowledge of bighorn sheep biology and management concur with the above assessment (Stephenson, personal communication 2012). Because of the lack of habitat overlap between domestic and desert bighorn sheep, there would be no other types of direct or indirect effects such as displacement or competition for forage. Cumulative Effects: Due to the lack of occupied and suitable habitat within the project area and the very low risk of disease transmission, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: The project area is not considered suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there would be no changes to habitat conditions that would make it less or more conducive to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Determination: Based on the above assessment it is determined there would be No Effect to the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep from Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). This determination is based on the following: • No occupied herds within the analysis area. • Nearest herd unit is more than 33 miles from the project area and therefore potential for disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep is considered very low. • Lack of habitat for SNBS in the project area.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Due to the lack of occupied and suitable habitat within the project area, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to SNBS under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). The risk of disease transmission would be reduced from very low risk to no risk as domestic sheep would not be present in the East Alpine Allotments. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: The project area is not considered suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Therefore, similar to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there would be no changes to habitat conditions that would make it less or more conducive to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing).

East Alpine Rangeland Project 107 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Determination: Based on the above assessment it is determined that Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) for the East Alpine Rangeland Project would have No Effect on Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. 3.3.3.2 Paiute Cutthroat Trout (Threatened) and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Threatened) Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: The Silver King Allotment currently encompasses almost the entire current range of Paiute cutthroat trout (PCT) which was extended into the upper reaches of Silver King Creek and its tributaries by one or more unofficial transplants above Llewellyn Falls starting in 1912 (reviewed by Behnke and Zarn 1976, Ryan and Nicola 1976, Moyle 2002). Paiute cutthroat trout occupy approximately 20.6 miles of habitat in five widely distributed drainages. The present distribution in the Silver King Creek watershed consists of populations in Upper Silver King Creek above Llewellyn Falls (2.7 mi.), Fly Valley Creek (1.1 mi.), Four Mile Canyon Creek (1.9 mi.), and Bull Canyon Creek (0.6 mi.), as well as below the falls including Coyote Valley Creek (3.0 mi.) and Corral Valley Creek (2.2 mi.). All of these areas were historically fishless (USFWS 2004). PCT were listed as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1973. Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) is an inland subspecies of cutthroat trout endemic to the Lahontan basin of northern Nevada, eastern California, and southern Oregon. Historic LCT distribution in the Upper Carson River watershed included most of the East Fork Carson drainage downstream from Carson Falls including Silver King Creek downstream of Silver King Canyon (USFWS 1995). Currently, small populations have been introduced into six formerly unoccupied headwater streams of the Upper Carson River watershed: East Fork Carson River, Murray Canyon Creek, Poison Flat Creek, Golden Canyon Creek, Heenan Creek and Red Lake. Two populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout are known to occur within the project area- Murray Canyon Creek (~241fish/mile) and Poison Flat Creek (~896 fish/mile) (Deinstadt et al. 2004). LCT were listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 1975. Potential for Occurrence in Analysis Area: The East Alpine Rangeland Project is contains the Silver King drainage. Paiute cutthroat trout are endemic exclusively to the Silver King drainage. Currently, Paiute cutthroat trout occur within the Silver King Allotment above Llewellyn Falls. The East Alpine Rangeland Project is located in the Carson River drainage which is in the Western Lahontan Basin GMU as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Dumont Allotment historically contained both the Murray Canyon Creek and Poison Flat Creek both of which are currently occupied LCT streams. In Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the revised Dumont Allotment boundary and closure of the Silver King Allotment would exclude occupied streams for both LCT and PCT from the effects of grazing. Threats: Historic threats to PCT include habitat loss due to past livestock grazing practices, introduction of rainbow trout, unregulated angling, and habitat alteration due to introduced beavers (USFWS 2004). Although some habitat improvement has occurred in Silver King Creek due to changes in grazing management, similar threats still exist (USFWS 2004). Recreation occurs in and around PCT streams. Heavy recreation poses a risk to stream bank stability and trout habitat. Introduced trout pose the greatest risk to the subspecies. Effective fish barriers occur downstream of all remaining populations, but the threat of humans moving other trout species into these protected reaches continues. Threats to LCT include: habitat loss associated with land management practices; reduction and alteration of stream discharge; alteration of stream channels and morphology; degradation of water quality; and hybridization or competition with non-native fish species (USFWS 1995).

108 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives The occupied range of these species is within the portions of the Silver King and Dumont allotments that would be closed to grazing under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). No grazing would be authorized in entire project area under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). The closure of the Silver King Allotment follows recommendations in the PCT Recovery Plan (2004) and is expected to be a beneficial effect for Paiute cutthroat trout and the adjustment of the Dumont Allotment boundary is expected to be a beneficial effect for Lahontan cutthroat trout. Determination: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the Silver King Allotment would be closed to grazing and the Dumont Allotment boundary would exclude historic range for PCT and currently occupied habitat for LCT. By closing the Silver King Allotment and adjusting the Dumont boundary, the entire historic range and the entire currently occupied habitat for PCT within Silver King drainage would be excluded from the effects of grazing. It is determined that the East Alpine Rangeland Project, may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Paiute cutthroat trout. The closure of the Silver King Allotment follows recommendations in the PCT Recovery Plan (2004) and is expected to be a beneficial effect for Paiute cutthroat trout. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the adjustment of the Dumont Allotment boundary would exclude Lahontan cutthroat trout within the project area from any effects associated with grazing. It is my determined that the East Alpine Rangeland Project, may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Lahontan cutthroat trout. The adjustment of the Dumont Allotment boundary is expected to be a beneficial effect for Lahontan cutthroat trout. 3.3.3.3 Fisher (Candidate) Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: The fisher occurs only in North American from British Columbia to Nova Scotia and into the lower forty-eight states including Montana, Idaho, Oregon and California (USDA 2001). Fisher distribution in California today is represented by two populations, the northern California population that ranges over 10 million acres, and the smaller area southern Sierra Nevada population (approx. 2.6 million acres of range) (CDFG 2010). These two populations are separated by approximately 270 miles (430 km). There is little empirical evidence of fisher previously inhabiting this gap in the Sierra Nevada range (CDFG 2010). Potential for Occurrence in Analysis Area: According to habitat analysis conducted for late seral species, the current project area contains approximately 31,000 acres of suitable breeding and foraging habitat for late seral associated species such as fisher. Silver King and Dumont Allotment contain the most acres of habitat a considered suitable for breeding. There are no recorded sightings of the fisher in the project area or on the Carson Ranger District. Forest carnivore surveys conducted for three consecutive years in the Monitor Pass area and other parts of Alpine County resulted in no detections of fisher. The project area is well outside of the fisher’s historic and current distribution. According to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, the fisher historically occurred in the Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Lake Tahoe Basin, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests, but was not known to occur in the Modoc, Inyo or Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests (USDA 2001). Threats: Potential threats to the fisher include timber harvest that excessively reduces late seral forest and/or does not retain late seral habitat elements, catastrophic fire, and the small population estimate in the southern Sierra Nevada (CDFG 2010)

East Alpine Rangeland Project 109 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to fisher. Fisher are not expected to occur in the project area. Although habitat features associated with fisher are present within the East Alpine Rangeland analysis area, the area is well outside of the fisher’s historic and current distribution. Furthermore, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment and the boundary adjustment for Dumont Allotment would exclude the most suitable habitat for fisher from grazing. Expected Change to Habitat Quality: No changes to habitat quality for fisher would occur under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Although fisher do not occur in the project area, habitat features associated with fisher are present, particularly south of Poison Flat in the Dumont Allotment and denser stands of conifer present in the Silver King Allotment. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment and the adjustment of the Dumont Allotment boundary would exclude livestock grazing from the most suitable habitat for fisher. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative for the East Alpine Rangeland Project would not directly, indirectly or cumulatively impact fisher.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to fisher. Fisher are not expected to occur in the project area. Although habitat features associated with fisher are present within the East Alpine Rangeland analysis area, the area is well outside of the fisher’s historic and current distribution. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the most suitable habitat for fisher, which occurs south of Poison Flat and in Silver King Allotment, would continue to not be grazed by livestock. Expected Change to Habitat Quality: There are no differences between Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) in regards to habitat quality. Under both alternatives, no grazing would occur in the most suitable habitat for fisher. Habitat conditions suitable for fisher would continue to function naturally without disturbance (beneficial or negative) to ecological conditions from grazing. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not directly, indirectly or cumulative impact fisher. 3.3.3.4 Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (Candidate) and Yosemite Toad (Candidate) Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: The project area is within the historic distribution of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF), a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog distribution extends from northern Plumas to southern Tulare Counties. Large groups of populations in the northern Sierra Nevada and local populations elsewhere have since become extinct and have disappeared from 70-90 percent of its historic range (Jennings 1996). The project area is within the historic distribution of Yosemite toad, a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The historic range of Yosemite toads in the Sierra Nevada occurs from the Blue Lakes region north of Ebbett’s Pass (Alpine County) to south of Kaiser Pass in the Evolution

110 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Lake/Darwin Canyon area (Fresno County). The historic elevation range of Yosemite toads is 4,790 to 11,910 ft. As of the mid-1990s, the Yosemite toad had declined substantially or disappeared from over 50 percent of the sites where it was known historically (Jennings 1996). SNYLF and Yosemite toad have been listed as a Candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Potential for Occurrence in Analysis Area: As recent as 1993, several thousand Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frogs were observed in the Silver King drainage along the shores of Whitecliff Lake (Shanley 2000. pers comm). In 2001, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) conducted a drainage- wide survey for amphibians in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. Two Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog tadpoles were detected in Upper Fish Valley, but no adults were found. In 2001, Yosemite toad distribution in the Silver King drainage was: two in Long Valley, one in the artificial channel in Upper Fish Valley, one in Coyote Valley Creek, and two in Whitecliff Lake. The distribution of western toad in the drainage was as follows: two in Long Valley, one in Upper Fish Valley, seven in the artificial channel, one in Tamarack Lake, and two in Whitecliff Lake. Three suspected hybrids were also observed in the artificial channel. Threats: Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs historically occurred in mostly fishless lakes, which have been subsequently stocked for recreational purposes. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs and trout (native or non-native) rarely coexist. The other cause of decline is the presence of disease, more specifically; chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) which has been detected in many amphibian species, including the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within the Sierra Nevada. Yosemite toad declines have been attributed to cattle grazing, airborne chemical toxins, disease, and climatic shifts and variability (Davidson et al. 2002; USDI 2002). The USFS has specifically identified cattle grazing as an activity of concern for the conservation of Yosemite toads on National Forest lands in the Sierra Nevada (USDA 2001). Various diseases have been confirmed in Yosemite toads including: Chytrid fungal infections of metamorphs and adults; saprolegnia fungal infections of eggs; iridovirus infection of larvae, metamorphs, or adults; and bacterial infections. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: No direct effects are expected from the implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Within the project area, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs and Yosemite toads are only known to occur within the Silver King Allotment which would be closed to livestock grazing. Indirectly, livestock can affect frog populations by changing the hydrology and morphology of mountain streams and ponds or by trampling protective cover and vegetation that are important egg laying and larval rearing areas (Armour et al. 1994). Livestock can also indirectly affect amphibians by introducing nitrates into breeding areas resulting in elevated levels of bacteria (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). Other portions of the project area (Dumont and Bagley Allotments) contain potential habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad although there are no known occurrences. Effects to potential habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad in these allotments are expected to be minimal. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the kind of livestock would be converted from cattle to sheep. Herded sheep offer several options for achieving proper management in suitable habitat areas for amphibians such as riparian areas. For example, herders are able to control location, timing, degree, duration, and frequency of use within the allotment including riparian areas. Sheep also prefer hillsides to the confining nature of riparian bottoms and only need to be watered minimally. In addition, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), no bedding or resting areas are permitted in wet meadows or riparian areas.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 111 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Sheep may occasionally use riparian areas for watering and crossing. During this time, temporary impacts to vegetation, such as trampling and some minor foraging of grasses, forbs and willows, may occur. However, because sheep would only be present in riparian areas for short durations (only to drink and cross), vegetation would recover shortly after sheep are gone. Over the long term, Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is designed to maintain or improve ecological conditions of the plant communities in both riparian and upland habitat types. Determination: All known locations of Yosemite toad and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within the project area occur within the Silver King Allotment and will be excluded from the effects of grazing. Because Yosemite toads and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog have the potential to occur within the project area where grazing will occur, it is my determination that the East Alpine Rangeland Project, may impact individuals but is not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the Yosemite toad or the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would likely see the most immediate improvement in stream habitat conditions, as the direct and indirect effects of livestock would be removed from the project area. With the removal of livestock grazing, stream and riparian areas would be rapidly restored and desired conditions would return. Many studies have shown stream habitats that are degraded by livestock grazing would improve when grazing is eliminated. Investigations have also shown that fish production is increased after grazing was removed (Platts 1990). Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not directly, indirectly or cumulative impact Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog or Yosemite toad. Forest Sensitive Species 3.3.3.5 Bald Eagle Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: The Bald eagles' breeding range in the west extends along the western coast from southern Alaska through the Pacific Northwest to Northern California. A few small populations live in Arizona and Colorado. The local nesting distribution of bald eagles on the Carson Ranger District includes three nests in Alpine County. Wintering bald eagles are frequently observed in Carson Valley and Washoe Valley. Potential for Occurrence: There are currently three known reproductive pairs within the Alpine County area including Heenan Lake and Red Lake which are located on CDFG land and Indian Creek Reservoir which is located on BLM lands. The Heenan Lake nest site is located approximately one mile from National Forest System Lands and the Bagley Valley Allotment boundary. Bald eagles from this nest primarily forage at Heenan Lake but may occasionally forage in the East Fork of the Carson River on both the Dumont and Cottonwood Allotments. The remainder of the analysis area is not considered to be suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles. Bald eagles almost always nest within close proximity to a large waterbody, such as lakes or large rivers. Although the Carson River flows through portions of the project area, in most areas it is too narrowly constricted to provide suitable nesting and possibly foraging habitat. The river widens somewhat as it flows through the western edge of Cottonwood Allotment. However, due to the lack of large diameter trees along the river’s edge, this area is not considered suitable for foraging or nesting. Allotments adjacent to Heenan Lake (Bagley Valley, Cottonwood) do not contain large diameter trees or other habitat features suitable for nesting.

112 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Threats: Habitat loss is considered to be one of the biggest threats to bald eagles. Urban and Urban and recreational development, logging, mineral exploration and extraction, and all other forms of human activities are adversely affecting the suitability of breeding, wintering, and foraging areas. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) the potential for direct impacts would be minimal. The Heenan Lake bald eagle nest is located on CDFG lands and is not part of a grazing allotment. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI 2007b) provides guidelines to protect bald eagles from disturbance. Although the guidelines do not specifically address livestock use, a ‘no activity’ buffer around the nest site of at least 330 feet is recommended to reduce potential impacts from disturbance (Ibid). The Heenan Lake bald eagle nest is located approximately one mile from the Bagley Valley Allotment boundary where grazing would occur. Similarly, Heenan Lake, the primary foraging area for the Heenan Lake eagles, is also on CDFG lands and is not included in the analysis area. Under an agreement with CDFG, the permittee is allowed to cross a portion of their lands to get to the Bagley Valley Allotment. However, this crossing occurs on the east side of Heenan Lake and well south of the nesting area (approximately .5 miles); therefore there is no disturbance to bald eagle nesting activity from livestock crossing on CDFG lands. Disruptions to eagles foraging along the East Fork of the Carson River would be minimal as sheep would rarely be near the river and for only very short periods of time (i.e. 1-2 hours). In addition, because of the narrow configuration of the Carson River where suitable perch trees are present, it is assumed that bald eagles forage more often in larger bodies of water, such as Heenan Lake, and therefore the potential for overlap in foraging and livestock use is low. The most common prey items for bald eagles include fish, waterfowl, and jackrabbits. Bald eagles will also scavenge food from carrion, particularly in the winter months. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there would be no impacts to bald eagle foraging or nesting habitat. As mentioned above, the only known nesting site is outside of the analysis area and nesting is not expected to occur within the analysis area due to lack of habitat. Habitat for prey species such as fish and waterfowl would not be negatively impacted due to design features and proper use criteria associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) that limit streambank disturbance and improve the overall ecological condition of riparian areas. Habitat for waterfowl may be improved in Silver King Meadows due to increased standing water and subsequent vegetation growth. Habitat for other prey species would also likely improve under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), as plant communities are restored to a more functioning condition. Cumulative Impacts: For the purpose of this analysis, impacts will be addressed that may potentially affect of suitable habitat for bald eagles within the boundaries of the project area. These include impacts that may have occurred within the past ten years, are occurring presently, or may foreseeably occur within the next ten years (See Cumulative Effects Section EA Chapter 3). To restore Paiute cutthroat trout (PCT) to their native range, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) are taking steps to reintroduce Paiute cutthroat trout to Silver King Creek (see Cumulative Effects, Chapter 3). This project involves the reach of Silver King Creek between Llewellyn Falls and the confluence with Snodgrass Creek, and Tamarack Creek and Tamarack Lake Creek. This area is approximately eight miles from the Heenan Lake bald eagle nest. As part of this project, CDFG would apply Rotenone (a piscicide) to these creeks to remove non-native fish. After the non-native fish have been removed, PCT would be reintroduced to these creeks. Some minor and potentially beneficial impacts to bald eagles are expected to occur as a result of the PCT Recovery project. Following Rotenone treatment, it is expected that 100 percent of the trout species within the treatment area would be killed. Although bald eagles do not typically forage in these waters, it is possible that fish carcasses would attract bald eagles to the area for scavenging. If bald eagles are in

East Alpine Rangeland Project 113 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

the vicinity during the treatment, they could feed on fish carcasses which are expected to have some residual levels of rotenone. However, based on a report published by the American Fisheries Society Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee Task Force on Fishery Chemicals, rotenone residues in dead fish are generally very low, are broken down quickly, and not readily absorbed through the gut of the animal eating the fish. Furthermore, exposure levels in the water as proposed by CDFG for this project is 1 mg/L. Acute toxicity tests for various bird species produced an LD50 which ranged from 113-2,000 mg/kg (Schnick 1974), more than 100 times the rate being applied under the action being proposed. Therefore, foraging on fish carrion would not harm bald eagles and would likely (temporarily) provide beneficial impacts from the increased food source. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project (USDI FWS 2010) are included in the project record. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) there would be no changes to the quality of nesting habitat for bald eagles. Suitable foraging areas for bald eagles in Bagley Valley and Dumont Allotments are currently considered to be Functioning-at-risk with an upward trend. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Foraging habitat for bald eagles may potentially be improved in Silver King Meadows following irrigation repairs. Increased standing water and subsequent vegetation growth may improve habitat for bald eagle prey such as waterfowl. Habitat for other prey species (such as rabbits) would also likely improve under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), as plant communities are restored to a more functioning condition. Determination: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative, occassional disruptions to foraging may may impact individual bald eagles but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. This determination is based on the following: • Bald eagles do not nest within the analysis area and therefore no direct impacts from disturbance • Only occassional disruptions to foraging attempts and no indirect impacts to foraging habitat.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to bald eagles from Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance to bald eagles from livestock grazing would not occur. However, the difference in disturbance levels is considered minor due to the lack of overlap between proposed sheep grazing areas and bald eagle habitat. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), improvements to irrigation in Silver King Valley (Dumont Allotment) would not occur. It is expected that meadow conditions would continue on a drying trend and cheatgrass infestations could potentially increase from existing levels. While irrigation would improve foraging conditions for bald eagles, this area is not considered vital to improving or maintaining the viability of bald eagles. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no changes to the quality of bald eagle nesting habitat for bald eagles and minor changes to foraging habitat. Although some grazing has been authorized on the East Alpine Allotments in the last 10 years, use has been sporadic; particularly in Bagley Valley where authorized use in the last five years has only included livestock trailing. No grazing in Silver King Allotment has occurred for well over a decade. Suitable foraging areas for bald eagles in Bagley Valley and Dumont Allotments are currently considered to be Functioning-at-risk. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), conditions are expected to continue to improve for most habitat types with the exception of the meadows in Silver King Valley. These meadows were historically irrigated for many decades and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and interrupted irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows now where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not

114 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to bald eagles 3.3.3.6 Mountain Quail Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: The mountain quail is the largest North American quail and is a resident from southwestern British Columbia, western and southern Washington, central Idaho south through the mountains of California and western Nevada (NDOW 2012). Mountain quail are known to occur throughout the Carson Ranger District, usually at elevations above 5,000 feet. Mountain quail are listed as a Forest Sensitive species in the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest and Northwest Regions of the Forest Service. Potential for Occurrence: Mountain quail are native to the Carson Range (GBBO 2010a) and have been observed in several locations on the Carson Ranger District. Suitable habitat for mountain quail occurs within the mixed conifer and mountain shrub communities within the project analysis area. In the allotments proposed for grazing (Dumont, Bagley, and Cottonwood), approximately 16,276 acres of conifer and mountain shrub communities are present that could represent mountain quail habitat. Actual distribution of mountain quail in the analysis area is not known. A literature search revealed very little information about population estimates for mountain quail in California and Nevada. Breeding Bird Survey information for Nevada estimates populations at 840 mountain quail; however, this data is considered only moderately reliable (GBBO 2010a). For the Sierra Nevada population estimates are unknown. However, Breeding Bird Survey data for this region suggest a trend that has been essentially stable from 1968 to 2011 (Sauer et al 2011). The estimated average annual harvest of mountain quail between 2002 and 2004 in counties in the Sierra Nevada was 54,000. The desired population level is to maintain or enhance the existing population, as measured by the estimated harvest by hunters (Zornes 2008). Threats: In the Sierra Nevada, the main threat to mountain quail is loss of habitat due to human development (urbanization) (NDOW 2012, Audubon 2012). Other threats to mountain quail include habitat degradation/loss from livestock grazing, intense wildfires, water diversions, invasive plant species, and fuels reduction projects (GBBO 2010a). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Impacts: In some portions of the analysis area, the timing of grazing may overlap with the nesting season for mountain quail. Direct impacts to nesting mountain quail from Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) may include inadvertent trampling of nests, eggs, and/or nestlings during grazing activities. Impacts would likely be greater in concentrated use areas such as bedding and or shading areas. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), concentrated use areas for sheep would include already disturbed sites such as roads; open rocky areas, or treed areas with little to no understory and would not be located near riparian areas or meadows. Mountain quail typically nest adjacent to riparian areas where dense shrub cover is present and therefore little overlap between nesting and high use areas is expected to occur. Sheep grazing may occasionally flush adult and juvenile birds during foraging activities; however, this disturbance would be temporary and would not limit the overall foraging success of a mountain quail brood or population. Being a ground forager, mountain quail have adapted to frequent disturbances from other animals and humans and can quickly disperse to adjacent suitable habitat to resume foraging.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 115 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Livestock grazing is considered to be a threat to mountain quail primarily due to the potential for damage to riparian and shrub habitat when overgrazing occurs (GBBO 2010a, Zornes 2008). The Western Quail Management Plan recommends managing grazing at appropriate levels to maintain suitable escape cover and some areas of habitat dominated by forbs on 20 percent of mountain quail range; and to protect riparian areas from inappropriate grazing by livestock (Zornes 2008). The Nevada Bird Conservation Plan suggests a grazing strategy that prevents chronic degradation of aspen and montane shrub habitat types (GBBO 2010a). The majority of capable acres for grazing within riparian areas within the analysis area are considered to be functioning-at-risk with an upward trend (See Vegetation Specialist Report for this project). Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), utilization standards and other proper use criteria are designed to improve the ecological function of all plant community types including riparian and upland shrub. For example, allowable streambank disturbance is set at 20 percent which allows for some minor disturbance associated with livestock crossing and watering but would not contribute to erosion, compaction, or other riparian vegetation degradation. Design features, including designating bedding and resting areas in rocky open sites, already disturbed locations, or treed areas with minimal understory would also reduce the potential for impacts to foraging and nesting habitat for mountain quail. In addition, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), concentrated use areas must be at least .25 miles from riparian and wet meadow areas. This would also help reduce potential impacts to important habitat for mountain quail. Cumulative Impacts: For the purposed of this analysis, impacts would be addressed that may potentially affect the 16,276 acres of suitable habitat for mountain quail within the analysis area. These include impacts that may have occurred within the past ten years, are occurring presently, or may foreseeably occur within the next ten years (See Cumulative Effects Section in Chapter 3.0). The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would improve habitat conditions for mountain quail over the long term. Mountain quail are often associated with aspen habitat types when they occur near a riparian source and contain a robust understory of aspen seedlings and other mountain shrubs. Short term impacts may include displacement of quail during project activities. However, the project is designed to minimize impacts to nesting birds, including mountain quail, by avoiding project activities during the majority of the breeding season. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for mountain quail. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas such as riparian and shrub communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Foraging habitat for mountain quail may potentially be improved within meadows in Silver King Valley following irrigation repairs. Increased standing water and subsequent vegetation growth would improve riparian and wet meadow habitats that can be important to mountain quail foraging. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative may impact individual mountain quail but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. This determination is based on the following: • Proper use criteria and design features associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) that would minimize negative impacts to habitat features important to mountain quail. • No concentrated livestock use in habitat types important for mountain quail nesting e.g. meadows and riparian areas.

116 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to mountain quail under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing)/No Grazing. Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as trampling and/or displacement of mountain quail would not occur. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), improvements to irrigation in Silver King Valley (Dumont Allotment) would not occur. It is expected that meadow conditions would continue on a drying trend and cheatgrass infestations could potentially increase from existing levels reducing habitat quality for mountain quail in Silver King Valley. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the quality of habitat for mountain quail would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition with the exception of the meadows in Silver King Valley. These meadows were historically irrigated for many decades and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and interrupted irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows now where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to mountain quail. 3.3.3.7 Flammulated Owl Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Breeding populations of flammulated owls are found from central- southern British Columbia along the western United States to the Sierra Madre and mountain ranges of northern and central Mexico (Mika and Riddle 2006). In Nevada, Flammulated Owls have been documented during the breeding season in eleven mountain ranges including the Carson Range, and they could potentially occur in an additional 18 ranges (Dunham et al. 1996). Flammulated Owls are listed as a sensitive species in four U.S. Forest Service Regions, including Nevada (Intermountain Region 4). Habitat is described as breeding and foraging habitat for late seral species such as for goshawk, flammulated owls, white-headed woodpeckers, Williamson’s sapsucker, Hairy woodpecker, and marten (Table 30). Potential for Occurrence: According to habitat analysis conducted for late seral species, the project area currently contains approximately 31,000 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for flammulated owls. Silver King and Dumont Allotments contain the most acres of habitat considered suitable for nesting (see table 30). Smaller patches of habitat also occur on the Cottonwood and Bagley Valley Allotments particularly within drainages where denser stands of conifer occur. Surveys for numerous owl species, including flammulated owl, have been conducted in the Dumont and Silver King Allotments periodically since 2006. To date, there have been no observations of flammulated owls during survey efforts. Surveys for flammulated owls were not conducted in the Cottonwood Allotment; however there are no known historical or incidental sightings in this area.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 117 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 30. Current Number of Acres of Late Seral Conifer and Mixed Conifer/Aspen Habitat Types within the Project Area.

Habitat Type Cottonwood Bagley Valley Dumont Silver King TOTAL Highest Quality 1,739 985 7,278 5,907 15,909 (Breeding) Foraging 5,298 801 4,127 4,833 15,059

TOTAL 7,037 1,786 11,405 10,740 30,968

Threats: The greatest immediate risk to the flammulated owl is loss of critical nesting, security, and foraging habitat features from human and natural disturbances (i.e., tree harvesting, thinning, pest management, wildfires etc). In addition, snag removal for safety reasons or for firewood is also a threat. Long-term major threats are recruitment and maintenance of old-growth habitat features, particularly large diameter ponderosa/Jeffrey pine snags with cavities. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Impacts: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), approximately 18,000 acres of suitable foraging and nesting habitat for flammulated owls would no longer overlap with grazing activities due to the closure of Silver King Allotment and the adjustment of the Dumont Allotment boundary. Grazing may overlap with potential habitat within suitable habitat within the remainder of the project area. Direct and indirect impacts in this area include flushing flammulated owls from roost and or foraging sites and disrupting nesting or foraging activities. Grazing can indirectly impact foraging success by reducing vigor and diversity of vegetation which can subsequently reduce insect populations (prey). Analysis was not conducted to determine how many capable acres for livestock would overlap with suitable habitat for flammulated owls. However, sheep tend to avoid habitat types associated with flammulated owls due to the difficulty of maneuvering in dense stands with multiple layers of understory vegetation and down wood debris. When seeking shade, sheep generally prefer treed areas with little to no understory. Therefore disturbance to flammulated owls from livestock is expected to be minimal. Impacts to foraging habitat would also be minimal. As mentioned above, sheep generally avoid habitat types associated with late seral species. Additionally, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), utilization standards and other proper use criteria are designed to improve the ecological function of all plant community types including riparian, meadows, and conifer. Furthermore, the project would not impact important nesting habitat features such as large snags, canopy cover, and understory structure. Cumulative Impacts: For the purposed of this analysis, impacts will be addressed that may potentially affect the 31,000 acres of suitable habitat for flammulated owl within the analysis area. These include impacts that may have occurred within the past ten years, are occurring presently, or may foreseeably occur within the next ten years (See Cumulative Effects Section in Chapter 3.0) The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would improve habitat conditions for flammulated owls over the long term. Flammulated owls are often associated with aspen habitat types as long as some conifer and sufficent snags with cavities are present. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the Monitor Pass Aspen project, large diameter conifers and snags would be retained and treatment would not begin until August when much of the breeding season for flammulated owl is over. Restoration of aspen stands would potentially improve foraging habitat for flammulated owls due to the increase in grasses and forbs in the understory that support robust insect populations. Short term impacts may include displacement of flammulated owls during project activities. However, as mentioned above, the project is

118 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

designed to minimize impacts to nesting birds, including flammulated owls, by avoiding project activities during the majority of the breeding season. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for flammulated owls. In summary, the Monitor Pass Aspen project, over time, would cumulatively add to improved habitat for flammulated owls and overall ecological conditions associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). A catastrophic wildfire in the area would likely result in heavy mortality to conifer stands subsequently reducing habitat quality for flammulated owls. Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), livestock grazing would not contribute to an increase in fuel loading from plant community conversions (i.e. to invasives). Vegetation communities would either be maintained or moved toward a more functioning ecological condition which would allow for continued natural resiliency to high intensity wildfires. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas such as conifer and aspen communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group.. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative may impact individual flammulated owls but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. This determination is based on the following: • Minor overlap in habitat and potentially grazed areas • Closure of Silver King Allotment to grazing and readjustment of Dumont Boundary excludes suitable flammulated owl habitat from grazing. • No known breeding areas for flammulated owls within the analysis area- no detections during owls surveys. • Proper use criteria and design features associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) that would minimize negative impacts to foraging habitat for flammulated owls.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to flammulated owls under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as displacement during foraging would not occur. However, due to the minor potential for overlap between grazing areas and foraging areas for flammulated owls, the difference in disturbance levels would be minimal. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the quality of habitat for flammulated owls would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), conditions are expected to continue to improve, although possibly at a slower rate than Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to flammulated owls.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 119 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.3.3.8 White-Headed Woodpecker Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: White-headed woodpeckers are year round residents on the Carson Ranger District. White-headed woodpeckers are listed as a Sensitive Species in the Intermountain and northern regions of the U.S. Forest Service. Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat for white-headed woodpeckers overlaps with other late seral species, such as the flammulated owl, in that they require relatively dense canopy cover with an abundance of large diameter dead and live trees. According to habitat analysis conducted for late seral species, the project area currently contains approximately 31,000 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Although Silver King and Dumont allotments contain the most acres of habitat considered suitable for nesting, habitat is present with Cottonwood and Bagley Valley as well. Three white-headed woodpeckers were detected during point count surveys conducted within the Cottonwood Allotment in 2008. Point count surveys conducted in subsequent years in this area resulted in no detections. Similarly, point count surveys conducted in coniferous areas in Dumont and Silver King Allotments resulted in no detections. Threats: The primary threat to white-headed woodpeckers is over-harvesting of large diameter trees, especially ponderosa pine (USDA 1991). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Impacts: Direct and indirect impacts from livestock grazing include flushing white- headed woodpeckers from roost and or foraging sites and disrupting nesting or foraging activities. Grazing can indirectly impact foraging success by reducing vigor and diversity of vegetation which can subsequently reduce insect populations (prey). However, livestock grazing would rarely disturb woodpeckers as sheep tend to avoid habitat preferred by white-headed woodpeckers including densely treed areas with a shrub understory. Impacts to foraging habitat would also be minimal. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), utilization standards and other proper use criteria are designed to improve the ecological function of all plant community types including riparian, meadows, and conifer. Furthermore, the project would not impact important nesting habitat features such as large snags, canopy cover, and understory structure. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment and the adjustment to the Dumont boundary would exclude approximately 18,000 acres of suitable habitat for white-headed woodpeckers from livestock grazing. Cumulative Impacts: For the purposed of this analysis, impacts will be addressed that may potentially affect of suitable habitat for white-headed woodpecker within the boundaries of the project area. These include impacts that may have occurred within the past ten years, are occurring presently, or may foreseeably occur within the next ten years (See Cumulative Effects Section in Chapter 3.0). The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would improve habitat conditions for white-headed woodpeckers over the long term. White-headed woodpeckers are often associated with aspen habitat types as long as some conifer and sufficent snags with cavities are present. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the Monitor Pass Aspen project, large diameter conifers and snags would be retained and treatment would not begin until August when much of the breeding season for white-headed woodpeckers is over. Restoration of aspen stands would potentially improve foraging habitat for white-headed woodpeckers due to the increase in grasses and forbs in the understory that support robust insect populations. Short term impacts may include displacement of white-headed woodpeckers during project activities. However, as mentioned above, the project is designed to minimize impacts to nesting birds,

120 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

including white-headed woodpeckers, by avoiding project activities during the majority of the breeding season. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. In summary, the Monitor Pass Aspen project, over time, would cumulatively add to improved habitat for white-headed woodpeckers and overall ecological conditions associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). A catastrophic wildfire in the area would likely result in heavy mortality to conifer stands subsequently reducing habitat quality for white-headed woodpeckers. Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), livestock grazing would not contribute to an increase in fuel loading from plant community conversions (i.e. to invasives). Vegetation communities would either be maintained or moved toward a more functioning ecological condition which would allow for continued natural resiliency to high intensity wildfires. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas such as conifer stands are currently functioning within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to be maintained as functioning and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Aspen communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Determination: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), only minor, short term impacts associated with disturbance from grazing are expected to occur and likely only in portions of the Cottonwood Allotment. Based on the above assessment, it is determined the project may impact individual white-headed woodpeckers but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. This determination is based on the following: • Minor overlap in habitat and potentially grazed areas. • Proper use criteria and design features associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) that would minimize negative impacts to foraging habitat features for white-headed woodpeckers. • The closure of Silver King Allotment and the boundary adjustment in Dumont which excludes dense conifer stands would reduce the potential for 18,000 acres of suitable habitat.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to white-headed woodpeckers under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as displacement during foraging would be reduced. However, due to the minor potential for overlap between grazing areas and foraging areas for white-headed woodpeckers, the difference in disturbance levels would be minimal. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the quality of habitat for white-headed woodpeckers would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), conditions are expected to continue to improve, although possibly at a slower rate than Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to white-headed woodpeckers.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 121 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.3.3.9 Great Gray Owl Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: The majority of great gray owls found in California are known to occur in the Sierra Nevada, and primarily only in the greater Yosemite area (Hull et al. 2010). Great gray owls are rarely found south of Yosemite, but recent detections exist as far south as the Sequoia National Forest (Tulare County) (Beck and Winter 2000). The Sierra Nevada great gray owl population is the most southerly in the world. Recent research has concluded that the Sierra Nevada is home to a genetically distinct population of great gray owls, compared to great gray owls outside of California (Keane et al 2011). In addition to distinct genetic, differences in migration patterns, prey preference, and nest site selection have also been observed. Each of these genetic and behavioral characteristics indicates the Sierra Nevada population of great gray owls has been isolated from other populations for an extensive period of time (Ibid). The great gray owl is listed as Threatened Species in the State of California and is Forest Sensitive species in the Intermountain Region. Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat for great gray owls occurs in Lower Fish Valley and Long Valley in the Silver King Allotment and in the Poison Flat area within the Dumont Allotment. These areas contain relatively dense stands of conifer that occur at the edge of large, intact meadow systems. Great gray owls were observed in lower Fish Valley in the late 1990’s by the previous District Wildlife Biologist (Shanley, personal communication 2006). Historical sightings also have occurred in Leavitt Meadows and Pickle Meadows on the Bridgeport Ranger District, approximately 15 miles south of the project area; however there have been no documented sightings of great gray owls in this area since 1981 (Gould 2003, CNDDB 2012a). In 2006, a Forest Service wildlife crew was hired specifically to survey for great gray owls in suitable habitat areas on the Carson and Bridgeport Ranger Districts. Surveys were conducted in all historical areas on both districts including Silver King and Dumont Allotment areas. No great gray owls were detected during any of the surveys. Subsequent surveys conducted in the Silver King and Dumont Allotments from 2008 through 2011 for nocturnal owls also resulted in no detections. Threats: Habitat loss from timber harvest and development are the primary threats facing great gray owls locally and globally (Williams 2012). Other threats include reduction in habitat quality from fire suppression and wildfire; also direct human impacts (e.g. car strikes, electrocution) (Ibid). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Impacts: There has not been any recorded nesting activity for great gray owls in the project area and only three sightings of an individual great gray owl in the mid-1990s. Due to the minimal number of sightings in the analysis area, it is assumed that great gray owls rarely occur in the area and possibly only during irruptive years when prey populations drop in historic breeding areas (Cheveau et al 2004, Hayward et al 1994). The majority of occurrences of great gray owls in California are restricted to the greater Yosemite area. However, sightings of great gray owls north of this area indicate the great gray owl occasionally nest and forage in other locations. Due to the availability of potential habitat and historic sightings in the project area, the following analysis was conducted on potential impacts to suitable habitat for great gray owls. Livestock grazing has the potential to directly and indirectly impact great gray owls by affecting habitat for their primary prey, pocket gophers and voles. Several studies suggest that cattle grazing sharply reduces the abundance of voles (Jones et al. 2003; Evans et al. 2006; Johnson and Horn 2008), and it is expected that improperly managed cattle grazing may reduce vole abundance as well. Similar studies on the effects of sheep grazing were not found in the literature. However, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), sheep grazing would not negatively impact potential foraging habitat for great gray owls, and

122 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

may overtime improve habitat conditions. The proper use criteria would help ensure that plants area able to produce and potentially stimulate root growth to sustain vigorous and healthy plant communities. Design features, including designating bedding and resting areas in rocky open sites, already disturbed locations, or treed areas with minimal understory would also reduce the potential for impacts to foraging and nesting habitat for great gray owls. In addition, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), concentrated use areas must be at least .25 miles from riparian and wet meadow areas. This would also help reduce potential impacts to important prey habitat for great gray owls. Cumulative Impacts: For the purposed of this analysis, impacts will be addressed that may potentially affect suitable habitat for great gray owls within the analysis area. These include impacts that may have occurred within the past ten years, are occurring presently, or may foreseeably occur within the next ten years (See Chapter 3-EA). A catastrophic wildfire in the area would likely result in heavy mortality to conifer stands subsequently reducing habitat quality for great gray owls. Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), livestock grazing would not contribute to an increase in fuel loading from plant community conversions (i.e. to invasives). Vegetation communities would either be maintained or moved toward a more functioning ecological condition which would allow for continued natural resiliency to high intensity wildfires. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas such conifer stands and meadows are currently functioning to functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve or be maintained and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Foraging habitat for great gray owls may potentially be improved in Silver King Meadows following irrigation repairs. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) may impact individual great gray owls but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. This determination is based on the following: • Lack of great gray owl detections in the analysis area in the last 20 years • Proper use criteria and design features associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) that would minimize negative impacts to habitat features important to great gray owls

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to great gray owls under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing)/No Grazing. Great gray owls are not currently known to occur in the analysis area. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), improvements to irrigation in Silver King Valley (Dumont Allotment) would not occur. It is expected that meadow conditions would continue on a drying trend and cheatgrass infestations could potentially increase from existing levels. The lack of great gray owl presence in the project area indicates meadows in Silver King Valley are not currently vital to sustain great gray owl populations. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the quality of meadow habitat for great gray owl would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition with the exception of the meadows in Silver King Valley. These meadows were historically irrigated for many decades and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and interrupted irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows now where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover

East Alpine Rangeland Project 123 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Conifer stands, which are primarily considered to be functioning would be maintained. Determination: Based on the above assessment it is determined that under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to great gray owls. 3.3.3.10 Desert Bighorn Sheep Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: The nearest occupied herd unit to the analysis area is the East Walker River herd which occurs in Nevada. It has been estimated that desert bighorn sheep were once the most abundant and widely distributed large ungulate in the state of Nevada (Figure 8). Using historical accounts and archaeological evidence, the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) estimated populations at around 30,000 sheep in 1860. By 2001 populations had declined to approximately 6,500 desert bighorn occurring over 74 Nevada mountain ranges (NDOW 2001). Reasons for the decline include European settlement and the subsequent introduction of diseases, as well as destruction and alteration of bighorn sheep habitat (Ibid). In 2011, the desert bighorn population estimate for Nevada was 7,600 (NDOW 2011). All subspecies of bighorn sheep, including desert bighorn, were added to the Regional Forester’s (Region 4) Sensitive Species List in 2009. Potential for Occurrence: Maps displaying occupied bighorn sheep habitat with Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management domestic sheep allotments were developed in cooperation with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Wild Sheep Working Group. Occupied bighorn sheep habitat information was provided by individual State wildlife management agencies. Data for Forest Service allotments were derived from the INFRA database and other grazing areas were provided by BLM (USDA 2012b). According to the maps created for California and Nevada, there is no occupied bighorn sheep habitat within or adjacent to the East Alpine Rangeland Project area. The nearest known occupied habitat is located near the East Walker River in Lyon County, Nevada, approximately 24 miles southeast of the Silver King Allotment boundary and 33 miles south from the Cottonwood Allotment. Potential habitat maps provided by Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), suggest suitable habitat for desert bighorn sheep occurs within the Pine Nut range approximately three miles east of the Cottonwood Allotment (Cox personal communication 2011) (see figure 8). However, according to NDOW biologists, the Pine Nut range is currently considered to be too forested with pinyon-juniper to provide high quality habitat for bighorns (Cox personal communication 2011, Lackey personal communication 2012). The habitat maps provided by NDOW do not extend to the East Alpine analysis area and no information regarding potential habitat for this area was able to be obtained through a literature search or from contact with other agencies. Based on habitat requirements for desert bighorn sheep, Cottonwood Allotment has the only potential for suitable habitat within the analysis area. This is based on lower elevation and more xeric plant communities associated with Cottonwood and its juxtaposition with the Pine Nut range. However, Cottonwood Allotment is considered to be only marginal habitat for bighorn sheep due to the presence of forested stands (including pinyon–juniper, aspen, and mixed conifer) and the lack of steep rocky escape terrain that bighorn sheep prefer (Lackey, personal communication 2012; Taylor, personal communication 2012). Threats: The greatest threats to bighorn sheep include habitat degradation, human disturbance, and disease transmission from domestic sheep or goats. Disease transmission from domestic sheep can kill large numbers of bighorn sheep with devastating consequences, particularly for smaller, isolated herds (Martin et al 1996).

124 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Figure 8. Potential and Occupied Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Within and Near the Project Area. Note data is currently available only for Nevada.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 125 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to desert bighorn sheep based on the following assessment: Disease transmission from domestic sheep or goats is considered to be one of the greatest threats to bighorn sheep. Disease transmission can kill large numbers of bighorn sheep with devastating consequences, particularly for smaller, isolated herds (Martin et al 1996). The nearest occupied bighorn sheep herd occurs approximately 24 miles southeast of the project area near the East Walker River. To determine the potential risk of disease transmission between desert bighorn and domestic sheep use on the Dumont, Bagley Valley and Cottonwood Allotments, a risk assessment was conducted by using a modification of methods and outcome criteria used for the Payette and Shoshone National Forests (USDA 2006, USDA 2012a). Although there is no occupied habitat in or near the project area, bighorn sheep, particularly individual rams, can occasionally travel long distances, or ‘foray’ from their home range. Foray distances very considerably depending on the herd, topography and other factors. On the Payette National Forest, most sheep forayed from 0-16 miles outside of their core home range with the longest foray being approximately 22 miles (USFS 2006). Similar distances were recorded by at least three male wild sheep in Montana (DeCesare and Pletscher 2006). The Desert Bighorn Council Technical Staff developed guidelines for the BLM that include leaving a buffer of at least 8.5 to nine miles between domestic and wild sheep (DBC 1990). This distance was presumably based on anecdotal observations of wild and domestic sheep encounters that resulted in disease outbreaks. For example, researchers in Colorado witnessed a single domestic ram grazing with a group of bighorn sheep, 8.6 miles from the nearest herd of domestic sheep (George et al 2008). The sighting coincided with a disease outbreak that eventually spread to two additional herds (Ibid). The principle assumption for rating disease transmission risk is that the closer domestic sheep and bighorn sheep get to one another, the higher likelihood of disease transmission and outbreak in wild sheep herds. This assumption was used in determining the following five potential outcomes where domestic and wild sheep are separated by varying distances. Using foray distances from the Payette, the following outcomes were developed: Outcome 1 (Very low risk): Occupied herds 22 miles or more from a domestic sheep allotment: Very low risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of very low likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns. Outcome 2 (Low Risk): Occupied herds 16 miles or more from domestic sheep allotment: Low risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of low likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep or goats and bighorns. Outcome 3 (Moderate risk): Occupied herds within 10 to 16 miles of proposed East Alpine domestic sheep allotments: Moderate risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of moderate likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns. Outcome 4: (High risk) Occupied herds within 4 to 10 miles of proposed East Alpine domestic sheep allotments: High risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of high likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns. Outcome 5: (Very high risk): Occupied herds within 0 to 4 miles of proposed East Alpine domestic sheep allotments: Very high risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to a bighorn sheep herd within next 10 years because of very high likelihood of direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorns.

126 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Based on the above rating, desert bighorn sheep have a “very low” risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep grazing within any of the East Alpine Range allotments. This is due not only to the distance of occupied herd units, but also the lack of potential habitat for bighorn sheep within the East Alpine analysis area. Wildlife biologists from the California Department of Fish and Game who have considerable knowledge of bighorn sheep biology and management concur with the above assessment (Stephenson, personal communication 2012). Because of the lack of habitat overlap between domestic and desert bighorn sheep, there would be no other direct or indirect impacts such as displacement or competition for forage. Cumulative Effects: Due to the lack of occupied and suitable habitat within the project area and the very low risk of disease transmission, under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to desert bighorn sheep. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: The project area is not considered suitable habitat for desert bighorn sheep. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there would be no changes to habitat conditions that would make it less or more conducive to desert bighorn sheep. Determination: Based on the above assessment and the lack of occupied or potential habitat in the East Alpine Rangeland analysis area, it is determined there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to desert bighorn sheep. This determination is based on the following: • No occupied herds within the analysis area. • Nearest herd unit is more than 25 miles from the project area and therefore potential for disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep is considered very low. • Lack of habitat for desert bighorn sheep in the project area.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Due to the lack of occupied and suitable habitat within the project area, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to desert bighorn sheep under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). The risk of disease transmission would be reduced from very low risk to no risk as domestic sheep would not be present in the East Alpine Allotments. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: The project area is not considered suitable habitat for Desert bighorn sheep. Therefore, similar to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there would be no changes to habitat conditions that would make it less or more conducive to desert bighorn sheep under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Determination: Based on the above assessment it is determined that under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to desert bighorn sheep. Management Indicator Species 3.3.3.11 Northern Goshawk (also Forest Sensitive) Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Northern goshawks have a holarctic distribution breeding from boreal Alaska and Canada south in to the East as far as Pennsylvania and New York and in the West to the mountains of southern Arizona and New Mexico (Squires and Kennedy 2006). Nesting distribution on the Carson District ranges from north of Reno in the Dog Valley area, south to Spooner Summit and Genoa Peak and southwest throughout Alpine County including the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. Northern

East Alpine Rangeland Project 127 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

goshawks are year-round residents on the Carson Ranger District. Goshawks are listed as a Forest Sensitive species throughout the Intermountain Region (Region 4). Potential for Occurrence: Goshawks have historically nested in at least in two locations within the project area and one location immediately adjacent to the project area. Active nesting has been recorded as recent as 2011 and 2012 in the Corral Valley area within the Silver King Allotment and south of Poison Creek within the Dumont Allotment. Nesting activity also occurred in 2011 and 2012 just east of the project area near the Little Antelope Pack Station. In accordance with Standards and Guidelines from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Protected Actitivity Centers (PACs) were designated for each nest site (USDA 2001 ROD ppA-3; USDA 2004 ROD pp38). PACs include 200 acres of suitable habitat related to the nest site and are managed uniquely to protect goshawk nesting territories from disturbance. According to habitat analysis conducted for late seral species, the project area currently contains approximately 31,000 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for northern goshawks. Among all of the allotments, Silver King and Dumont contain the most acres of habitat considered suitable for nesting (see table 1). The Cottonwood Allotment contains more open stands of conifer and aspen that are patchy in distribution and more suitable for foraging than nesting. Goshawk surveys conducted in these areas in 2010 and 2011 yielded one detection of an unidentified juvenile accipiter; although it was not determined if it was a goshawk or cooper’s hawk. Follow up surveys were conducted throughout the stand the bird was detected in, as well as surrounding stands and no signs of nesting or other accipiters were located. Surveys conducted in this area in 2012 resulted in no detections of goshawks or other accipiters. The detection of the accipiter in 2011 occurred at the end of August; a time when juveniles are nearing independence and can fly long distances from their nest. Because no signs of nesting were detected in previous surveys or during follow up surveys, it is likely the juvenile was using the habitat for foraging or in a transitory way during dispersal. Threats: The major threats to goshawks include loss of critical nesting and foraging habitat from land management practices i.e. logging, livestock grazing, etc) and other natural events (fire, wind storms etc) ((Reynolds et al. 1982). Human disturbance is another factor that may impact nesting success and subsequent viability if the disturbance occurs during the critical egg laying period (April-May). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), approximately 18,000 acres of suitable foraging and nesting habitat for northern goshawks would no longer overlap with grazing activities due to the closure of Silver King Allotment and the adjustment of the Dumont Allotment boundary. Excluded acres from grazing also include two known active nesting territories for goshawks. Grazing may overlap with potential habitat within the remainder of the project area. Direct and indirect impacts in this area include flushing goshawks from roost and or foraging sites and disrupting nesting or foraging activities. Goshawks typically forage within the canopy of forested stands, but occasionally would utilize within stand clearings and meadow edges to obtain prey. Direct impacts to goshawks from livestock grazing may include reduced foraging success from displacing prey and or goshawks during prey attempts in these areas. Analysis was not conducted to determine how many capable acres for livestock would overlap with suitable habitat for northern goshawks. However, sheep tend to avoid habitat types associated with goshawks due to the difficulty of maneuvering in dense stands with multiple layers of understory vegetation and down wood debris. When seeking shade, sheep generally prefer treed areas with little to no understory. Therefore disturbance to goshawks from livestock is expected to be minimal and any impacts from displacement would not result in any measureable reductions in foraging or nesting success for goshawks.

128 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Indirect effects to foraging habitat can include alteration of vegetation communities which can influence prey populations. For example, soil compaction and/or loss of vegetation can reduce availability of habitat for rodents particularly within riparian corridors and meadows where goshawks occasionally forage. Livestock can also indirectly impact goshawk foraging habitat when concentrated use occurs in aspen and conifer stands. Concentrated use in these areas can lead to overgrazing of aspen seedlings, potentially inhibiting growth and overall diversity in age and size classes in aspen and conifer. Reductions in understory diversity can impact habitat availability for migratory birds, woodpeckers, and other prey species for goshawks. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), concentrated use areas are not permitted in meadows or riparian areas where soils are most vulnerable to compaction. Bedding areas for sheep would be designated and include already disturbed sites, treed areas that currently lack substantial understory vegetation, and upland rocky areas (East Alpine Range Specialist Report-project record). Again, the most suitable foraging habitat for goshawks would be excluded under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) and therefore impacts to habitat within the project area would be minimal and not measurably impact foraging success or survival. Cumulative Effects: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects were examined within the 31,000 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat within the project area. Effects occurring within the past ten years, currently, or within the next ten years that may have the potential to cumulatively impact goshawks were considered. Of the cumulative effects identified by the ID team (Chapter 3.0 - Introduction), the Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement Project and wildfire have potential to impact habitat for northern goshawks within the analysis area in the next ten years. The largest threat to goshawks includes the effects of vegetation management and wildfire on the amount, distribution, and quality of goshawk habitat (USDA 2001). The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would improve habitat conditions for northern goshawks over the long term. Goshawks are often associated with aspen habitat types for nesting and foraging, particularly when they contain structural diversity (i.e. multiple age/size classes, species diversity, snags etc). Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the Monitor Pass Aspen project, large diameter conifers and snags would be retained which would help maintain a late seral component to the aspen stand while it is being restored. Restoration of aspen stands would eventually improve foraging habitat for goshawks due to the subsequent increase in woodpeckers, small mammals, and other goshawk prey. Short term impacts may include displacement of goshawks during project activities. However, the project is designed with a limited operating period (LOP) that would avoid activities during the majority of the breeding season. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for goshawks. In summary, the Monitor Pass Aspen project, over time, would cumulatively add to improved habitat for goshawks and their prey. A catastrophic wildfire in the area would likely result in heavy mortality to conifer stands subsequently reducing habitat quality for goshawks. Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), livestock grazing would not contribute to an increase in fuel loading from plant community conversions (i.e. to invasives). Vegetation communities would either be maintained or moved toward a more functioning ecological condition which would allow for continued natural resiliency to high intensity wildfires. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas for goshawks such as conifer are currently considered to be functioning throughout most of the project area. Design features and proper use criteria associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would maintain the ecological condition of conifer stands. Aspen stands and meadow communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 129 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Determination: Considering the above analysis conducted on potential effects, it is determined that Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the East Alpine Rangeland Project may impact individual goshawks but would not result in goshawk populations or their habitat to trend downward. This determination is based on the following: • Closure of Silver King Allotment and adjustment of Dumont Allotment boundary would exclude grazing from known goshawk nesting areas. • Disturbance to goshawks while foraging would be minimal as grazing would occur primarily outside of the most suitable foraging habitat for goshawks. • Impacts to foraging habitat would also be minimal for the above reason as well as due to design features associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) that include avoidance of concentrated use in riparian and meadow areas and proper use criteria that would maintain or improve ecological condition of vegetation communities.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to northern goshawks under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as displacement during foraging would be reduced. However, due to the minor potential for overlap between grazing areas and foraging areas for goshawks, the difference in disturbance levels between Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) and Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) alternatives would be minimal. This is also due to the intermittent and infrequent livestock grazing that has occurred in the project area within the past five to ten years, particularly within suitable for goshawks. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), improvements to irrigation in Silver King Valley (Dumont Allotment) would not occur. It is expected that meadow conditions would continue on a drying trend and cheatgrass infestations could potentially increase from existing levels. The meadows near Silver King Valley are likely only used occasionally by goshawks for foraging due to the lack of dense conifer stands that occur on the periphery. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), the quality of meadow and aspen habitat types would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition with the exception of the meadows in Silver King Valley. These meadows were historically irrigated for many decades and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and interrupted irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows now where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Conifer stands, which are primarily considered to be functioning, would be maintained in functioning condition. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not alter the existing trend in goshawk populations or goshawk habitat. 3.3.3.12 Greater Sage Grouse (also Candidate and Forest Sensitive) Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Core populations of sage grouse occur in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming with remnant populations occurring in other states including California (Stiver et al. 2006). Greater sage grouse are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Sage grouse are also considered to be a Forest Sensitive species in Region 4 and a Management Indicator Species on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. On March 23, 2010, the USFWS published a notice of 12-month petition findings in the Federal Register that noted the

130 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Bi-State Population (Nevada and California) meets the criteria of a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the grater sage grouse and warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act but is precluded by higher priority actions. The Bi-State population includes Carson City, Mineral, Lyon, Esmeralda, and Douglas Counties in Nevada and Alpine, Mono, and Inyo Counties in California. The state wildlife agencies from Nevada and California have identified six Population Management Units (PMUs) to describe occupied habitat within the Bi-state area (Bi-State Plan 2012). According to the Conservation Plan, only the Pine Nut PMU is within or adjacent to the project area. The Pine Nut PMU totals approximately 574,000 acres, the majority of which are on BLM with approximately 70,000 acres extending onto National Forest System lands (Bi- State Plan 2012). Population estimates for sage grouse in the Pine Nut PMU are not known (Ibid). However, based on an eleven year data set of monitoring leks in the Pine Nut PMU, male attendance at leks appears to be increasing. Potential for Occurrence: According to analysis that was conducted as part of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Management Indicator (MIS) and Range Suitability/Capability Assessment (USDA FS 2008), approximately 192 acres of the Cottonwood Allotment, 113 acres of the Dumont Allotment, and 351 acres of Silver King Allotment contain suitable nesting habitat for sage grouse (Table 31). Nesting habitat was not identified for the Bagley Valley Allotment. Suitable nesting and foraging acres in Cottonwood, Dumont and Silver King Allotment overlap with areas also considered capable for livestock grazing (Table 31). Table 31. Acres of potential nesting and foraging habitat for sage grouse that overlap with capable grazing acres within the project area.

Cottonwood Bagley Dumont Silver King Total

Nesting 192 0 113 351 656

Foraging 1,283 538 715 1184 3,720

Although habitat mapping reflects some potential for sage grouse nesting, according to state wildlife biologists, the project area is not considered suitable breeding/lekking habitat for sage grouse due to the high elevation and frequency of trees and tall shrubs (i.e. mahogany) (Taylor, personal communication 2011). The only known leking and breeding sites within the Pine Nut PMU occur in the Pine Nut Mountains approximately 11 miles north east of the project area (Bi-State Plan 2012). Occurrence and habitat use by sage grouse within the project area is currently believed to be sporadic and only by individuals traversing between breeding and fall habitats (Taylor, personal communication 2011). Ongoing research on sage grouse in the Pine Nut Mountains by the USGS supports this use pattern. For example, USGS tracked movements of radio-collared sage grouse from the Pine Nut PMU from May 2012 until July 2012 (USGS 2012). One individual, a non-breeding male, was tracked from the Pine Nut Mountains south along the ridgeline that separates Alpine and Mono Counties approximately 12 miles into Slinkard Valley. The individual traversed through portions of the project area, including the ridgeline just east of Bagley Valley. Individual sage grouse have also been detected recently near Leviathan Peak just east of the Cottonwood Allotment and feathers and pellets have been collected in Bagley Valley in recent years (Kellner 2012 and Taylor personal communication 2012 respectively). Transect surveys conducted in 2011 in the Bagley Valley area by CDFG and USFS personnel yielded no detections or sign of sage grouse. Threats: The Bi-State Conservation Plan lists specific risk factors for sage grouse within the 574,000 acre Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2012). Risk factors are identified as having either a “High” “Moderate” or “Low” potential for negatively affecting sage grouse within the Pine Nut PMU. “High” risk factors include wildfire; pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush communities; habitat type

East Alpine Rangeland Project 131 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

conversion to cheatgrass; human disturbance (OHV); infrastructure (roads and fences); and energy development (wind). Predation and wild horse grazing are considered “Moderate” risks, and permitted livestock grazing and wind energy testing are listed as “low“ risk to sage grouse within this PMU. In general, availability of quality nesting habitat, brood rearing-late summer meadow habitat, and lack of water are considered to be the limiting factors for sage grouse within the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2012). Loss of habitat connectivity with the Desert Creek PMU due to wildfire, woodland encroachment, and urbanization is a concern for long term conservation of this population (Ibid) Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), direct effects to sage grouse would be minimal. According to the CDFG, NDOW and USGS, the project area is only being used by small numbers of non-breeding individual sage grouse as transitory summer foraging habitat. Direct effects to individuals may include displacing sage grouse from a foraging area during sheep grazing activities. However, this disturbance would be temporary, over a short period of time and would only impact a few individuals. Sage grouse would likely disperse to adjacent foraging areas while sheep are in the area resulting in only minor impacts to foraging success. The project area occurs approximately 11 miles from any known breeding or leking sites and according to state officials is not considered to have potential habitat for breeding. Habitat potential maps, however estimate that approximately 305 acres of potential nesting habitat is present within allotments proposed for grazing. Although unlikely, if sage grouse nesting or lekking activity is ever detected, at a minimum the following design features would be incorporated into the Allotment Management Plan and Annual Operating Instructions to the permittee: • No concentrated livestock activity within 0.5 miles of a lek or known nesting area • Sage grouse leks would not be grazed during the leking season (dates to be determined). The above design features would reduce the potential for inadvertent trampling or displacement of adults, juveniles, and/or sage grouse eggs. Again, nesting is not known or expected to occur within the project area. Design features are incorporated strictly for extra precaution. In general, livestock grazing can have both positive and negative impacts on sage grouse habitat depending on the timing and intensity of grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). For example, depending on design and application, grazing practices can be used as a tool to protect intact sagebrush habitat and increase habitat extent and continuity which is beneficial to sage grouse and its habitat. In addition, early season light to moderate grazing can promote forb abundance/availability in both upland and riparian habitats. However, heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote invasion by undesirable species (IBID). Indirect impacts to summer (non-brood rearing) foraging habitat for sage grouse are expected to be minimal. As mentioned above, only small numbers of sage grouse are believed to occur in the project area and only during a few months of summer. The majority of sightings of sage grouse including the radio- tracked sage grouse occurred in areas either outside of the project area or in Bagley Valley Allotment which would only be used for trailing sheep. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the ecological condition of plant communities important to sage grouse such as riparian, meadow and upland habitat types, would be maintained or improved. This would be achieved through the proper use criteria and design features included in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). For example, to protect meadow habitats, no concentrated livestock use would be allowed with .25 miles of meadows or riparian areas.

132 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Although sheep are expected to occasionally forage on sagebrush and other vegetation important to sage grouse, sheep are grazed using a herder which results in livestock being moved frequently throughout the allotment. This herding strategy, along with enforcing the proper use criteria and other design features associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), would minimize potential impacts to vegetation as well as reduce disturbance to sage grouse for long periods of time. The reinstatement of irrigation in Silver King Valley would likely improve habitat conditions for sage grouse. Sage grouse are utilizing the project area during mid to late summer when conditions have begun to dry out and food sources can be scarce. Irrigating the meadows in Silver King Valley would provide succulent grasses, forbs and increased insect populations while sage grouse are transitioning from summer to fall habitats. Silver King Valley has historically been irrigated since the turn of the century and only in the last decade has not been utilized. It is possible that sage grouse use to occur more in this area when irrigation was more consistent. Habitat conditions are also expected to improve for sage grouse with the removal of existing fences from Cottonwood, Bagley and Dumont Allotments. Several miles of fences associated with historic cattle grazing occur throughout these allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the kind of livestock would be converted from cows to sheep. Because sheep are grazed using a herder and dogs, fences are no longer required to manage livestock. The allotment management plan for all three allotments requires the permittee to remove fences from the allotments, prioritizing in areas where sage grouse may potentially occur. Removal of fences would reduce the risk of sage grouse mortality in the project area. Cumulative Effects: For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects include those that have been identified in the Bi-State Conservation Plan as High Risk factors for sage grouse within the 574,000 acre Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2012). Effects that have occurred in the past 10 years, are occurring presently, and/or are expected to occur within the next ten years within suitable habitat within the analysis area will be addressed. Ten years is assumed to be an adequate timeframe to gauge how stochastic or longer term events may be affecting population trends. As mentioned above, the Bi-State Conservation Plan identifies several risk factors as having either a “High” “Moderate” or “Low” potential for negatively affecting sage grouse within the Pine Nut PMU. “High” risk factors include wildfire; pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush communities; habitat type conversion to cheatgrass; human disturbance (OHV); infrastructure (roads and fences); and energy development (wind). Predation and wild horse grazing are considered “Moderate” risks, and permitted livestock grazing and wind energy testing are listed as “Low“ risk to sage grouse within this PMU. Within the last decade, wildfire has burned thousands of acres of sage grouse habitat within the Pine Nut PMU, including important nesting habitat near the Mill Canyon Dry Lake Lek site which was burned during the 2007 Adrian Fire. Adjacent to the project area and within the very south end of the PMU, the Larson Fire of 2007 and the 2008 Slinkard Fire burned almost 2,000 acres. Cheatgrass and other invasives are present in some of these burned areas; however, post fire restoration efforts, such as seeding and active weed management have helped with native plant restoration. To reduce the threat of future high intensity fires, the BLM and other local agencies have completed or are in the process of completing eight fuels reduction projects in or near important breeding habitat within the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2012). Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), livestock grazing would not contribute to an increase in fuel loading from plant community conversions (i.e. to invasives). Vegetation communities would either be maintained or moved toward a more functioning ecological condition which would allow for continued natural resiliency to high intensity wildfires. In addition, in 2014, the USFS is planning to conduct fuels reduction activities on approximately 800 acres within or adjacent to the Cottonwood Allotment by thinning fir from aspen

East Alpine Rangeland Project 133 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

stands. This project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire impacting foraging habitat for sage grouse. Pinyon-juniper encroachment has been identified as a threat to sage grouse due to the loss of sagebrush that occurs when pinyon-juniper stands dominate a landscape. Pinyon-juniper communities are present primarily in the Cottonwood Allotment but have not been identified by the forest ecologist or district botanist as ecologically dominating or invading neighboring plant communities. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would not increase and may potentially decrease or slow potential pinyon-juniper recruitment in some areas where seed sources or small seedlings are grazed. To reduce fuel loading and improve habitat for sage grouse, the BLM is actively removing pinyon-juniper near leking and nesting areas within the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2012). Only the Cottonwood Allotment is open to public, motorized vehicles. The other three allotments either occur in the wilderness or are otherwise closed to public motorized access. A number of National Forest System roads traverse through the Cottonwood Allotment and are used by the public primarily to access the East Fork of the Carson River. Impacts to vegetation and soils have been observed particularly along roads near the river including increased erosion, compaction, and noxious weeds. Design features and utilization standards associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would maintain or improve ecological conditions of vegetation communities and would not contribute to an increase in noxious weed infestations. For example, sheep would not be permitted to traverse through heavily infested weed areas to avoid inadvertent transmittal of seed to other locations. For habitat groups that are in functioning-at- risk ecological condition, the maximum utilization values would be reduced and measured at the end of the growing season. Utilization adjustments are expected to help ensure that plants would be able to produce adequate root growth to remain vigorous and healthy. These utilization levels are expected to reduce the effects of selective foraging by giving desired plant species greater opportunity to compete with the noxious and invasive weeds. Currently, applications for wind energy development are being proposed within five miles of the Mill Canyon/Dry Lake lekking areas in the Pine Nut PMU. According to the 2012 Bi-State Plan for sage grouse, wind energy development poses a high risk for both direct and indirect mortality to sage grouse. No wind energy facilities are proposed in or near the East Alpine Rangeland Project area. However, a communications facility at Leviathan Peak, within one mile of the project area, is proposed to be improved in the next two years (see Cumulative Effects section-EA Chapter 3). A communications tower currently exists at the site but improvements would expand the footprint by approximately .5 acres with an additional 15 acres of disturbance to construct an electrical line to the tower. The majority of the power line would be buried underground and along existing roads and would not bisect potential foraging habitat for sage grouse. Over a time span of three years, sage grouse or sage grouse sign have been observed in this area approximately three times. The project is expected to reduce foraging habitat for individual sage grouse by approximately .5 acres and may temporarily cause displacement of foraging sage grouse while project activities are occurring. Because this area is believed to be used only by small numbers of non- breeding individuals in the late summer and fall, impacts would be minor, short term and would not cumulatively affect sage grouse populations. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas such as riparian and shrub communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Foraging habitat for sage grouse would potentially be improved in Silver King Meadows following irrigation repairs. Increased standing water and subsequent vegetation growth would improve riparian and wet meadow habitats that can be important to sage grouse foraging. Determination: Considering the above analysis conducted on potential effects, it is determined that Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative for the East Alpine Rangeland project may impact individual

134 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

sage grouse but would not result in sage grouse populations or their habitat to trend downward. This determination is based on the following: • The project area does not contain breeding and/or lekking habitat and is only used by a small number of individual sage grouse during the late summer and fall. • Proper use criteria associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would maintain and/or improve ecological condition of habitats associated with sage grouse. • Irrigation in Silver King Meadows would improve foraging habitat for sage grouse during late summer and fall months and removal of fences would reduce the risk of mortality of sage grouse.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to sage grouse under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as trampling and/or displacement of sage grouse would not occur. However, because so few sage grouse are expected to occur in the project area, the potential for any trampling associated with livestock grazing would be minimal. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), improvements to irrigation in Silver King Valley (Dumont Allotment) would not occur. It is expected that meadow conditions would continue on a drying trend and cheatgrass infestations could potentially increase from existing levels. The lack of sage grouse use in the project area likely indicates meadows in Silver King Valley are not currently vital to sustain sage grouse populations. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the quality of habitat for sage grouse would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition with the exception of the meadows in Silver King Valley. These meadows were historically irrigated for many decades and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and interrupted irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows now where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is determined that Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not alter the existing trend in sage grouse populations or sage grouse habitat. 3.3.3.13 Yellow Warbler Current Condition Range, Distribution and Status: Yellow warblers breed in the Sierra Nevada and are uncommon to common summer residents on the Toiyabe National Forest. According to USGS Breeding Bird Survey information, population trends of yellow warblers in the Sierra Nevada have decreased significantly between 1966 and 2010 (Sauer et al 2011). Yellow warblers are a Management Indicator Species on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat for yellow warblers occurs throughout the project area where riparian vegetation is present. According to the East Alpine Vegetation Report prepared for this EA, approximately 850 acres of riparian habitat is present within the project area. Silver King Allotment contains approximately 548 acres of riparian habitat which accounts for the majority of riparian habitat within the project area. Dumont Allotment has approximately 193 acres while Bagley Valley and Cottonwood have 38 and 71 acres respectively. Migratory bird surveys were conducted in portions of Silver King and Cottonwood Allotments in 2008 and then again in 2010, 2011, and 2012 and in portions of the Dumont and Bagley Valley Allotment in 2010 and 2011. Surveys were conducted following the Great Basin Bird Observatory protocol for point count surveys (GBBO 2003). Surveys were conducted in

East Alpine Rangeland Project 135 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

representative habitat types for riparian, conifer/shrub, and aspen. Surveys resulted in one detection of a yellow warbler in Bagley Valley and seven detections in Fish Valley within the Silver King Allotment. Threats: Habitat destruction and brown-headed cowbird parasitism are the biggest threats to yellow warblers. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) yellow warblers have the potential to be affected from livestock grazing. Livestock grazing can cause disturbance to yellow warblers by displacing birds while nesting and/or foraging. Constant and repeated disturbance would likely cause yellow warblers to permanently abandon nesting and foraging areas. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there would be no concentrated use by sheep within .25 miles of riparian areas which would minimize levels of disturbance to yellow warblers. Although some grazing would occur in riparian areas, sheep would primarily be in riparian areas only for watering and crossing. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment would also reduce potential disturbance to yellow warblers as this allotment has the highest potential for yellow warblers to occur due to the relative abundance of suitable habitat. Resource damage from livestock grazing in riparian areas can reduce the availability and quality of habitat for yellow warblers. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), design features and proper use criteria would minimize potential impacts to yellow warbler habitat. For example, no bedding, resting, or other concentrated use activities would be permitted within .25 miles of a riparian area or meadow. Proper use criteria (utilization measured at the end of the growing season) established for riparian areas and all vegetation types are designed to maintain ecologically functioning plant communities and improve lesser functioning ones. By implementing the design feature and applying the appropriate proper use criteria, livestock use allowed in riparian habitats would be managed to minimize impacts to riparian vegetation. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment would exclude approximately 578 acres of high quality habitat for yellow warblers from livestock grazing. Cumulative Effects: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects were examined for yellow warblers within the boundaries of the project area. Effects occurring within the past ten years, currently, or within the next ten years that may have the potential to cumulatively impact yellow warblers were considered (see Cumulative Effects Chapter 3-EA). The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project (as described in the Cumulative Effects section of Chapter 3 of this EA) would potentially improve habitat conditions for yellow warblers over the long term. Yellow warblers are often associated with aspen habitat types when they occur near a riparian area. Short term impacts may include displacement of yellow warblers during project activities. However, the project is designed to minimize impacts to nesting birds, including yellow warblers, by avoiding project activities during the majority of the breeding season. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas to yellow warblers such as riparian and meadows communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non- functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Suitable habitat for yellow warblers would improve within meadows in Silver King Valley following irrigation repairs. Increased standing water in the meadows would promote vegetation growth of riparian shrubs including willow, alder and rose thereby improving habitat for yellow warblers.

136 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Determination: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), some disturbance to yellow warblers would occur from livestock grazing. However, disturbance to warblers and their habitat is expected to be minimal and would not result in a downward trend of yellow warbler populations or habitat.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to yellow warblers under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as disturbance to nesting or foraging warblers would not occur. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), improvements to irrigation in Silver King Valley (Dumont Allotment) would not occur. It is expected that meadow conditions would continue on a drying trend and willows and other riparian shrubs would not recover to densities that would occur with irrigation. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the quality of habitat for yellow warblers would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition with the exception of the meadows in Silver King Valley. These meadows were historically irrigated and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and intermittent irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non- functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to yellow warblers. 3.3.3.14 Yellow-Rumped Warbler Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Yellow-rumped warblers are common and widespread throughout the United States (Cornell 2012).According to USGS Breeding Bird Survey information, population trends of yellow-rumped warblers in the Sierra Nevada have been stable between 1966 and 2010 (Sauer et al 2011). Potential for Occurrence: Yellow-rumped warblers would most likely occur within and near conifer forests in the project area. A total of 12 yellow-rumped warblers were detected throughout the project area during surveys for migratory birds. Threats: Threats to yellow-rumped warblers would likely include those that reduce availability or quality of habitat. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects to yellow-rumped warblers from livestock grazing include displacement from roost and or foraging sites and disrupting nesting or foraging activities. Grazing can indirectly impact foraging success by reducing vigor and diversity of vegetation which can subsequently reduce insect populations (prey). However, yellow-rumped warblers often nest and forage high in the canopy of conifer stands and therefore little overlap between livestock grazing and yellow- rumped warblers is expected to occur. According to the East Alpine Vegetation report (project record), most conifer stands within the project area are considered to be in functioning, or ‘satisfactory’ condition. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), utilization standards and other proper use criteria are designed to maintain and improve the ecological function of all plant community types including riparian, meadows,

East Alpine Rangeland Project 137 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

and conifer. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment and adjustment of Dumont boundary would exclude approximately 18,000 acres of conifer from livestock grazing. Cumulative Effects: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects were examined for Williamson’s sapsuckers and hairy woodpeckers within the boundaries of the project area. Effects occurring within the past ten years, currently, or within the next ten years that may have the potential to cumulatively impact these woodpeckers were considered (See Cumulative Effects Section EA Chapter 3). It is not clear how the Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would affect habitat conditions for yellow-rumped warblers over the long term. Yellow-rumped warblers are generally associated with conifer stands that are often mixed with other tree species such as aspen that provide diversity and structure to the stand. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the Monitor Aspen project, in order to restore aspen stands, conifer would be removed from stands which currently also have aspen. The reduction in conifer and overall canopy cover while the aspen is in restoration would likely displace yellow-rumped warblers from these areas. However, given the abundance of suitable habitat throughout the analysis area patchy it is assumed this project would only impact a few individuals. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for yellow-rumped warblers. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas such as conifer stands are currently functioning within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to be maintained as functioning and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Aspen communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Determination: Considering the above analysis conducted on potential effects, it is determined that Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative for the East Alpine Rangeland Project may impact individual yellow-rumped warblers but would not result in a downward trend in populations or habitat.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to yellow-rumped warblers under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to the Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as displacement during foraging would not occur. However, due to the minor potential for overlap between grazing areas and foraging areas for yellow- rumped warblers, the difference in disturbance levels would be minimal. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), the quality of habitat for yellow-rumped warblers would be maintained either in a functioning condition or continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition. Under the Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), conditions are expected to continue to improve. Determination: Based on the above assessment, under the No Action Alternative there will be no effects on the existing trend for yellow-rumped warblers or their habitat. WOODPECKER SPECIES There are two woodpecker species that are listed as Management Indicator Species on the Humboldt- Toiyabe National forest, hairy woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker. Because of overlapping habitat requirements and life history effects analysis for both species will be combined below.

138 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.3.3.15 Hairy Woodpecker Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Hairy woodpeckers are associated with deciduous and coniferous woodlands found throughout North America (Ryser 1985). The USGS Breeding Bird survey reports population trends of hairy woodpeckers in the Sierra Nevada have been stable from 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). 3.3.3.16 Williamson’s Sapsucker Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Williamson’s sapsuckers are found along the entire length of the Sierra Nevada and are considered a year-round resident on the Toiyabe National Forest (USDA 1991c). The USGS Breeding Bird survey reports population trends of Williamson’s sapsuckers in the Sierra Nevada have been stable from 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat for hairy woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers occurs throughout the project area where conifer and aspen stands are present. According to habitat analysis conducted for late seral adapted species, approximately 22,000 acres of suitable habitat occurs in the project area. Of the four allotments, Silver King contains the largest amount of suitable habitat at 11,366 acres. Dumont contains approximately 8,720 acres of mixed conifer and aspen and Cottonwood and Bagley contain 2,900 and 416 acres respectively. Migratory bird surveys were conducted in three main habitat types (aspen, mixed conifer/shrub and riparian) within the project area during 2008 through 2012. Hairy woodpeckers were observed in Fish Valley within Silver King Allotment and near Poison Flat in Dumont Allotment. There were no detections of Williamson’s sapsuckers in the project area. Threats: Threats to hairy woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers include loss of habitat from activities such as logging that remove large diameter trees and snags (Siegel and DeSante 1999). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing include flushing hairy woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers (herein referred to as “woodpeckers”) from roost and or foraging sites and disrupting nesting or foraging activities. Grazing can indirectly impact foraging success by reducing vigor and diversity of vegetation which can subsequently reduce insect populations (prey). However, livestock grazing would rarely disturb woodpeckers as sheep tend to avoid habitat preferred by these species including densely treed areas with a shrub understory. Impacts to foraging habitat would also be minimal. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), utilization standards and other proper use criteria are designed to improve the ecological function of all plant community types including riparian, meadows, and conifer. Furthermore, the project would not impact important nesting habitat features such as large snags, canopy cover, and understory structure. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment would exclude approximately 11,366 acres of suitable habitat from livestock grazing. Cumulative Effects: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects were examined for Williamson’s sapsuckers and hairy woodpeckers within the boundaries of the project area. Effects occurring within the past ten years, currently, or within the next ten years that may have the potential to cumulatively impact these woodpeckers were considered (See Cumulative Effects Section EA Chapter 3).

East Alpine Rangeland Project 139 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would improve habitat conditions for woodpeckers over the long term. Williamson’s sapsuckers and hairy woodpeckers are often associated with aspen habitat types as long as some conifer and sufficent snags with cavities are present. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the Monitor Pass Aspen project, large diameter conifers and snags would be retained and treatment would not begin until August when much of the breeding season for woodpeckers is over. Restoration of aspen stands would potentially improve foraging habitat for woodpeckers due to the increase in grasses and forbs in the understory that support robust insect populations. Short term impacts may include displacement of woodpeckers during project activities. However, as mentioned above, the project is designed to minimize impacts to nesting birds, including the Williamson’s sapsucker and hairy woodpeckers, by avoiding project activities during the majority of the breeding season. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for woodpeckers. In summary, the Monitor Pass Aspen project, over time, would cumulatively add to improved habitat for hairy woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers and overall ecological conditions associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas such as conifer stands are currently functioning within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to be maintained as functioning and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Aspen communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Determination: Considering the above analysis conducted on potential effects, it is determined that Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative for the East Alpine Rangeland Project may impact individual hairy woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers but would not result in a downward trend in populations or habitat.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to hairy woodpeckers or Williamson’s sapsuckers under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as displacement during foraging would not occur. However, due to the minor potential for overlap between grazing areas and foraging areas for these two woodpeckers, the difference in disturbance levels would be minimal. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) the quality of habitat for hairy woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers would be maintained either in a functioning condition or continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), conditions are expected to continue to improve. Determination: Based on the above assessment, under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no effects on the existing trend for hairy woodpecker or Williamson’s sapsuckers populations or their habitat. 3.3.3.17 Mule Deer Current Condition Range, Distribution and Status: The Carson River deer herd is a sub herd of the larger West Walker mule deer herd. The Carson River herd is a bi-state herd whose range encompasses much of Alpine County, California and portions of Douglas County, Nevada. Deer in this area generally move to the higher elevations near the Sierra Crest in May and will remain until the first heavy snowfall begins to force them down below the snowline in the lower elevations of the eastern Sierra front (CDFG 2012b).

140 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

As of 2012, the Carson River deer herd is considered stable to slightly declining (CDFG 2012b). Population levels for the herd have fluctuated over the years but are well below populations known to occurring the 1950’s and 1960s. For example, population estimates in 1956 were recorded at approximately 11,000 animals and peaked in 1959 at 21,500 (Fowler et al. 1981). Populations have declined from approximately 5000 deer in 1978 to 1000 currently (Cox, personal communication 2008, NDOW 2011). According to NDOW, the long term trend for this herd is considered stable due to good recruitment levels. Fawn reproduction and recruitment have been within or above expected maintenance levels. Loss of habitat from urban development and type conversion of critical habitat to cheatgrass are considered to be two of the major factors for the herds decline (NDOW 2011). Potential for Occurrence: The majority of the project area is considered important summer habitat for mule deer (Figure 9) (Taylor personal communication 2012b). Bagley Valley in particular, is considered to be an important holding area in the summer where mule deer traditionally congregate. Portions of Monitor Pass, as well as the higher elevations in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness are considered to be suitable fawning habitat as well (Ibid). Mule deer typically move east and to the lower elevations of the Pine Nut range in the winter. However, Monitor Pass is a unique high elevation site which in many years, despite its high elevation, also provides critical winter range for mule deer. Because of the exposure, accumulated snowfall tends to melt out rapidly, exposing brush and available forage for mule deer, particularly in the south exposed sites on the east side of Leviathan Peak. Threats: Loss of habitat from urban development and type conversion of critical habitat to cheatgrass are two of the major threats to the Carson River mule deer herd (NDOW 2011, CDFG 2012b).

East Alpine Rangeland Project 141 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Figure 9. Map showing habitat for the West Walker River herd including the Carson River sub- unit herd.

142 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and indirect effects: The majority of the project area is considered summer range for mule deer (see figure 7). Mule deer are also known to fawn in the higher elevations of the project area. Livestock use under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) has the potential to affect the quality and quantity of foraging and fawning habitat for mule deer within the project area. Resource damage from livestock grazing to riparian areas, wet meadows, and springs could over time reduce the availability of important fawning areas. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), design features and proper use criteria would minimize potential impacts to mule deer habitat. For example, no bedding, resting, or other concentrated use activities would be permitted within .25 miles of a riparian area or meadow. Proper use criteria (utilization measured at the end of the growing season) established for riparian areas and all vegetation types are designed to maintain ecologically functioning plant communities and improve lesser functioning ones. By implementing the design feature and applying the appropriate proper use criteria, livestock use allowed in riparian habitats would be managed to maintain sufficient vegetation to provide foraging and fawning habitat for mule deer. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the closure of Silver King Allotment would protect fawning areas from disturbance associated with livestock grazing. Although exact fawning areas for mule deer are not known, Silver King Allotment is considered to have the highest potential for fawning due to its higher elevation range and the abundance of riparian vegetation, meadows and conifer when compared to Dumont, Bagley, and Cottonwood. Livestock grazing in the uplands may also affect mule deer habitat. Localized and concentrated use by livestock can reduce understory grass and forb cover, over utilize browse or trample vegetation, which can affect the quality of summer and winter range. As with the riparian areas, the proper use criteria for the upland vegetation communities are designed to ensure that functioning conditions are maintained or achieved. Although sheep are expected to occasionally forage on sagebrush and other vegetation important to mule deer, sheep would be moved frequently throughout the allotment and would only be allowed to congregate in designated bedding areas. This herding strategy, along with enforcing the proper use criteria and other design features associated with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), would minimize potential impacts to vegetation as well as reduce disturbance to mule deer for long periods of time. The reinstatement of irrigation in Silver King Valley would likely improve habitat conditions for mule deer. Irrigating the meadows in Silver King Valley would increase succulent grasses, forbs and riparian vegetation that is important to mule deer summer and fawning activities. The meadows in Silver King Valley have historically been irrigated since the turn of the century and only in the last decade have not been utilized. It is possible that mule deer use in this area would increase while the irrigation system is in operation. Habitat conditions are also expected to improve for mule deer with the removal of existing fences from Cottonwood, Bagley and Dumont Allotments. Several miles of fences associated with historic cattle grazing occur throughout these allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the kind of livestock would be converted from cows to sheep. Because sheep are grazed using a herder and dogs, fences are no longer required to manage livestock. The allotment management plan for all three allotments requires the permittee to remove fences from the allotments, prioritizing in areas where sage grouse may potentially occur. Removal of fences would reduce the risk of mule deer mortality in the project area. Cumulative Effects: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects were examined within the boundaries of the assumed range of the Carson River mule deer herd (see figure 7). Effects occurring within the past ten years, currently, or within the next ten years that may have the potential to cumulatively impact mule deer were considered.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 143 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Several potential cumulative effects were identified by the ID team for the analysis area and are described in detail at the beginning in Chapter 3 of the EA. They include potential effects from the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project, the Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement Project, the Leviathan Communication Tower Project. Of these, the Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement Project has potential to have cumulative impacts on habitat for mule deer within the analysis area in the next ten years. The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would improve habitat conditions for mule deer over the long term. Aspen stands are often a key component of summer and fawning habitat for mule deer. Short term impacts may include displacement of mule deer during project activities. However, because the project would be conducted in phases, where treatments would occur only in small units at a time, adequate escape cover for mule deer would be available adjacent to treatment activities. Therefore disturbance would be short term and would have minimal impacts on mule deer. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for mule deer. In summary, the Monitor Pass Aspen project, over time, would cumulatively add to improved habitat for mule deer. A catastrophic wildfire in the area could result in type conversion of native plant communities to non- native (i.e. cheatgrass) Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), livestock grazing would not contribute to an increase in fuel loading from plant community conversions (i.e. to invasives). Vegetation communities would either be maintained or moved toward a more functioning ecological condition which would allow for continued natural resiliency to high intensity wildfires. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Important habitat areas to mule deer such as riparian and shrub communities are currently functioning-at-risk within most allotments. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions are expected to continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Summer habitat for mule deer would potentially be improved in Silver King Valley following irrigation repairs. Increased standing water and subsequent vegetation growth would improve riparian and wet meadow habitats that can be important to mule deer foraging. Determination: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the proper use criteria and design features are designed to provide accelerated restoration and improvement of degraded vegetation communities to a functional condition and to maintain those sites currently in a fully functional condition. The closure of Silver King Allotment, in addition to fence removal and improvements to the meadows in Silver King Valley would also improve habitat conditions for mule deer throughout the project area. Although some impacts such as temporary displacement and forage competition would occur under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), these impacts are expected to be minimal and would not result in a downward trend of mule deer populations or mule deer habitat.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to mule deer under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as displacement or competition for forage would not occur. However, impacts from disturbance and competition are expected to be minimal under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) due to design features and proper use criteria that would allow for adequate distribution and availability of forage for sheep and deer. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), improvements to irrigation in Silver King Valley (Dumont Allotment) would not occur. It is expected that meadow conditions would continue on a drying trend and cheatgrass infestations could potentially increase from existing levels. Mule deer would still likely forage in this area but at reduced rates compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action).

144 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), the quality of habitat for mule deer would continue to improve from functioning-at-risk to a more functioning ecological condition with the exception of the meadows in Silver King Valley. The meadows in Silver King Valley were historically irrigated and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and intermittent irrigation regimes are evident in portions of the meadows where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), there would be no long term negative effects to mule deer or their habitat and Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not alter the current trend or distribution of mule deer populations. 3.3.3.18 American Marten Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Marten occur from the southern Rockies in New Mexico northward to Canada and Alaska, and from the southern Sierra Nevada eastward to Newfoundland in Canada. In the contiguous western United States, martens are limited to mountain ranges within a narrow band of coniferous forest habitats (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). In California, the marten was historically distributed throughout the Sierra Nevada, California Cascades, and the Coast ranges, from the Oregon border southward to Sonoma County. Martens are currently distributed throughout the Sierra Nevada and Cascades. The species’ core elevation range is from 5,500 to 10,000 feet, and they are most often found in the Sierra Nevada above 7,200 feet. Marten is listed as a Species of Special Concern in California and is a Management Indicator Species on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Potential for Occurrence: Potential habitat for marten occurs intermittently throughout the project area. In 2011, marten were detected within the Cottonwood Allotment. The marten was detected using baited camera stations that were checked two times a week for six weeks. The detection occurred on only one visit and included only one individual. Dense conifer stands in this area are patchy in distribution and largely confined to perennial and ephemeral drainages. High quality habitat for martens exists within the forested stands south of Poison Creek in the Dumont Allotment and in denser stands in the Silver King Allotment. Threats: Alterations to marten habitat are their greatest threat and may even promote local extinctions (Lacy and Clark 1993). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), effects to marten from sheep grazing would be minimal. Because marten occupy dense stands of conifer that contain down woody debris and a dense understory, little overlap between marten habitat and sheep grazing would occur. Marten may occasionally be displaced from sheep grazing when foraging outside of dense conifer; however, displacement would be temporary and would not affect marten foraging success. Furthermore, the closing of Silver King Allotment and the boundary adjustment to the Dumont Allotment would reduce potential disturbance to marten. According to the East Alpine Vegetation Specialist Report (project record), conifer stands within the project area are considered to be ecologically functioning. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), design features and proper use criteria would maintain these stands in functioning condition and there would be no effect to habitat for marten.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 145 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Determination: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the proper use criteria and design features are designed to provide accelerated restoration and improvement of degraded vegetation communities to a functional condition and to maintain those sites currently in a fully functional condition. The closure of Silver King Allotment and the adjustment of Dumont Allotment boundary would reduce the potential for disturbance to marten near high quality habitat areas. Although some impacts to marten would occur under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), they are expected to be minor and would not result in a downward trend of marten populations or marten habitat.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no direct indirect or cumulative effects to marten. Compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), potential disturbance from livestock grazing such as displacement during foraging would not occur. However, due to the minor potential for overlap between grazing areas and foraging areas for marten, the difference in disturbance levels would be minimal. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), the quality of habitat for marten would continue to be maintained in functioning ecological condition. Determination: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), there would be no effects on the existing trend for marten populations or marten habitat. 3.3.3.19 Macroinvertebrates Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Benthic macroinvertebrates are aquatic animals without backbones that live on the bottom of freshwater habitats during all or part of their life cycle and that are large enough to be seen with the naked eye. Major groups of benthic macroinvertebrates include arthropods, mollusks, sponges, and nematode worms. The most abundant are typically immature life stages (larvae) of terrestrial insects such as mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies. The benthic macroinvertebrate community or “assemblage” is largely determined by the range of habitat conditions, such as water quality, vegetation structure and bottom substrate. Macroinvertebrates are listed as a Management Indicator Species on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Potential for Occurrence: Surveys in Bagley Valley Creek and the Silver King Allotment confirm that a variety of aquatic macroinvertebrates are present in the project area. Threats: Mangum (1984) commented that the species composition of macroinvertebrates in the Silver King Allotment may be limited due to high sediment levels and organic enrichment that could be caused by grazing. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: The proper use criteria and design features within Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) are designed to maintain and improve current stream condition. Sheep would occasionally use riparian areas for watering and crossing. During this time, temporary impacts to vegetation such as trampling and some minor foraging of grasses, forbs and willows may occur. However, because sheep would only be present in riparian areas for short durations (only to drink and cross), vegetation would recover shortly after sheep are gone. Over the long term, Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is designed to maintain or improve ecological conditions of the plant communities in both riparian and upland habitat types.

146 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

There is a potential for cumulative effects under this alternative. Foreseeable future management efforts to protect and restore the Paiute cutthroat trout involves chemical treatments to Silver King Creek from Llewellyn Falls to barrier falls in Silver King Canyon (approximately one-quarter mile upstream of Snodgrass Creek) to remove competing or hybridized fish. The treatment area is in the portion of the Silver King Allotment that would be closed under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is designed to maintain or improve ecological conditions within the project area. The livestock would only occasionally use riparian areas for watering and crossing. These design features would cause minimal effects to the stream and therefore the macroinvertebrates within. The Proposed Action should not have an effect on macroinvertebrates that would cause the BCI to drop below 85 which would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Stream and riparian areas would be rapidly restored and desired conditions would return because no livestock related impacts would be authorized under this alternative. Many studies have shown stream habitats that are degraded by livestock grazing would improve when grazing is eliminated. Investigations have also shown that fish production is increased after grazing was removed (Platts 1990). There would be no direct and indirect effects of livestock and, therefore, no potential for Cumulative Effects: Determination: Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would likely result in the most immediate improvement in stream habitat conditions, as livestock grazing would not be authorized in the project area. Other Species Considered 3.3.3.20 Sierra Nevada Willow Flycatcher Current Condition Range, Distribution, and Status: Two subspecies of the willow flycatcher are found in the Sierra Nevada, the little willow flycatcher (E.t. brewsterii) and the Great Basin flycatcher (E.t. adastus) with combined numbers of approximately 300 to 400 birds (CDFG 2007). The willow flycatcher is continuing to decline in the Sierras and is listed as a California State endangered species and a Sierra Nevada Framework Species at Risk. Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat for willow flycatcher occurs only in the Falls Meadows portion of the current Dumont Allotment boundary. This area contains expansive stands of willows that typically remain in standing water year round. Portions of upper and lower Fish Valley in the Silver King Allotment also contain some habitat potential, where vegetation recovery along Silver King Creek has included an expansion of willows. Migratory bird surveys were conducted in riparian habitat types within the project area during 2008, and 2010 through 2012. No detections of willow flycatchers were recorded. Specific surveys for willow flycatchers were conducted in the Falls Meadows area in 1998 and also resulted in no detections. Threats: The largest threats to willow flycatcher are nest parasitism from brown-headed cowbirds and habitat loss and degradation from cattle grazing (Green et al. 2003).

East Alpine Rangeland Project 147 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), suitable habitat for willow flycatchers within the project area would be excluded from livestock grazing. The proposed boundary adjustment in the Dumont Allotment would exclude livestock grazing from the Falls Meadows area where the highest quality habitat for willow flycatchers occurs. Although willow flycatchers are not known to occur in Falls Meadows currently, occupation of this site could occur in the future. Similarly, the closure of Silver King Allotment would also exclude livestock grazing from potential habitat that is not currently occupied. Improvements to irrigation in the meadows associated with Silver King Valley may eventually (in one to two decades) result in an expansion of willows sufficient to support willow flycatcher. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) there would be no changes to the quality of existing habitat for willow flycatchers. According to the East Alpine Vegetation Report (project record), riparian areas in upper and lower Fish Valley and portions of Falls Meadows are currently functioning-at-risk with an upward trend. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions would continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. The quality of habitat for willow flycatchers may improve over time in Silver King Valley following repeated and consistent irrigation. Determination: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), all suitable habitat for willow flycatchers within the project area would be excluded from livestock grazing. Willow flycatchers are not currently known to occur in suitable habitat areas but could potentially occupy these sites in the future. Based on the above assessment, Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would not affect populations of Sierra Nevada willow flycatchers or affect their distribution.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to willow flycatchers under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Because suitable habitat areas are being excluded under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), there is no difference in effects between the two alternatives. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), irrigation in Silver King Valley would not occur. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there would be no changes to the quality of existing habitat for willow flycatchers. According to the East Alpine Vegetation Report (project record), riparian areas in upper and lower Fish Valley and portions of Falls Meadows are currently functioning-at-risk with an upward trend. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), conditions would continue improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), irrigation in Silver King Valley would not occur. These meadows were historically irrigated and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and intermittent irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to willow flycatchers. Willow flycatchers are not currently known to occur in suitable habitat areas but could potentially occupy these sites in the future. Based on the above assessment, Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not affect populations of Sierra Nevada willow flycatchers or their distribution.

148 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.3.3.21 Neotropical Migratory Birds Current Condition The migratory songbirds found in North America include roughly 350 species, of which about 250 are known as “neotropical migrants”. Migratory birds spend their winters in the tropics of southern Mexico, Central and South America, and the West Indies. A wide variety of habitat types occur within the project area hosting a similarly wide array of migratory and resident birds. Of these habitat types, aspen-riparian is considered the “highest priority” habitat for Neotropical Migratory birds (NTMB) in the 1999 Draft Avian Conservation Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion (Siegel and DeSante 1999). Aspen-riparian habitats support an extremely rich and abundant avian community that includes several species of conservation concern, such as warbling vireo and red- breasted sapsucker (RJHV 2004). Other habitats in the project area, including late successional forest and sagebrush (upland shrub), are also ranked as high priority and support species such as brown creeper and golden-crowned kinglet and sage sparrow and western meadowlark, respectively (CalPIF 2002, 2005). A table of focal species associated with habitat types in the project area including trend information calculated from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is located in table 32 below. Migratory bird point count surveys were conducted within all four of the allotments between 2008 and 2012. Surveys were conducted following the Great Basin Bird Observatory Protocol (GBBO 2003) and included counting all identifiable species of birds along a 100 meter transect within three main specific habitat types, aspen/riparian and conifer and upland shrub. The following table provides the results of the surveys as well as current trend information for each species (Sauer et al 2011). Table 32. Species associated with major habitat types in the project area (CalPIF 2002, 2005 and RHJV 2004 and current trend information (from 1966 to 2010) for the Sierra Nevada Region from the USGS Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al 2011).

PRESENT Late Riparian / Upland DURING 2008 - Species- Common Name Successional BBS Trend Aspen Shrub 2012 Forest SURVEYS American robin X X decreasing significantly YES (57) Bank swallow X no information NO Belted Kingfisher X slightly decreasing NO Black-headed grosbeak X slightly decreasing YES (9) Black -throated gray warbler X stable NO Brewer’s sparrow X X decreasing significantly YES (49) Brown creeper X stable YES (7) Cassin’s finch X decreasing significantly YES (10) Chipping sparrow X decreasing significantly YES (19) Common yellowthroat X no information NO Dark-eyed junco X decreasing significantly YES (103) Evening grosbeak X stable YES (1) Fox sparrow X slightly decreasing YES (24) Golden-crowned kinglet X slightly decreasing YES (1) Gray flycatcher X increasing significantly NO Green-tailed towhee X slightly decreasing YES (62)

East Alpine Rangeland Project 149 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

PRESENT Late Riparian / Upland DURING 2008 - Species- Common Name Successional BBS Trend Aspen Shrub 2012 Forest SURVEYS Hermit warbler X stable NO House wren X slightly decreasing YES (8) Juniper titmouse X no information NO Lark Sparrow X slightly decreasing NO Lazuli bunting X slightly increasing NO Lincoln’s sparrow X slightly decreasing YES (20) Loggerhead shrike X no information NO MacGillivray's warbler X stable YES (15) Nashville warbler X decreasing significantly YES (4) Northern rough-winged X slightly increasing NO swallow Olive-sided flycatcher X decreasing significantly YES (1) Orange-crowned warbler X slightly decreasing NO Pileated woodpecker X stable NO Purple finch X decreasing significantly NO Pygmy nuthatch X stable NO Red-breasted nuthatch X stable YES (5) Red-breasted sapsucker X X slightly increasing YES (11) Sage sparrow X no information NO Sage thrasher X stable YES (2) Song sparrow X slightly increasing YES (28) Swainson’s hawk X no information NO Swainson’s thrush X X stable NO Tree swallow X increasing significantly YES (3) Tricolored blackbird X no information YES (3) Vesper sparrow X stable YES (9) Warbling vireo X stable YES (44) Western meadowlark X slightly decreasing YES (19) Western tanager X increasing significantly YES (16) White-crowned sparrow X slightly decreasing YES (37) Wilson’s warbler X decreasing significantly YES (3) Winter wren X X stable NO Yellow breasted chat X stable NO Yellow warbler X stable YES (8) Threats: The two largest threats to migratory birds are habitat fragmentation on breeding grounds and deforestation of wintering habitat (Finch 1991). Livestock grazing results can affect the quality of foraging and nesting habitat for many migratory birds, especially those requiring heavy shrub or herbaceous ground cover for nesting and foraging within riparian/aspen areas, mixed conifer and upland brush communities. Species such as song sparrow, warbling vireo, brown creeper, pygmy nuthatch, sage sparrow and western meadowlark are considered

150 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

focal species within these habitat types. Ground-nesting birds are often the most vulnerable to livestock grazing due to loss of cover vegetation and the potential for trampling of nests. Livestock grazing can also affect sagebrush dependent species such as brewer‘s sparrow and green-tailed towhee by reducing foraging and nesting habitat. Livestock also browse or trample brush, which can affect the quality of nest sites for those species that place their nests within or under brush. Within the upland habitats, localized and concentrated use by livestock can reduce understory grass and forb cover, which may impact the quality of foraging and nesting habitat. Within aspen and riparian communities livestock indirectly affect migratory birds when they forage on aspen/cottonwood suckers and inhibit the growth of young suckers and reduce the age diversity in these stands. Livestock tend to congregate in the shade of aspen and cottonwood stands, often resulting in soil compaction and reduction in suckers and understory vegetation. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Livestock use under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) has the potential to affect the quality and quantity of nesting and foraging habitat within all of the major habitat types (riparian/aspen, mixed conifer, upland shrub). However, the proper use criteria (end of season utilization levels and streambank disturbance) and design features included under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would result in only minimal and temporary disturbance to migratory birds and their habitat. Many of the vegetation communities within the project area are currently functioning-at-risk. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions would continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. The prescribed utilization levels would leave vegetation intact following grazing and would not reduce the quality or availability of habitat for migratory birds. Design features included in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would reduce overall effects of livestock grazing as well as improve habitat conditions for migratory birds. For example, the closure of Silver King Allotment and the adjustment of the Dumont Allotment boundary would exclude livestock grazing from approximately 22,300 acres of forested, riparian, and upland brush habitats utilized by migratory birds. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) no concentrated livestock use would occur within .25 miles of a riparian area or meadow which would reduce the potential for impacts to migratory bird habitat. In addition, restored irrigation in Silver King Valley would likely expand riparian shrubs in the area, improving habitat for a number of migratory birds. Cumulative Effects: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects were examined for migratory birds within the boundaries of the project area. Effects occurring within the past ten years, currently, or within the next ten years that may have the potential to cumulatively impact migratory birds were considered. Several potential cumulative effects were identified by the ID team for the analysis area and are described in detail at the beginning in Chapter 3 of the EA. They include potential effects from the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project, the Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement Project, the Leviathan Communication Tower Project, OHV disturbance, and wildfire. Of these, the Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement Project and wildfire have potential to impact habitat for migratory birds within the analysis area in the next ten years. The Monitor Pass Aspen Enhancement project would improve habitat conditions for migratory birds over the long term. Healthy aspen stands are often associated with some of the highest diversity of plants and wildlife (including migratory birds) than any other habitat group. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the Monitor Pass Aspen project, restoration of aspen stands would lead to healthier, more vigorous stands that would improve habitat for a number of migratory bird species. Short term impacts associated with the project may include displacement of migratory birds during project activities. However, the project is designed with a limited operating period (LOP) that would avoid activities during the majority

East Alpine Rangeland Project 151 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

of the breeding season for most migratory birds. The Monitor Pass Aspen project would also reduce the threat of a high intensity wildfire and subsequent loss of habitat for migratory birds. In summary, the Monitor Pass Aspen project, over time, would cumulatively add to improved habitat conditions for migratory birds. A catastrophic wildfire in the area would likely result in heavy mortality to conifer, aspen, and shrub communities stands subsequently reducing habitat quality for migratory birds. Within the project area, the majority of fires occur as single tree or otherwise small-acre fires (generally five acres or less) that have had little impact on the landscape. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), livestock grazing would not contribute to an increase in fuel loading from plant community conversions (i.e. to invasives). Vegetation communities would either be maintained or moved toward a more functioning ecological condition which would allow for continued natural resiliency to high intensity wildfires. Expected Changes to Quality of Habitat: Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), habitat quality is expected to improve or remain stable throughout all habitat types in the project area. According to the East Alpine Vegetation Report (project record), most habitat groups, with the exception of conifer are currently functioning-at-risk with an upward or static trend. The majority of conifer stands are considered functioning. Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), conditions would continue to improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. The quality of habitat for migratory birds would improve over time in Silver King Valley following repeated and consistent irrigation. Determination: Based on the above assessment, implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) may result in short term, temporary effects, would not lead to any long term effects to migratory bird populations or alter their distribution.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to migratory birds under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Compared to Alternative 1(Proposed Action); disturbance to migratory birds from livestock would not occur. However, disturbance to migratory birds and their habitat under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would be minimal and not have any long-term effects. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), irrigation would not be reinstated in Silver King Valley and habitat for riparian associated species would not be improved in this area. Expected Change to Quality of Habitat: According to the East Alpine Vegetation Report, most of the plant communities in the project area are currently functioning-at-risk. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), conditions would continue improve and would not fall within the non-functioning category (as described by the Matrices) for any vegetation group. Conifer stands would be maintained as functioning under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), irrigation in Silver King Valley would not occur. These meadows were historically irrigated and underwent ecological changes associated with a more mesic environment. Poor livestock management and intermittent irrigation is evident in portions of the meadows where cheatgrass and soil compaction are present. Although these meadows are not expected to trend toward non-functioning, they would likely stay in a static condition longer and recover at a slower rate than when compared to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Determination: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to migratory birds. Based on the above assessment, Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would not affect populations of migratory birds or their distribution.

152 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.3.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Based on the analysis conducted in the specialist report, the Biological Evaluation, and the Biological Assessment, implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) for the East Alpine Rangeland Project would not result in any irreversible effects to any Federally listed, Forest Sensitive, MIS, or other species of concern. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would, however, result in some irretrievable commitments. Livestock grazing would overlap with wildlife habitat and occasionally disrupt wildlife activities (i.e. foraging, resting). Livestock grazing would also likely result in some impacts to habitat associated with wildlife. However, impacts to wildlife species would be short-term and minor and would not result in any long term negative effects to species populations or their habitat.

3.3.5 Forest Plan Consistency Both of the alternatives considered in this project would be consistent with management direction in the Toiyabe Forest Plan and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment for wildlife and fisheries resources.

3.3.6 Specialist Report This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report, the Fisheries/Aquatics Specialist Report, the Biological Evaluation, the Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Species, and the Biological Assessment for Aquatic Species in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Vegetation Specialist Report is located in the Wildlife and Fisheries folders in the Resources section of the project record and contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA. 3.4 Wilderness Congress has reviewed Forest Service management of grazing within wilderness on several occasions since the inception of the National Wilderness Preservation System. During the 95th Congress, congressional committees responded to concerns regarding what was perceived as unnecessarily restrictive grazing management policy within wilderness. To further clarify the intent of Congress in Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs report 95- 620 and 95-1821 states: “To clarify any lingering doubts, the committee wishes to stress that this language means that there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness. Grazing in wilderness areas would ordinarily be controlled under the general regulations governing grazing of livestock on National Forest. This includes the establishment of normal range allotments and allotment management plans. Furthermore, wilderness designation should not prevent the maintenance of existing fences or other livestock management improvements, nor the construction and maintenance of new fences or improvements which are consistent with allotment management plans and/or which are necessary for the protection of the range.” (USDA FS 2007a, Congressional Grazing Guidelines, FSM 2323.23). The 96th Congress, in response to a request from grazing permittees to amend wilderness legislation, further clarified congressional intent by providing the Forest Service with national guidelines for grazing within wilderness that address use of equipment, the maintenance and replacement of improvements, and adjustment of numbers (USDA FS 2007a, Congressional Grazing Guidelines, FSM 2323.23). The congressional guidelines state that the Forest Service shall not curtail grazing within wilderness because an area is, or has been designated as wilderness, and would allow for the occasional use of motorized equipment for supporting facilities such as fences, cabins, water lines, and water wells that existed prior to classification as wilderness. The congressional guidelines also state that “construction of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is permissible if in accordance with those guidelines and management plans governing the area involved. However, the construction of new

East Alpine Rangeland Project 153 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

improvements should be primarily for the purpose of resource protection and the more effective management of these resources rather than to accommodate increased numbers of livestock.”

3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis Wilderness character is analyzed solely in the portions of the Silver King and Dumont allotments that lie within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. Most of the Silver King Allotment is proposed to be closed so effects would be primarily focused on the adjusted Dumont Allotment. Since the permit term is proposed to be ten years, effects are considered over that time period. However, because wilderness character focuses on longer term ecological conditions, longer term effects are also considered. Management Direction Forest-wide management direction for wilderness areas includes the following goals: • Existing and recommended wilderness will be designated and managed to protect wilderness values (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-5). • Quality wilderness experiences will be provided for the public (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-5). Forest-wide management direction for wilderness areas includes the following standards and guidelines: • Administratively control use of motorized equipment and mechanized transport to sustain optimum characteristic wildness values while managing for purposes of the Act. To the extent feasible, exclude the sight and sound and other tangible evidence of motorized equipment and mechanical transport (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-32). • Travel shall be by foot or horse, or other non-mechanical means consistent with the primitive character of wilderness (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-32). • Evaluate all permanent improvements for compatibility with policy and regulations (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-32). Existing Wilderness Management Area • Management emphasis will be directed toward meeting objectives and intent of the Wilderness Act (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-107). • Wilderness will be managed to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, physical and mental challenge' primitive recreation, and to maintain wilderness characteristics of the land (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-107). • Paiute cutthroat trout will have the highest priority in Silver King, Coyote Valley, and Corral Valley, and will be managed to provide for recovery as per the Paiute Recovery plan. All conflicts will be mitigated or eliminated (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-107). • Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat will be enhanced. Cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service will serve to maintain and increase populations (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-107). • Habitat improvements for Paiute cutthroat trout will require both structural and nonstructural improvements. Habitat improvement projects will include debris removal, willow planting, streambank stability measures, temporary electric fencing to exclude livestock, and other structural improvements (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-109). • Livestock grazing operations, where established prior to designation of wilderness, shall, pursuant to Sec. 4(d) (4) (2) of the Wilderness Act, be permitted to continue, subject to provisions of 36 CFR 293. "Committee Guidelines and Policies Regarding Grazing in National Forest Wilderness Areas" (H.R. Report No. 96-1126, dated 6/24/80) will be applied in a practical, reasonable, and

154 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

uniform manner in all National Forest wildernesses. These guidelines and policies are applicable only to livestock grazing operations (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-109).

3.4.2 Desired Condition The Forest Plan provides the following direction for management of wilderness areas: • The addition of 261,500 acres to the wilderness system will have perpetuated wilderness values for future generations (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-5). The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework), as amended in 2004, added the following management direction for wilderness areas located in the Sierra Nevada: • Wilderness is a unique and vital resource. It is an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by humans, where humanity itself is a visitor who does not remain. It retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation. Natural conditions are protected and preserved. Consistent with the National Fire Plan’s goal for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, fire is restored as a natural process through wildland fire use. The area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of humanity’s work substantially unnoticeable. It offers outstanding opportunities for solitude, or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Human influence does not impede or interfere with natural succession in the ecosystems. The outstandingly remarkable values for which wild and scenic rivers have been established, are candidates for designation, or are under study, are protected and preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Free-flowing conditions of wild and scenic rivers, candidate or study rivers, are preserved. Human influence may be evident, but does not interfere with, or impede the natural succession of river ecosystems (USDA FS 2004, pp. 36-37). The Forest has developed scorecards (appendix A), referred to as the Matrices, that define specific standards for vegetation condition. For each vegetation community, the Matrices include measurable attributes regarding ecosystem health. The attributes included in the functioning condition category are the desired conditions for the project area.

3.4.3 Current Condition Approximately 14,330 acres of the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness are within the project area. See figure 1. The wilderness contains a variety of geologic features including granite outcrops, volcanic cones, and deep canyons. There are rivers and streams that support Paiute cutthroat trout. The wilderness has many off trail areas and trails that are not heavily used. There are ample opportunities to experience isolation from others and signs of human activity as well as visit isolated areas and challenges that require outdoor skills allowing a visitor to feel part of nature. There are a few cabins and the Soda Springs Guard Station with in the Wilderness Area. There is some old fencing in areas. The wilderness area contains a large system of pack trails, evidence of recreational use such as campsites and social trails, evidence of recreational stock use and evidence of past cattle grazing. Trends of these ongoing effects are stable. There is a history of cattle grazing in this wilderness. Although the project area has not been grazed since 1990, evidence of actions associated with past grazing remains. Two diversions and ditches that are part of the Silver King Valley irrigation system are located in the wilderness. At this time, the irrigation system is not functional. The irrigation system was used to irrigate dry meadows inside and outside of the wilderness. See figure 4. As a result of the irrigation, some of the ecological processes in the irrigated area were modified.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 155 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences Wilderness experience is a highly personal value. Quantifying the effects of management actions on qualitative values is difficult. To determine the effect of the alternatives on the character of the portion of the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness in the project area, this section will examine the following qualities or attributes generally associated with the character of a wilderness. Untrammeled The untrammeled quality considers modern human activities that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness. This quality considers actions that seek to hinder, manipulate, or control the long-term natural ecological processes of the area. Examples of actions that could affect the untrammeled quality of an area include water diversion systems, vegetation treatments, and non-native plant species. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would authorize livestock to continue grazing a portion of the naturally occurring vegetation at levels and in such a manner that should not hinder, manipulate, or control the natural processes of the project area. Natural The natural quality considers both intended and unintended effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness since designation. Livestock grazing can affect the natural appearance and ecological systems of an area through the removal or trampling of vegetation, compaction of soil in concentrated use areas, unintended spread of invasive plant species, and deposition of feces. Livestock grazing can also have impacts on water quality and wildlife. Grazing can affect soils through compaction, which can lead to an increase in the runoff peak, cause greater surface and bank erosion than on non-grazed soils, and affect plant species composition. Hoof action can be damaging around meadows, seeps, and springs by shearing the protective sod mat, which can lead to rill and gully formation. Hoof action can also break up microbiotic crusts, which can influence water infiltration, runoff, and soil moisture. Grazing can remove vegetation and litter cover that protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, slows runoff, and enhances infiltration, which can reduce soil fertility and structure and increase erosion. Grazing can affect water quality by increasing bacteria levels from livestock urine and fecal wastes. Turbidity and sedimentation can be increased due to soil disturbance and vegetation loss along streambanks. Higher water temperatures can be caused due to increased width to depth ratios and loss of shade producing vegetation along streambanks. Dissolved oxygen can be reduced due to increased aquatic plant growth (algae) and higher water temperatures. Nutrients (such as nitrates) can be increased from livestock urine and fecal wastes. Livestock grazing can affect the composition, structure, and health of various vegetative communities in the project area. Livestock grazing can affect riparian areas by compacting soil and weakening desirable grass species. Heavy grazing by wild ungulates (e.g., deer and elk) and livestock can hinder aspen regeneration and induce changes in the understory species composition in aspen stands. Livestock grazing can affect upland vegetation by trampling on specific plants or removing too much of the plant too often. Over time, these impacts can weaken desirable species and create an opportunity for less desirable, more adaptable species to establish in the area. The project area has suitable habitat for many wildlife species, including sage grouse, mountain quail, goshawk, mule deer, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, macroinvertebrates. Livestock grazing can impact wildlife through competition for forage, trampling on burrows and nests, and alteration of the habitat needed by a species or its prey. Trout habitat can be reduced by concentrations of livestock in riparian areas, which can cause alteration of the riparian area, such as loss of undercut banks and other cover, exposed stream channels, increased silt loads, and wider and shallower streams that

156 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

ultimately cause elevated water temperatures during the summer and colder temperatures during the winter. Additional information on effects of livestock grazing on these resources can be found in the Soil and Watershed, Wildlife, and Sensitive and Rare Plants sections of this document. Undeveloped The undeveloped quality considers the presence of structures, construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human presence or occupation. In summary, wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation. In addition to the diversions and ditches associated with the Silver King Valley irrigation system, there are a few cabins and the Soda Springs Guard Station within the wilderness area. There is some old fencing in areas of the wilderness area. Besides the irrigation system, there are no structures associated with this project. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude This quality considers conditions that affect the opportunity for people to experience solitude in a wilderness setting. Key factors for this quality are opportunities for isolation from the sights and sounds of management activities inside wilderness and the presence of others. These wildernesses and many other eastern Nevada wildernesses are some of the more wild wildernesses in existence. Meeting other people is rare and solitude is plentiful. There are ample opportunities for the challenge of dealing with wild untamed steep rocky country with extremely limited opportunities for rescue. Domestic livestock grazing can have a variety of impacts on opportunities to experience solitude. Livestock make noise, defecate, urinate, and congregate in areas preferred by people, including riparian areas. These impacts are greater near riparian areas. The sight, smell, and sounds of livestock typically overlap with the primary season of human visitation. Maintenance of range developments and efforts to move livestock require livestock managers to visit the allotments, typically on horseback and using non- motorized equipment. Recreationists encountering these managers may perceive that their solitude has been disrupted. Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive Recreation This quality considers experiences that allow visitors to feel a part of nature, with a high degree of challenge and reliance on outdoor skills rather than facilities. This quality monitors conditions that affect the opportunity for people to experience primitive, unconfined recreation in a wilderness setting. Those seeking solitude and primitive recreation are looking to get away from the evidence, sights and sounds of the modern world. Though grazing is a historical use, many view grazing as an intrusion. Special Features This attribute recognizes that a wilderness may contain other values of ecological, geologic, scientific, educational, scenic, or cultural significance. Unique fish and wildlife species, unique plants or plant communities, potential or existing research natural areas, outstanding landscape features, and significant cultural resource sites are considered the types of values that might exist in these wildernesses.

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: The effects of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) on the qualities and attributes of the wilderness areas in the analysis area are discussed below. Untrammeled Maintaining and operating the irrigation system on Silver King Creek would be a human activity that manipulates the ecological processes on the edge of the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. The irrigation system would water a large dry meadow complex along Silver King Creek, making the irrigated area

East Alpine Rangeland Project 157 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

wetter, and potentially alter the species of plants that grow and the length of the growing season and density of growth. This could have perceived beneficial effects making the meadow lusher and less susceptible to invasive species. However, this is a human manipulation that may change the biophysical environment and ecological function of the area. Grazing domestic sheep is also a human activity that could manipulate ecological processes. As part of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), sheep numbers and utilization levels would be set to maintain or improve conditions. Monitoring would be used to watch for potential changes to ecological conditions. Management practices would be changed if sheep grazing is leading to undesirable changes in ecological conditions. Natural Under this alternative, there could be minimal localized effects to the natural qualities of the area from grazing activities, soil disturbance, streambank erosion and animal excrement. These minimal effects are not expected to measurably alter the natural qualities of the wilderness area. Grazing practices would be monitored and modified to insure effects to natural resources minimal and ecological conditions are stable or improving. Undeveloped There is not expected to be any additional permanent structures as a result of this project. No fence lines, new water developments, or other range developments are planned. The ditches are visible from many vantage points around the Silver King Valley, and may be more visible if they are used again. Maintenance of the system would increase the effect to undeveloped quality because there would be increased evidence of the reconstruction and presence of the ditches and diversion. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) is designed to manage sheep grazing to keep ecological conditions stable or improving, and to keep sheep grazing away from most areas frequented by wilderness visitors, effects. Sheep would be grazed mostly in the Silver King Valley and on Mineral Mountain, with trailing along the Carson River and Silver King trails. There could be minor effects to this wilderness quality because those seeking solitude may encounter sheep or the visible evidence of grazing. Potential damage to trails may affect opportunities for primitive recreation. The effects would likely be limited to minimal encounters and evidence grazing on and near trails. Special Features The Carson-Iceberg Wilderness contains a variety of geologic features, including granite outcrops, volcanic cones, deep canyons, and rivers and streams that support Paiute cutthroat trout. The Pacific Crest Trail crosses the wilderness area. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) has been designed to avoid these features by closing the majority of the Silver King Allotment and a portion of Dumont Allotment. The remaining portions of the Dumont and Silver King allotments would be combined into the new Dumont Allotment. These changes remove sheep grazing from the vicinity of the Pacific Crest Trail. Sheep grazing would not be authorized near the volcanic cone features, including Soda Cone. Closing most of the Silver King Allotment would greatly reduce any effects to Paiute cutthroat trout. Cumulative Effects: Potential activities that may affect wilderness character in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness include the Paiute Cutthroat Trout (PCT) Recovery Project, recreation, and pack stock grazing. The Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project proposes the removal of all non-native trout from Silver King Creek and its tributaries downstream of Llewellyn Falls to fish barriers in Silver King Canyon. Then, PCT would be reintroduced into its native range. As discussed above, the presence of PCT is considered a special feature of this wilderness. While this project has a trammeling effect because it is a

158 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

human manipulation of the stream ecology, it is designed to bring the ecological conditions to a more natural state. The recovery project would benefit PCT and there is not expected to be any cumulative effects: Recreation within wilderness has some effects to wilderness character. Visitors leave evidence such as social trails, campsites, impacted areas, and other visible evidence. Generally, these impacts are only visible and do not alter long term ecological processes or natural integrity. At this time visitation in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness is low to moderate with minimal impacts near trail heads and at popular camping areas along the Pacific Crest Trail and at lakes. However, these impacted areas are generally outside of the project area, so there is little overlapping effects. Past and foreseeable future recreation is not expected to contribute to the effects of grazing on wilderness character. There is one pack station that operates in the project area and also a number of wilderness visitors use their own stock for riding and packing. Pack stock are allowed to graze, but must be kept 100 feet or more away from water, trails, and campsites. Pack stock may graze in the same areas as sheep, but because there is very little pack stock use in the project area and many packers use pelletized feed, there are not expected to be any measureable cumulative effects.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would have a beneficial effect to Carson-Iceberg Wilderness character, in general. As discussed above, grazing has the potential to affect all of the qualities or attributes associated with wilderness character. These qualities or attributes include: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and special features. This alternative would not contribute to trends in wilderness character discussed above in the section on Current Condition. Most, but not all of those trends are beneficial. For example, the portion of the Silver King Valley that is proposed to be irrigated contains some non-native plants. Irrigation would likely benefit native species, and could reduce the non-native plant populations. Because the non-native plants would not be reduced by irrigation, this alternative could allow more spread of non-native species near the wilderness boundary. Cumulative Effects: Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing), direct and indirect effects are expected to be beneficial due to the absence of livestock and livestock related actions from the project area. The effects that other present and reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area have on wilderness character are discussed above in the Cumulative Effects section for Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). As discussed in the Soil and Watershed Resources and Sensitive and Rare Plants sections, natural factors (such as, plant species composition, bare ground, water quality, numbers of saplings and suckers) are all expected to continue to improve under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). This improvement would benefit the natural quality of the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness over the short and long- term. Evidence of past grazing activities would fade over time and long term ecological conditions would improve over time.

3.4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments No irreversible or irretrievable commitments would occur as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives.

3.4.6 Forest Plan Consistency Both of the alternatives would be consistent with the management direction in the Forest Plan for wilderness areas.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 159 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.4.7 Specialist Report This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Recreation, Wilderness, and Roadless Area Specialist Report in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Recreation, Wilderness, and Roadless Area Specialist Report is located in the Wilderness-Roadless folder of the Resources section of the project record and contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA. 3.5 Recreation 3.5.1 Scope of the Analysis The analysis area for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the four allotments in the project area. The focus of the analysis is on those areas with recreation use, including trails, roads, camping areas, and trailheads. The proposed term of the permit is ten years. The time period for the recreation analysis include the effects to recreation over the next ten years. Management Direction Forest-wide management direction for recreation resources includes the following standards and guidelines: • Manage the Forest to provide a wide variety of opportunities within the Recreation opportunity Spectrum (see glossary for definitions and Chapter III for acres) (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-13).

3.5.2 Desired Condition The Forest Plan provides the following desired condition for recreation resources: • The Forest will offer a variety of opportunities for developed and dispersed recreational experiences.

3.5.3 Current Condition The project area includes a few trails and trailheads that access the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness and a few motorized recreation opportunities. There are and dispersed camping spread across the project area. In areas outside of wilderness, forest visitors participate in hiking, horseback riding, motorized recreation, fishing and dispersed camping. There are four wheel drive roads and some dispersed camping areas between Monitor Pass and the Carson River. Additionally, there is rafting and recreation on the Carson River during spring runoff. Hot springs along the river are visited by rafters and other forest visitors. The High Trail and Carson River Trail are more highly used by wilderness visitors. These trails are a major access point into the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. There are a few primitive campsites along the Carson River that are used by wilderness visitors. The road through Bagley Valley has been closed to motorized use for many years. This road does offer a recreation opportunity and is used by hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers. The Cottonwood Allotment has some areas that are typically used for dispersed camping, off highway vehicle recreation, driving for pleasure, and four wheel driving.

160 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences 3.5.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Under this alternative, effects to recreation outside of wilderness would be minimal. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) has been designed to avoid conflicts with recreation to the extent possible. Still, the proposed sheep grazing could have impacts on trails and camping areas in the project area. In the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness, by closing most of Silver King Allotment the project area has been moved away from the Pacific Crest Trail, Poison Lake, Soda Springs Guard Station, and other higher use trails. Four trails totaling 40 miles remain in the project area; High Trail (21132), Carson River Trail (21011), Silver King Trail (21017) and Snodgrass Trail (21019). Sheep can be particularly hard on trails and these numbers could cause damage to trails if sheep are trailed along trails or trails are within grazing areas. Effects include trail braiding, erosion, and trenching. Under this alternative, sheep grazing would avoid trails except when trailing between Mineral Mountain and the Silver King Valley. Sheep would be on or near the Silver King Trail and Carson River Trail for short periods of time approximately once each season. There would likely be effects to the trails that require additional annual maintenance, including damage to water bars, trenching, and erosion. Under this alternative, sheep would be trailed on the east side of the Carson River to avoid conflicts with the Carson River Trail as much as possible. There could also be effects that are longer lasting and difficult to repair, including braiding and more serious erosion. The larger potential to affect recreation is possible damage to trails within the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. The effects from sheep grazing would be sights, sounds, or evidence of grazing. This would include trampled or utilized vegetation, and animal excrement. Effects to other resource areas such as soils or erosion could also affect recreation by altering the natural character of the area. The presence of sheep and visual evidence of trailing could affect the experience of some forest visitors in this area. However, there is not expected to be any change to the setting or character of these areas that have a history of grazing. Cumulative Effects: There are a number of other activities occurring in the project area or scheduled to occur in the project area that may affect recreation. These activities include fuels treatments, firewood cutting, mining, travel management, the East Carson River Restoration Project and Wilderness Planning. While these activities may affect recreation in various ways they are not likely to have any cumulative effects with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) because these activities should not have any effect on trails or camping areas used for recreation in the project area.

3.5.4.2 Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: There is no direct effect to recreation from this alternative because no livestock would be authorized to graze in the project area. There is still some evidence of historic cattle grazing along trails and in camping areas, but this evidence fades over time. If grazing is not reinstated to the project area, forest visitors would not encounter the sights and sounds associated with grazing activities, including the presence of sheep, trampled areas, or fecal matter. Cumulative Effects: As noted above in the cumulative effects discussion for Alternative1 (Proposed Action), there are a few past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project area that may affect recreation in various ways. Under Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) there are not expected to be any cumulative effects, because this alternative has not direct effects to recreation. The fading evidence of past livestock grazing is an indirect effect. However, there are not likely to be any cumulative effects because these other activities are not expected to have any effects on the trails and camping areas in the project area.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 161 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.5.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments No irreversible or irretrievable commitments would occur as a result of implementation of either of the alternatives.

3.5.6 Forest Plan Consistency Both alternatives are consistent with the management direction in the Forest Plan for recreation.

3.5.7 Specialist Report This EA incorporates by reference the Recreation, Wilderness, and Roadless Area Specialist Report in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Recreation, Wilderness, and Roadless Area Specialist Report is located in the Recreation folder of the Resources section of the project record and contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA. 3.6 Sensitive and Rare Plants Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list obtained for the project area (Ref. No 2012-SL- 0071), no Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed species have potential to occur in the project area. Webber ivesia was included on the list as a Candidate species with potential to occur in the project area. Webber ivesia is also a Forest Sensitive species and was therefore analyzed in the Biological Evaluation. Six rare plant species, Upswept, Dainty, slender Moonworts and Moosewort ferns, Subalpine Cryptantha, (Cryptantha chrymophila) Shevock’s bristle-moss (Orthotrichum shevockii), Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) may occur within the project area. Potential habitat is available for three rare plants which could occur in subalpine to alpine plant communities within the upper elevation of the southern portion of the Silver King Allotment. These include Tiehm’s rockcress, Cup Lake draba, and Marsh’s bluegrass. Livestock grazing would not be authorized within this portion of the Silver King Allotment in considering either alternative. Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would maintain the vacant status of the allotment, and the proposed action would close the Silver King Allotment to livestock grazing. Therefore both alternatives exclude impacts to potential habitat for Tiehm’s rockcress, Cup Lake draba and Marsh’s bluegrass. These plants are not included in further analysis. In contrast, whitebark pine, a subalpine tree, occurs across the upper elevations of the project area, including the vicinity of Driveway Trail which is close to a proposed reallocation to the Dumont Allotment. Whitebark pine is included within the analysis. Potential fen features and associated potential habitat for three-ranked humpmoss are present within Fourmile Canyon and Fly Valley, both located within the southern portion of the Silver King Allotment. These areas would not be authorized for livestock grazing with either alternative. Three-ranked humpmoss is not included for further analysis. Forest Sensitive Species The Specialist Report for the East Alpine Rangeland Project analyzed impacts to Region Four Forest Sensitive and Watchlist species and a focus plant community that have potential to occur in the project area (project record). Based on this analysis, the following plant species were determined to potentially be impacted from Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): • Dainty, slender, upswept, and moosewort ferns

162 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

• Subalpine Cryptantha • Whitebark pine • Alpine plants

3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis The analysis area for the direct, indirect, cumulative effects to cumulative plant species is the project area and lands immediately adjacent to the project area where sheep could stray and graze. Since the permit term is proposed to be ten years, effects are considered over that time period. Management Direction Forest-wide management direction for sensitive plants includes the following goals: • Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will be recognized and protected through habitat management and coordination with state wildlife agencies. Habitat will be in good-to-excellent condition (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-6). Forest-wide management direction for sensitive plants includes the following standards and guidelines: • Manage ecosystems containing sensitive plant and animal and threatened and endangered animal populations to maintain or increase these populations and to achieve recovery (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-49). • Improve habitat for threatened or endangered species, and sensitive species that have been adversely affected by man’s activity in wilderness areas (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-50). • Manage Forest habitats and activities to achieve recovery of threatened and endangered plant species and to ensure that sensitive plant species do not become threatened or endangered (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-51).

3.6.2 Desired Condition The Forest Plan provides the following direction for management of sensitive plants: • Sensitive plant species will be protected (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-7). The Forest has developed scorecards (appendix A), referred to as the Matrices, that define specific standards for vegetation condition. For each vegetation community, the Matrices include measurable attributes regarding soil health, vegetation, hydrology, and level of disturbance. The specific vegetation communities that are used by rare plants are identified below in the Current Condition and Environmental Consequences by Species section. The attributes included in the functioning condition category are the desired conditions for the project area.

3.6.3 Current Condition and Environmental Consequences by Species Surveys conducted in the project area resulted in no detections of rare plants. However, potential habitat for Forest Sensitive moonworts was identified within the project area, and potential habitat for watchlist plant subalpine cryptantha. Modification of the plant community structure and composition could impact sensitive plants and their habitats. Adverse impacts to Forest Sensitive or other rare plant species can result from trampling, soil compaction, competition with invasive species, and changes in the relationship of mycorrhizae and the sensitive plant populations. In addition, alpine plant communities in the analysis area and a stand of whitebark pine could also be modified by livestock grazing.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 163 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Dainty, Slender, Upswept, and Moosewort Ferns Current Condition Range, Distribution and Habitat Requirements; Upswept Moonwort, (Botrychium ascendens): Upswept moonwort is ranked as a G2G3 S1 species (NatureServe 2012). It is designated as a sensitive species in both Forest Service Regions 4 and 5. It is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Species of Concern. The Nevada Heritage program also lists this fern as a sensitive species. The population trend is unknown in Nevada (Morefield 2001). In California, upswept moonwort is known to occur between 4,900 and 9,000 ft. in elevation in Mono, El Dorado, Tehama, Modoc, Plumas and Butte counties (CNPS, 2005). The Mono County occurrence of the fern is documented from the Hoover Wilderness on the Bridgeport Ranger District. Currently in Nevada, upswept moonwort is known from occur the Spring Mountains between 8,891 and 11,155 foot elevation (Morefield 2001) and the west slope of the Carson Range between 7,000 and 7500 ft, elevation. Associated habitat for upswept moonwort includes grassy fields, near streams in coniferous woods, meadows, and riparian vegetation adjacent to lake shores. Dainty Moonwort, (Botrychium crenulatum): Dainty moonwort is ranked as a G3 S1 species (NatureServe 2012). Dainty moonwort has been designated as a Sensitive Species in both Forest Service Regions 4 and 5, and by the Nevada Heritage Program. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have listed this plant as a Species of Concern. In addition it is on the Nevada Natural Heritage Program At-Risk List and Nevada Native Plant Society Watch List (NNHP 2004). The trend for this species is unknown in Nevada. Habitat for this plant includes lower montane coniferous forests, wet meadows, marshes, bog-fen habitat types, moist stream side vegetation and springs (CNPS 2003, Morefield 2001, USDA 2001). Dainty moonwort occurs at relatively high elevations in Nevada (7,900 to 11,150 feet) and has been found in lower elevations in California (4,900 to 10,000 ft.). The range for dainty moonwort has been documented from Arizona, Nevada and California to British Columbia and Alberta (Farrar 2005, Appendix page 8- 10). In Nevada, this small perennial fern is known from 10 occurrences (5 in the Spring Mountains NRA, 2 in the Ruby Mountains RD, one on the Jarbidge Ranger District, one in the Sweetwater Mountains, and one on the Inyo National Forest). Within Nevada, potential habitat is present in many of the upper elevation mountains which intercept more precipitation (Morefield 2001). Slender Moonwort, (Botrychium lineare): Slender moonwort is ranked as a G1 species. In 2001, slender moonwort was designated a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act. It was determined that listing the species is warranted but precluded by other higher priority actions (USFWS 2001). This fern is listed as Sensitive for both Forest Service Regions 4 and 5. Slender moonwort is a Watch List plant for both the Nevada Natural Heritage Program and the Nevada Native Plant Society. It has been placed on List 1B by the California Native Plant Society. Two recent locations of slender moonwort have been documented in the Bodie Hills area; one on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and the other, on private property,(Anna Halford, 2007 email, project files). These areas lie within five miles of the Humboldt – Toiyabe National Forest boundary, Bridgeport Ranger District. The population existing on private land is located in riparian vegetation supported by a hillside spring. The second site is situated in riparian vegetation immediately adjacent to a small stream. Associated species at both sites include Carex aurea, Aquilega formosa, Juncus ensifolius, J. balticus, Iris missourensis, and Rosa woodsia var. ultramontana. Volcanic parent material is also common to both sites (ibid.). Moosewort (Botrychium tunex): Moosewort is ranked as a G2G3 species recognizing a restricted range of distribution for this Botrychium fern and rarity. The plant is listed as sensitive for several of the western regions of the Forest Service, and has been assigned an S1 rank by the Nevada Heritage Program

164 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects indicating critical imperilment within the state of Nevada. The moosewort fern was first described from coastal Alaska growing on beach sand deposits sparsely to densely vegetated by bryophytes and herbaceous plants (Farrar 2006). Within mountain habitats the fern occurs on sparsely vegetated alpine scree slopes; moosewort fern has been described from mountain habitats in both Alaska and Colorado. In Nevada the moosewort fern is known from the Spring Mountain Range, associated with springs supporting a dense riparian plant community from 8,000 to 10,000 ft. elevation and the Bridgeport Ranger District, Hoover Wilderness at 10,000 ft. Potential for Occurrences within the Project Area: The Botrychium ferns carried forward into effects analysis share similar, sometimes identical, suitable habitat. During the botanical surveys completed in 2010 and 2012 of the project area the rare ferns were not detected. Little grapefern (Botrychium simplex), a more common moonwort fern was documented from riparian habitat on Leviathan Creek within the Cottonwood allotment. Little grapefern is often found in association with the rare moonwort ferns. However, these ferns are often difficult to find within the densely vegetated associated habitats. Many of the riparian drainages within the analysis area have been downcut, reflecting the past heavy grazing use and presently support vegetation associated with drier plant communities, such as silver sage. For example, with the exception of side hill seeps, Botrychium habitat is not present within the Bagley Valley Allotment. The plant species composition of streamside, riparian communities along Bagley Creek are indicative of a drier environment. This is also apparent for the main channel of the East Carson River below Falls Meadows. Silver King Creek within Silver King Valley was an extensively used irrigated pasture, based on past heavy grazing use of the area and lack of associated plant species which occur with Botrychium ferns the area was not considered potential habitat. Silver King Valley is also below the elevation that has been observed for other Botrychium habitats on the Humboldt – Toiyabe National Forest; 6,000 ft. versus recent documentation of dainty moonwort occurring at 7,200 ft. elevation in the Sweetwater Range. Drier riparian communities of the East Alpine analysis area contrast with the wet seeps and springs supporting hydrophilic herbaceous species and bryophytes associated with the Botrychium occurrences on the west slope of the Carson Range, as recorded by Boes (2009). Potential Botrychium fern habitats within the East Alpine project area are most likely to be associated with seeps, springs and small tributary streams that are capable of supporting dense riparian vegetation associated with very moist conditions. These areas are present within the project area and have a scattered distribution within the associated watersheds. Portions of Cottonwood Creek in the vicinity of Little Cottonwood Canyon and Leviathan Creek also provide potential habitat. Potential for Occurrences within the Project Area: The Botrychium ferns carried forward into effects analysis share similar, sometimes identical, suitable habitat. During the botanical surveys completed in 2010 and 2012 of the project area the rare ferns were not detected. Little grapefern (Botrychium simplex), a more common moonwort fern was documented from riparian habitat on Leviathan Creek within the Cottonwood allotment. Little grapefern is often found in association with the rare moonwort ferns. However, these ferns are often difficult to find within the densely vegetated associated habitats. Many of the riparian drainages within the analysis area have been downcut, reflecting the past heavy grazing use and presently support vegetation associated with drier plant communities, such as silver sage. For example, with the exception of side hill seeps, Botrychium habitat is not present within the Bagley Valley Allotment. The plant species composition of streamside, riparian communities along Bagley Creek are indicative of a drier environment. This is also apparent for the main channel of the East Carson River below Falls Meadows. Silver King Creek within Silver King Valley was an extensively used irrigated pasture, based on past heavy grazing use of the area and lack of associated plant species which occur with Botrychium ferns the area was not considered potential habitat. Silver King Valley is also below the elevation that has been observed for other Botrychium habitats on the Humboldt – Toiyabe National Forest; 6,000 ft. versus recent documentation of dainty moonwort occurring at 7,200 ft. elevation in the Sweetwater Range.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 165 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Drier riparian communities of the East Alpine analysis area contrast with the wet seeps and springs supporting hydrophilic herbaceous species and bryophytes associated with the Botrychium occurrences on the west slope of the Carson Range, as recorded by Boes (2009). Potential Botrychium fern habitats within the East Alpine project area are most likely to be associated with seeps, springs and small tributary streams that are capable of supporting dense riparian vegetation associated with very moist conditions. These areas are present within the project area and have a scattered distribution within the associated watersheds. Portions of Cottonwood Creek in the vicinity of Little Cottonwood Canyon and Leviathan Creek also provide potential habitat. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Grazing and trampling of an undetected occurrence of Botrychium ferns could occur with permitted sheep grazing. To address this risk, the design features for Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) provide that with documentation of fern presence, an assessment will be completed by the District botanist to avoid or otherwise protect plants. Indirect effects of sheep grazing potential Botrychium fern habitats as proposed in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), would likely impact some sites but not exclude the capability for recovery. It is anticipated that the rate of change towards satisfactory status under a grazing use strategy would be slower compared to non-use, described in Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing). Given the past heavy use of the analysis area and trend towards improved range conditions as reflected in vegetation cover and soil structure, the current project would not cumulatively impact potential Botrychium fern habitat. Effects Determination: Considering the closure of Silver King allotment, the drier character of riparian communities adjacent to the Carson River in upper Dumont Allotment and Bagley Valley Creek, and the ability of Botrychium ferns within suitable habitat to tolerate moderate grazing; it is determined that implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for any of the Botrychium species considered; upswept, dainty, and slender moonwort ferns and moosewort.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Grazing related direct and indirect effects would not impact dainty, slender, upswept, and moosewort ferns or potential habitats. In the absence of grazing, riparian plant communities may track towards a functional status within a shorter length of time. However, drier climatic trends would likely influence recovery rates. Subalpine Cryptantha Current Condition Range and Distribution: Subalpine cryptantha is a perennial herb, native to California and is limited to California alone. It is included in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants on list 1B.3 (rare, threatened or endangered in CA and elsewhere, 8th Edition). Occurrences have been documented in Alpine (nine), and Tuolumne (one) Counties. This represents the known global distribution of the plant. Within Alpine County, herbarium records document the plant from the Raymond Peak area in the vicinity of Ebbetts Pass, and also towards the Sonora Pass area and Sonora Peak (Calflora, accessed 8/24/12). Potential for Occurrence within the Project Area: Surveys to date have not documented the occurrence of the subalpine cryptantha within the East Alpine project area. Potential habitat is present within the

166 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Dumont, and Cottonwood allotments. The project area lies adjacent to the known distribution of the plant. Potential habitat for subalpine cryptantha is present within the East Alpine project area inclusive of Silver King Allotment. For the purposes of displaying effects to the rare cryptantha, the area analyzed includes the Cottonwood, Dumont (with re-delineation), and Bagley allotments. Upper elevation ridgeline areas on both the Dumont and Cottonwood allotments would provide potential habitat for subalpine cryptantha. Ridgeline habitats were under-surveyed during both the 2010 and 2012 field seasons. While the rare plant occupies habitats which are relatively sparse and rocky, absent of forage for sheep, these areas are sometimes used as bedding grounds. The rocky habitat supporting the rare plant would, to some extent protect individual plants from trampling. Threats: The typical habitat for subalpine cryptantha is semi barren soils and scree, which does not provide adequate forage for grazing livestock. However, populations occurring on or adjacent to a ridgeline can be impacted with the placement of bedding grounds in close proximity, resulting in trampling of plants by sheep. Over collection of seed for horticultural use will impact the persistence of small plant populations. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects to subalpine cryptantha occur when sheep crush and trample rare plants (if present) within the bedding area. In addition, grazing (consumption of plants) would occur. Sheep bedding sites are denuded of vegetation following livestock use. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) directs that bedding sites would not be used repeatedly during a grazing season, or the same area used consistently over consecutive years. Non-repetitive use would protect a site from compaction and other indirect effects to rare plant communities like increased nitrification (please see general grazing effects section). However, the potential for introduction of weedy plants and, a shift of plant species composition at a site which has been denuded by sheep bedding would alter the competitive environment for the rare plant. Within small populations of plants disturbance can have a disproportional large impact on the population and species. Given the associated habitat of the plant within a remote, rocky setting and, the lack of human or livestock disturbance at other known locations, the proposed project would not cause additional cumulative impacts to the known population distribution within Alpine County. Effects Determination: Potential habitat for subalpine cryptantha is present within the East Alpine project area. Surveys completed in 2010 and 2012 did not detect occupied rare plant habitat. Considering the rotation of sheep bedding areas both within season and between years, the potential of the rocky terrain the rare plant is associated with to protect some plants from livestock impacts, and the ability of deep tap- rooted plants to often recover from grazing impacts, it is determined that implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for subalpine cryptantha.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Grazing related direct and indirect effects would not impact subalpine cryptantha or potential habitats. Accordingly, there would be no cumulative effects under this alternative.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 167 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Whitebark Pine Current Condition Range and Distribution: Whitebark pine was designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on July 19, 2011 (Fed. Register, Vol. 76, pg. 42631).The distribution of whitebark pine extends from the western portion of British Columbia into the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, through the high elevation mountain ranges of western Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the eastern Great Basin Ranges of Nevada, and from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California through Oregon and Washington (ibid). Potential for Occurrence within the Project Area: Large stands of whitebark pine are present within the upper elevations of Fish Valley, Fourmile Canyon and Fly Valley within the East Alpine analysis area. Whitebark pine is also present as part of the forest stand located at the upper elevations of the Driveway trail and extends into the alpine community in a windswept, krumholtz growth form. The alpine area adjacent to the Driveway Trail was not included within the additional acres added to the Dumont allotment modification. However, it is immediately adjacent to the addition to the Dumont Allotment and would not be separated from that area through fencing. Threats: Mortality rates collected throughout the range of whitebark pine provide evidence of a substantial and pervasive decline of the species (Fed. Register, Vol. 76, pg. 42631). This has been linked to a history of fire suppression allowing shade tolerant species such as, subalpine fir and mountain hemlock to replace whitebark pine stands. In addition, disease and predation factors include, the non- native white pine blister rust which infects trees causing a reduction in cone production and over time tree death, as well as, stand loss through mountain pine beetle epidemics. The blister rust and mountain pine beetle act both individually and synergistically to threaten whitebark pine regionwide (ibid.). Climate change is an additional exacerbating factor to the survival of whitebark pine, as current occupied habitats would become unsuitable for the tolerance level of the pine through increasing temperature and the lack of suitable levels of soil moisture (Keane 2011). The long generation time of whitebark pine, (60 -80 years) further influences the species response to change. As whitebark pine stands decline, the occurrence of mast years of cone production is also affected, further disrupting the cycle of seed dispersal. While, not identified as a primary regionwide threat to the species, livestock grazing in whitebark pine habitats results in trampling and consumption of tree seedlings (Arno and Thombeck). Whitebark pine stands are present within the upper elevations of the Silver King Allotment. Occupied and potential habitats are not available within Bagley, Dumont, or Cottonwood allotments based on the lower elevation of these areas. The analysis area for the effects discussion is focused on the stand of whitebark pine which is in close proximity to the re-delineation of the Dumont Allotment and is bisected by the Driveway Trail. This area has been withdrawn from the proposed area for authorized livestock grazing, however, based on proximity to the latter and the lack of a boundary fence it has been included in the effects analysis. Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects to whitebark pine would occur when inadvertently sheep impact tree seedlings through trampling or grazing consumption. With the re- delineation of the Dumont allotment in the vicinity of the Driveway Trail to protect adjacent alpine and subalpine vegetation, it is anticipated that only inadvertent grazing use would occur. It is not anticipated that the area would be grazed by a large number of sheep or would be used as a bedding ground. Based on the presence of a herder directing the band of sheep, inadvertent grazing impacts are considered a low risk.

168 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Whitebark pine are being impacted in other ways. Some, whitebark pine within the Driveway Trail area are infected with blister rust. The Driveway Trail stand also displays low levels of bark beetle infestation. It is not likely that these combined impacts would promote a loss of the whitebark stand in the Driveway Trail location but could impact stand dynamics in terms of age class structure. Effects Determination: Based on the exclusion of the whitebark pine stand in the vicinity of the Driveway Trail from the proposed grazing allotment, the presence of a herder to direct sheep, and the recognition that some inadvertent use by grazing animals could occur, it is determined that implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for whitebark pine.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: The subalpine and alpine habitats which support whitebark pine would not be exposed to the risk of inadvertent grazing by sheep crossing a very transparent allotment boundary. No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to whitebark pine from domestic sheep grazing would occur. Alpine Plants Current Condition Range and Distribution: Alpine plant communities are found at high elevations, for the Carson Ranger District generally from around 9,000ft., and are limited in extent to mountain peaks, associated ridgelines and high elevation plateaus. Alpine plant communities are highly variable with regard to plant species composition and are found throughout western North America in association with major mountain ranges and to a more limited extent on the Eastern portion of the United States (confined primarily to Vermont and New Hampshire) (Zwinger and Willard 1972). Within Eastern California and Nevada, alpine communities are found in the upper elevations of, the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, Sweetwater Mountains, a limited portion of the Wassuk Range, Mt. Jefferson in the Toquima Range, Schell Creek, Snake and Ruby Mountains. Potential for Occurrence Within the Project Area; Within the project area, alpine communities are present within the upper elevations and ridgelines of the Silver King Allotment inclusive of upper Fourmile Canyon, Fly Valley, Antelope, Whitecliff, and Whites Peaks. Alpine vegetation is also present at the upper elevation of the Driveway trail, adjacent to the Dumont allotment re-delineation. The alpine vegetation present in this vicinity includes plants associated with a wet area maintained by an extensive snow drift and, a cushion plant community established on a rocky pavement ground surface. Threats; Based on the natural beauty of alpine areas, recreational overuse and impacts to alpine plant communities has been documented (Crisfield et al 2012), especially in areas which are accessed by trails and are in close proximity to major urban areas. The low productivity of alpine plants causes these communities to be susceptible to livestock grazing impacts (USDA 2006). Many alpine plants including cushion species are susceptible to trampling damage from a variety of sources including, livestock, all- terrain vehicles, and hikers. In addition, climate change also influences abiotic changes in alpine communities which increases stress on individual plants and the plant community (Chapin et al 1995). Alpine plant communities are present within the upper elevations of the Silver King Allotment. Alpine communities are not present within Bagley, Dumont, or Cottonwood allotments based on the lower elevation of these areas. The analysis area for the effects discussion is focused on the alpine vegetation which is in close proximity to the re-delineation of the Dumont Allotment and is bisected by the Driveway Trail. Alpine and subalpine plant communities have been withdrawn from the proposed allotment area, however, based on proximity to the latter and the lack of a boundary fence it has been included in the effects analysis.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 169 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects to the alpine community would occur when inadvertently sheep impact plants through trampling or grazing consumption. With the re-delineation of the Dumont allotment in the vicinity of the Driveway Trail to protect adjacent alpine and subalpine vegetation, it is anticipated that only inadvertent grazing use would occur. It is not anticipated that the area would be grazed by a large number of sheep or would be used as a bedding ground. Based on the presence of a herder directing the band of sheep, inadvertent grazing impacts while considered a low risk could occur on an infrequent basis. The Driveway Trail which bisects the alpine community of concern is popular for use by both hikers and packstock. However, impacts to the alpine community are immediately adjacent to the trail. Other areas of localized impact from recreational camping or packstock grazing are not evident. The cumulative effects of all these activities is expected to be low. The low and occasional anticipated level of sheep use would not likely promote a loss of the alpine community in the Driveway Trail location but could impact individual plants with occasional grazing use. Effects Determination: Based on the exclusion of the alpine plant community in the vicinity of the Driveway Trail from the proposed grazing allotment, the presence of a herder to direct sheep, and the recognition that some inadvertent use by grazing animals could occur, it is determined that implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) may impact individual plants but is not likely to cause a declining trend or alteration of the alpine community.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Grazing related direct and indirect effects would not impact the alpine plant community adjacent to the Dumont allotment re-delineation. There would be no cumulative effects.

3.6.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of sensitive plant species would occur as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives.

3.6.5 Forest Plan Consistency Both of the alternatives would be consistent with the management direction for sensitive plant species in the Forest Plan.

3.6.6 Specialist Report This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Botany Specialist Report in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Botany Specialist Report is located in the Botany folder of the Resources section of the project record and contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA.

170 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.7 Cultural Resources Cultural resources is a broad term referring to properties and traditional lifeway values resulting from human occupation and use. A cultural resource may be the physical remains of archaeological, historic, or architectural sites and/or a place of traditional cultural use. Cultural resources in the project area are managed under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Forest Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding rangeland management activities (FSM 1539.61), and the Forest Plan. Each of these authorities mandates inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources, including project-by-project inventories prior to any ground disturbing activities and the avoidance of National Register Eligible archaeological sites as a standard approach to project implementation. Under revised Section 106 (June 1999), coordination and consultation with the California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) and local tribal representatives are required. If site-specific cultural resource surveys identify resources, federal law will be followed during the environmental analysis and project implementation. For the portion of the project in California, the strategies developed to address the effects of rangeland management activities on historic properties in the National PA would be applied. Implementation of the strategies in the National PA satisfies the Forest’s compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA (USDA FS 1995a). The strategies to address potential effect to historic properties is discussed in greater detail in the Cultural Resources Specialist Report in the project record. For the small portion of the project area in Nevada, a slightly different process applies. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and the Nevada SHPO, tiered on the National PA (PA) between the Forest Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation mentioned above, was developed to refine several strategies to address the effects of rangeland management activities on historic properties (USDA FS 1995a). The MOU was developed pursuant to Section 800.13 and Section 110 of the NHPA. Implementation of this MOU satisfies the Forest’s compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA (USDA FS 1995a). The strategies to address potential effect to historic properties is discussed in greater detail in the Cultural Resources Specialist Report in the project record.

3.7.1 Scope of the Analysis The analysis area for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the project area and lands immediately adjacent for the term of the proposed grazing permit (ten years). A cultural resource may be divided by administrative boundaries, and adjacent land may need to be considered in a proper analysis. Standard practice is to use a buffer of one mile from the project boundary (USDA FS 1995b). Management Direction Forest-wide management direction for cultural resources includes the following goal: • Significant properties will be identified, evaluated for National Register nomination, and protected, as appropriate (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-8). Standards and guidelines will be consistent with procedures accepted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), guidelines followed by the Nevada BLM, and professionally accepted standards supported by the archaeological community in the area. Direction in this Plan calls for full implementation of these standards and guidelines in managing cultural resources on the Forest and in complying with applicable federal laws and regulation including but not limited to: the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA); Executive Order 11593; the implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800 and 36 CFR 60; supplementary Advisory Council guidelines; the Antiquities Act of 1906; and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Consultation with the SHPO, the President’s

East Alpine Rangeland Project 171 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Keeper of the Register will be conducted, as appropriate, in fulfilling responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA, as implemented by 36 CFR 800, and the regulatory mandates of 36 CFR 60.

3.7.2 Desired Condition The Forest Plan provides the following direction for management of cultural resources: • The Cultural Resource Overview (having been completed in 1988) will guide management decisions and direction, and provide a necessary link to the Nevada State Historic Preservation Plan. In the Overview, areas will have been delineated for moderate and high archaeological sensitivity, and work targeted for completion of a Forest-wide cultural resource inventory (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-8). • The inventory of National Register properties will provide useful planning tool for effective management of the cultural resource in relation to other resource needs. Protection, enhancement, and interpretation of National Register quality properties will have been ongoing (USDA FS 1986, p. IV-8). The FSM provides the following policy for management of cultural resources: • Evaluate cultural resources to determine their scientific, historical and/or cultural values; eligibility for inclusion on the National Register; and potential for National Historic Landmark Status or other special designations (USDA FSM 2008, 2363.02). • Fully integrate opportunities for preservation, protection, and utilization of cultural resources into land use planning and decisions (USDA FSM 2008, 2360.3). The Forest has developed scorecards (appendix A), referred to as the Matrices, that define specific standards for vegetation condition. For each vegetation community, the Matrices include measurable attributes regarding ecosystem health. The attributes included in the functioning condition category are the desired conditions for the project area. As discussed below, vegetation communities that are in functioning condition provides protection for cultural resources.

3.7.3 Current Condition Cultural resource inventories for federal undertakings and archaeological research projects have taken place within the project area. From these inventories, an understanding of the nature and location of many of the cultural resources in the project area is available for this EA. A total of 80 known prehistoric and 76 known historic sites are found within the project area. Prehistoric sites range from small lithic scatters with a few flakes to large lithic procurement sites with formal tools and raw materials. The historic sites relate mostly to logging, and ranching activities during the late 1880s. A majority of the known sites are found within the Bagley Valley Allotment where an extensive archaeological survey was conducted for restoration of the meadows. Few surveys have been conducted on the remaining allotments. The proposed irrigation system repairs and improvements have been cleared with California SHPO (letter dated July 2012). The irrigation system was determined to be not eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore, no special mitigations are required for the repairs to the system.

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences In general, actions which effect vegetation, soil stability, erosion, and ground cover can be said to impact cultural resources. Adverse effects to cultural resources can be expected from grazing livestock on the landscape under either of the action alternatives for this project. Common effects include trampling,

172 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

artifact breakage, soil compaction, destabilization of stream banks, and increased erosion due to reduced ground cover. These impacts began around 100 years ago when domestic livestock grazing was introduced to the project area and would continue to some degree under either of the action alternatives. These effects may impact recorded sites and sites that have not yet been discovered and recorded. Trampling While moving about the range in search of forage, livestock trample on exposed surface archaeological material. Archaeological remains depend, in some degree, upon depositional context for their significance. Experiment evidence (US Army Corps of Engineers 1990) shows that livestock trampling displaces both horizontally across the ground surface and vertically in certain soil conditions (e.g., wet or damp soils adjacent to springs). In the latter instance, archaeological materials may come to occupy subsurface locations deeper or shallower than originally deposited. This kind of displacement makes interpreting the formation processes of the sites more difficult and sometimes impossible. If on a slope, cattle have the capability of moving the artifacts downhill by kicking clumps of dirt. They can move the artifact away from the site altogether by carrying artifacts within the mud on their hooves. Artifact Breakage Other experimental evidence (US Army Corps of Engineers 1990) indicates that one of the effects expected from livestock grazing is the breakage of artifacts exposed on the surface. This breakage may be in the form of edge damage to artifacts, which can make the interpretation of technological processes used in the manufacture of the artifacts difficult or impossible. Trained lithic analysts are often unable to determine if certain kinds of edge wear evident on artifacts are the result of prehistoric use, purposeful human modification during manufacture, or accidental flaking due to impact from livestock hooves, which weakens the scientific interpretation of artifacts. Artifacts may also be broken in two or more pieces after being stepped on by livestock. This type of breakage separates portions of artifacts critical for age dating and morphological typing (e.g., projectile point bases) from the remainder of the artifact. Soil Compaction Soil compaction caused by livestock trampling can result in an adverse effect to subsurface archaeological remains, as well as contributing to exposure and accelerated erosion. In addition to the horizontal and vertical displacement of artifacts discussed above, this kind of disturbance can impair the stratigraphic interpretation of soils critical to understanding site formation, site function, and scientific importance. Soil compaction seems to be a greater concern in damp or wet areas than in dry soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 1990). Reduced Ground Cover Areas that are overgrazed to the point of removing or seriously depleting vegetation may increase the potential for sheet and gully erosion. Archaeological sites present in these areas are subject to damage from these erosional processes. This is most evident around springs, meadows, and other riparian areas where cattle tend to concentrate. Destabilization of Stream Banks Riparian areas of streams tend to be high probability areas for the occurrence of archaeological sites. These sites often occupy terraces adjacent to the streambed. If livestock use results in shearing and collapsing of stream banks, this would adversely impact archaeological sites present on the terrace. Cultural resources in these sites may become exposed and may be impacted or removed from the site by natural processes, livestock, or people. Livestock has been grazing the area for over the last 100 years. It is likely that archaeological sites have been impacted by grazing, though the extent of that impact would vary depending on local conditions.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 173 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Archaeological sites in remote areas and on terrain unsuitable to grazing would not be impacted by livestock grazing, but would still be affected by natural processes. Sites located in areas with little or no livestock grazing retain better surface and subsurface integrity, as compared to sites in areas that are grazed. Grazing by livestock exacerbates natural processes which impact archaeological sites (US Army Corps of Engineers 1990). Additionally, archaeological sites with intact subsurface remains are important for their scientific information. These subsurface archaeological materials would not have been affected by grazing except in areas with specific types of soils or soil conditions. For example, archaeological sites located in wet or damp areas are likely to have been impacted adversely by livestock trampling (US Army Corps of Engineers 1990). A primary goal of the PA is to identify and evaluate the effects of livestock grazing on cultural resources, through comparisons with sites located in areas not grazed by livestock (USDA FS 1995a).

Alternative 1: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would manage livestock grazing in a manner that is favorable to the protection and preservation of cultural resources. The end of growing season utilization levels proposed under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would result in improved vegetation conditions, reduced soil erosion, trampling and compaction, and improved streambank stability. These vegetation improvements would be most evident around springs, meadows and other riparian areas, which are also areas of high concentrations of cultural sites. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) would protect potentially eligible cultural sites by requiring that activities that concentrate livestock use (feeding and bedding) be placed to avoid these sites. With these improved conditions, cultural sites should be less exposed, which should reduce artifact breakage and improve concealment. Conditions under this alternative would make cultural sites less vulnerable to looting and illegal collection. Efforts to distribute livestock to use forage over a greater area would spread some of the impacts of grazing (artifact breakage, soil compaction) over a larger area than the current condition. Recommendations in the AOIs for allotments ensure that sites identified through the process required under the 1995 PA are protected from livestock grazing activities. For the portions of the Dumont and Silver King allotments where livestock grazing would not be authorized, there would be no direct or indirect effects under this alternative. Cumulative Effects: Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities occurring in the analysis area that could affect these factors include mineral exploration and recreation. These activities are not covered under the rangeland PA and would require review under the Section 106 process to determine the potential effects from the individual proposed actions on any historic properties located in their area of potential effect. These activities would be reviewed by the California SHPO on a project-specific level and alterations to the project to limit impacts to affected properties would be made as appropriate in consultation with the SHPO. Following this process should eliminate impacts from planned activities on cultural resources. Some ongoing activities, such as range developments and roads, trails, and vehicle use, in the analysis area began before passage of the NHPA in 1966. Some existing range developments (watering sites and bedding sites) have been placed too close to spring sites, where cultural resources often occur. Spring protection fences have often been too small and/or are in disrepair resulting in livestock impacts in the spring area and on cultural sites. These livestock improvements create concentration areas that often result in considerable trampling, artifact breakage, and soil compaction. These impacts would be managed through the same processes outlined in the PA. Not all range developments were surveyed, and a probabilistic model was used to determine impacts elsewhere; thus, the continued use of livestock improvements could result in addition damage to some sites. All new livestock improvements are managed under the Section 106 process.

174 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Existing roads provide access to range developments, which may be located near sensitive cultural resources. These roads can pass through cultural resources. Use and maintenance of the road would impact any cultural resources they cross. The roads used to develop and maintain range developments provide opportunities for increased visitation to sensitive archaeological sites. Grazing decreases ground cover, especially near range developments, which increases the visibility of cultural resources. Looting and vandalism are well documented impacts to cultural resources. Artifacts from these sites are more likely to be looted or vandalized by humans, because of this increased visibility.

Alternative 2: No Action/No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Of the two alternatives, Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would result in the least impacts to cultural resources. While no new impacts from soil compaction and artifact breakage would occur, impacts to cultural sites from past grazing practices would continue into the future until vegetation conditions recover and limit the exposure of cultural sites to erosion and looting. Ground cover and streambanks would stabilize and recover over time. Sites would continue to degrade naturally. There would be no adverse direct or indirect effects on cultural resources as a result of authorized livestock grazing within the project area. Cumulative Effects: Of the two alternatives, Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing) would result in the most favorable conditions for the protection and preservation of cultural resources. The impacts that other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area have on cultural resources are discussed above under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). As the impacts from livestock grazing diminish, there would be a corresponding reduction in the overall cumulative effects on cultural resources.

3.7.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments In general, livestock grazing, and the activities associated with livestock grazing, have the potential to result in irreversible impacts to cultural resources. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) follows the recommendations identified under the National PA and the MOU with Nevada SHPO and includes two design features that would prevent any irreversible commitment to cultural resources. Accordingly, no irreversible or irretrievable commitments would occur as a result of any of the alternatives.

3.7.6 Forest Plan Consistency Both of the alternatives would be consistent with the management direction for cultural resources in the Forest Plan.

3.7.7 Specialist Report This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Cultural Resources Specialist Report in the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report is located in the Cultural Resources folder of the Resources section of the project record and contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA. Under provisions of the FSM, Freedom of Information Act, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, this information may be withheld from disclosure to the public in order to prevent inadvertent or intentional damage to cultural resources (USDA FS 2008c).

East Alpine Rangeland Project 175 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

This page intentionally left blank.

176 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 4 – Scoping and List of Contributors

Chapter 4 – List of Contributors and Recipients

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members The Forest Service staff who contributed towards the preparation and review of this document are as follows:

Elizabeth Bergstrom Botanist Sally Champion Hydrologist Nicholas Connolly GIS/Data Services Specialist Maureen Easton IDT Leader/Wildlife Specialist Jim Harvey Forest Fisheries Program Manager Joseph Garotto Archeologist Courtney Ghiglieri Rangeland Management Specialist Cheryl Johnson Forest GIS Specialist Vernon Keller Forest Range Environmental Coordinator Daniel Morris Wilderness/Recreation Specialist David Palmer Forest Range Program Manager Rachel Van Horne Aquatics Specialist Genny Wilson District Ranger

4.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Alpine County Board of Supervisors Alpine County Chamber of Commerce Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management – Carson City District Office California Department of Fish and Game California State Clearing House Carson Water Subconservancy District Douglas County Board of Supervisors Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Nevada Department of Wildlife

East Alpine Rangeland Project 177 Chapter 4 – Scoping and List of Contributors

Nevada State Clearing House Stanislaus National Forest, Calaveras Ranger District State Water Resources Control Board, Leviathon Mine Project U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4.3 Tribal Governments Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 4.4 Others Alpine Watershed Group Back Country Horsemen Bill Heise California Wilderness Coalition Center for Biological Diversity Dick Artley F.I.M. Corporation FLP DBA Borda Land and Sheep Co. Friends of Hope Valley Friends of Silver Creek Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics High Sierra Hikers Association Pacific Crest Trail Association Park Livestock Company Sierra Club/Toiyabe Chapter Steven Wooster Western Watersheds Project

178 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

ACRONYMS

AMP Allotment Management Plan AOI Annual Operating Instructions AUM Animal Unit Month BLM Bureau of Land Management CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic Feet per Second CUA Concentrated Use Areas EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FR Federal Register FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GPS Global Positioning System HM Head Months HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IDT Interdisciplinary Team MIM Multiple Indicator Method MIS Management Indicator Species MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NFMA National Forest Management Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NTMB Neotropical Migrating Birds NTU Nepelometric Turbidity Units OHV Off-highway Vehicles RSAC Remote Sensing Applications Center SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SU Standard Unit USDA United States Department of Agriculture

East Alpine Rangeland Project 179 Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

GLOSSARY

(A) Actual Use: The Head Months actually grazed on a national forest. Affected Environment: The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area being analyzed. Allotment: Rangeland and/or forestland designated for the use of a prescribed number and kind of livestock under a plan of management. Allotment Management Plan (AMP): Long-term operating plan for a grazing allotment on public land, prepared in collaboration with a permittee and the appropriate agency. Allowable Use: The degree of vegetative use allowed on a particular site. As related to the standards in the matrices this is applied at the point in time it was observed. Alternative: A combination of management prescriptions applied in specific amounts and locations to achieve a desired management emphasis as expressed in goals and objectives. One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decisionmaking. An alternative need not substitute for another in all respects. Annual (Implementation) Monitoring: The monitoring of implementation of the Annual Operating Instructions and Term Grazing Permit. This includes monitoring of: pre-season range readiness; annual maintenance of range improvements; compliance with permitted livestock utilization; annual maintenance of range improvements; compliance with permitted livestock utilization standards, and timing and location of use. Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of feed or forage required by an animal unit for one month. (B) Bank Alteration: Recent (1 or 2 years) physical alteration of the bank by livestock trampling. It is measured from the low water line to the top of the bank. Hoof prints or vertical bank shear that break the soil surface, exposing plant roots or soil to air or water, constitute measurable impact if it causes bank instability or retards bank recovery. Alteration from the previous season still constitutes measurable impact if it meets this same definition. Previous hoof prints and vertical bank shear are not expected to be obvious into a third season due to freeze/thaw cycles, rain events, erosion by streamflow or vegetative regrowth. Simple impressions on heavy herbaceous ground cover do not constitute a measurable impact. Nearly all hoof prints or vertical bank shear that significantly break the soil surface and expose plant roots or soil to air or water will cause bank instability or retard bank recovery, or both. The overriding concept behind the measure is making sure that the integrity of the streambank remains. Bare Ground: Exposed ground not covered by vegetation, litter, or pavement. Beneficial Uses: Different ways in which natural waters are used by humans and nature. Human uses include drinking water, bathing, recreation, agricultural, and industrial water supplies. Natural uses include growth and propagation of fish and associated aquatic life, wildlife, and furbearers. Best Management Practices (BMPs): Strategies for managing the use of a resource in a manner that protects the resource and promotes ecological and economic sustainability. Biological Assessment: An assessment or study required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to determine the potential effects of a proposed management action on threatened and endangered species or their habitats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review Biological Assessments and requests that all

180 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

threatened, endangered, proposed threatened or endangered, and Category 1 “candidate species” be addressed. Biological Evaluation: The legal record of finding for U.S. Forest Service Region Four sensitive species. Browse Utilization (%): A measure of the amount of browse (woody) vegetation consumed by livestock at a particular site as a percent of the current year’s growth. (C) Canopy: (1) The vertical projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation, usually expressed as a percent of the ground so occupied. (2) The aerial portion of the overstory vegetation. Canopy Cover: The percentage of ground cover by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the natural spread of foliage of plants. Small openings within the canopy are included. It may exceed 100%. Class A Waters: Waters or portions of waters located in areas of little human habitation, no industrial development or intensive agriculture and where the watershed is relatively undisturbed by man’s activity. Climax: (1) The final or stable biotic community in a successional series, which is self-perpetuating, and in dynamic equilibrium with the physical habitat. (2) The assured end point in succession. Community: An assemblage of populations of plants and/or animals in a common spatial arrangement. Compaction: Occurs when moist or wet soil aggregates are pressed together by the application of mechanical forces and the pore space between them is reduced. Compaction changes soil structure, reduces the size and continuity of pores, and increases soil density. Competition: The interaction between organisms as a result of the removal of a common required resource from the environment. Resources may include water, nutrients, light, oxygen, carbon dioxide, food, and shelter. Cultural Resource: The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) and conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area of native people) of an area. Cumulative Effect: The effect on the environment which results from an incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (D) Deferment: Delay of livestock grazing on an area for an adequate period of time, to provide for plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, or the restoration of vigor in existing plants. Deferred-Rotation: Any grazing system that provides for a systematic rotation of deferment among pastures. Density: (1) The number of individuals per unit area. It is not a measure of cover. Developed Recreation: Recreation that occurs where improvements have been made that (1) enhance recreation opportunities, and (2) accommodate intensive recreation activities in a defined area. Direct Effect: Effects on the environment that occur at the same time and place as the initial cause or action.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 181 Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Dispersed Recreation: The portion of outdoor recreation use that occurs outside of recreation developed sites in the unroaded and roaded National Forest environment (for example, hunting, backpacking, and berry-picking). Distinct Population Segment (DPS): A population isolated and separable by physiological, ecological, behavioral, or genetic factors. Disturbance: Any event, either natural or human induced, that alters the structure, composition, or function of an ecosystem. Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan (National Forest Management Act Planning Regulation). Downcutting: Stream erosion in which the cutting action is directed in a downward direction. Incision of a stream channel. Dry Meadow: A meadow dominated by grasses, which become moderately dry by mid-summer. (E) Ecoplots: Vegetation and soil sampling areas used to organize data collection for riparian scorecards. Ecosystem: Organisms together with their abiotic environment, forming an interacting system, inhabiting an identifiable space. Effects: Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or experiences) resulting from natural events or management activities. Effects can be direct, indirect, and cumulative and may be beneficial or detrimental. Endangered Species: Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and listed as such by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The policy for the management of federally listed endangered species is contained in FSM 2670.31, 6/23/95 (http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/fsm/2600/). Environment: The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting organisms in an area. Environmental Analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable long and short-term environmental effects. Environmental analyses include physical, biological, economic, social, and environmental design factors and their interrelations. Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by rain or irrigation water, wind, ice, or other natural or anthropogenic agents that abrade, detach and remove geologic parent material or soil from one point on the earth's surface and deposit it elsewhere, including such processes as gravitational creep and so-called tillage erosion. Exclosure: An area where livestock or other animals are denied access. (F) Floodplain: The area adjacent to the active stream channel which is inundated during flows that exceed bankfull level. The floodplain acts as an energy dispersion zone during flood flows, and functions as an area of deposition. Foliage: The green or live leaves of plants. Forage: Browse and herbage that are available for food for grazing animals or to be harvested for feeding.

182 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Forage Production: The weight of forage that is produced within a designated period of time on a given area (usually expressed as pounds per acre). The weight may be expressed as green, air-dry, or oven-dry. Forb: Any broad-leafed, herbaceous plant other than those in the Poaceae (grass), Cyperaceae (sedge), and Juncaceae (rush) families. Forest Plan Standards: Resource management standards designed to facilitate meeting of National Forest goals and objectives. Forest Service Sensitive: See Sensitive Species Functioning - Proper Functioning Condition: Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landforms, or large woody debris is present to (1) dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; (2) filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; (3) improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; (4) develop root masses that stabilize streambank against cutting action; (5) develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses, and (6) support greater biodiversity (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995). Functioning-at-Risk: Riparian-wetland areas that are in a functional condition but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995). Functions as Desired: As used in the “Matrices” section, functions as desired describes what a rangeland ecosystem type should look like as management direction is implemented. The two points in time chosen for the description are now and after 10 years of management implementations. (G) Global Positioning Satellites (GPS): A system of satellites, computers, and receivers that is able to determine the latitude and longitude of a receiver on Earth by calculating the time difference for signals from different satellites to reach the receiver. Grazing Season: (1) On public land, an established period for which grazing permits is issued. (2) The time interval when animals are allowed to utilize a certain area. Grazing System: A specialization of grazing management, which defines the periods of grazing and non-grazing. Grazing system should consist of at least the following: the number of pastures, number of herds, and length of non-grazing periods for any given unit in the system. Examples are Deferred Rotation and Rest Rotation. (H) Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions that surround a single species, a group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, and living space. Habitat Type: The collective area that one plant association occupies or will come to occupy as succession advances. The habitat type is defined and described as succession advances. The habitat type is defined and described based on the vegetation and its associated environment. Head Cutting: The upstream movement of a waterfall or a locally steep channel bottom due to the erosion caused by rapidly flowing water. Head Month: Tenure of one herbivore on National Forest for a period of one month. Herbaceous: Vegetation growth with little or no woody components, such as graminoids and forbs.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 183 Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Herbaceous Utilization (%): A measure of the amount of herbaceous vegetation consumed by livestock at a particular site. Herbivory: Feeding on plants or plant material. Herding: The practice of a person causing livestock to move from one location to another in order to meet livestock management objectives. Herding can be utilized in association with, or as a substitute for, fence construction. Heritage Resource: The embodiment of a culture’s identity, human experiences, and all that entails a culture’s everyday life, including but not limited to objects and documents, structures, buildings, landscapers, archaeological sites, and ethnographic information. Hydrologic Function: The ability of a stream to transport water and sediment in a balanced condition. The degree and rate of transport is the result of the natural watershed characteristics, including precipitation, geology, landforms, and vegetation. These characteristics have defined over time average conditions of streamflow, quantity, and character of sediment moving through the system, and composition of the materials forming the bed and banks of the channels. Stream systems that are in a balanced condition exhibit a relatively stable channel structure with only minor annual changes. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): A unique two to eight digit number used to identify a drainage basin in a hierarchical classification system developed by the Water Resources Council. (I) Indicator Species: Species that indicate the presence of certain environmental conditions, seral stages, or previous treatment. One or more plant species selected to indicate a certain level of grazing use. Indirect Effects: Secondary effects which occur in locations other than the initial action or significantly later in time. Infiltration: The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil or other material, as contrasted with percolation, which is movement of water through soil layers or material. Interdisciplinary Team (IDT): A team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focuses on the same task or project. Issue: A subject, question, or widespread public interest relating to management of National Forest System lands (Forest Plan). A problem or subject of concern raised by the public or by agency employees during scoping. Issues important to the decision at hand area analyzed in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. (K) Key Area: A portion of range, which, because of its location, grazing, or browsing value, and or use serves as an indicative sample of range conditions, trend, or degree of use seasonally. A key area guides the general management of the entire area of which it is a part. Key Species: Forage species whose use serves as an indicator to the degree of use of associated species. Those species that must, because of their importance, be considered in the management program. (L) Landtype: An area of land classified on the basis of geomorphic attributes. This classification system is based on an understanding of geologic processes (as reflected in land surface form and features), individual kinds of soil, and the factors which determine the behavior of ecosystems (for example; climate, vegetation, relief, parent materials, and time). Lek: A site where grouse traditionally gather for sexual display and courtship.

184 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Litter: The surface layer of the rangeland floor which is not in an advanced stage of decomposition, usually consisting of freshly fallen leaves, needles, twigs, stems, bark, and fruits. Livestock Trail: To facilitate herd movement, certain non-recreation trails may be designated as livestock trails. Permittees are authorized to remove encroaching vegetation on these trails to facilitate herd movement. Long-term Effects: Those effects that generally occur after the maximum fifteen-year life of the Forest Plan. In reference to hydrologic recovery and flood impacts, 40 years or more is the corresponding time frame. Long-term (Effectiveness) Monitoring: Long-term monitoring is the repeated measurement of specified ecological indicators, in specified locations, over time, to determine whether the livestock management practices being implemented are, in fact, moving toward desired rangeland and riparian conditions. (M) Management Area: An aggregation of capability areas having common management direction. These areas may be non-contiguous and are used to allocate and schedule management practices. Management Direction: A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, the associated management prescriptions, and the associated standards and guidelines for attaining (reaching) them. Management Indicator Species (MIS): A wildlife species whose population will indicate the health of the ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the effects of forest management activities to that ecosystem, MIS species are selected by land management agencies. Management Practice: A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment (Forest Plan). A technique or procedure commonly applied to forest resources, resulting in measurable outputs, activities, or other results. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): The instrument used for a written plan between the Forest Service and other parties for carrying out their separate activities in a coordinated and mutually beneficial manner and for documenting a framework for cooperation. Mitigate: Avoid or minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; to rectify the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; to reduce or eliminate the impact by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action plan. Moderate Grazing: A comparative term that indicates that the stocking rate of a pasture is between the rates of other pastures. Often erroneously used to mean proper use. Monitoring: Examination, on a sample basis, of management practices to determine how objectives have been met, and a determination of the effects of those management practices on the land and environment. Multiple Uses: Use of range for more than one purpose, grazing livestock, wildlife production, recreation, watershed and timber production. Multiple uses are not necessarily the combination of uses that will yield the highest economic return or greatest unit output. (N) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The Act which declared a National Policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, to stimulate the health and welfare of humans, to enrich our understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to our Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 185 Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process: An interdisciplinary process, mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, which concentrates decision making around issues, concerns, and alternatives, and the effects of those alternatives on the environment. National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, which requires the development of Regional and Forest plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development. National Forest System: All National Forest land reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States; all National Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and other lands, waters or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system. National Register of Historic Places: A listing maintained by the National Park Service of areas which have been designated as being of historical value. T he Register includes places of local and State significance, as well as those of value to the Nation as a whole. Native Species: Species that are a part of the original fauna or flora of an area. No Action Alternative: An alternative where no activity would occur, or where current management practices would continue unchanged. The development of a no action alternative is requested by regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1502.14). The no action provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. Non-functioning: Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc., as listed under properly functioning condition. The absence of certain physical attributes (where they should be located), such as floodplain, is an indicator of a nonfunctioning condition. Nonpoint Source Pollution: Diffuse sources of water pollution that come from indefinable sources such as agricultural, timber harvest, and road construction activities. Noxious Weed: A plant species declared noxious by laws concerned with plants that are invasive or weedy. Nutrient Cycle: The circulation of chemical elements and compounds, such as carbon and nitrogen, in specific pathways from the non-living part of ecosystems into the organic substances of the living parts of ecosystems, and then back again to the non-living parts of the ecosystem. For instance, nitrogen in wood is returned to the soil as the dead tree decays; the nitrogen again becomes available to living organisms in the soil, and upon their death, the nitrogen is available to plants growing in that soil. Nutrient, plant: Any element taken in by a plant essential to its growth. Plant nutrients are mainly nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, boron, and zinc obtained from the soil and carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen obtained from the air and water. (O) Objective: A specific statement of measurable results to be achieved within a stated time period. Objectives reflect alternative mixes of all desired outputs or desired achievements which can be attained at a given budget level. Objectives may be expressed as a range of desirable outputs. Organic Matter: Plant and animal residue in the soil in various stages of decomposition. Overgrazing: Historic, continued heavy grazing that exceeded the recovery capacity of the community and created a deteriorated range.

186 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Overstory: The layer of foliage in a forest canopy. (P) Palatability: The enjoyment with which a particular species or plant part is consumed by an animal. Permitted Grazing: Grazing on National Forest range allotments under the terms of a grazing permit. Plant Community: An assemblage of plants living and interacting together in a specific location. Plant Vigor: Plant health. Processes: A sequence of events or states, one following from and dependant on another, which leads to some outcome. For instance, ecosystems that have a ten-year fire cycle have narrower range of variation than ecosystems with a 200 to 300 year fire cycle. Past management should move such ecosystems back toward their natural, sustainable range of variation. Productivity, plant: Forage available for livestock grazing in pounds per acre per year. Productivity, soil: The capability of a soil for producing a specified plant or sequence of plants under specific management. Project Record: More detailed documentation of an environmental analysis, usually located in the files in the Forest Service District Office or the Forest Supervisor’s Office. Proper Use: The degree of utilization of current year’s growth which, if continued, will achieve management objectives and maintain or improve the long-term productivity of the site. Proper use varies with time and systems of grazing. Proper Functioning Condition: Ecosystems at any temporal or spatial scale are in a properly functioning condition when they are dynamic and resilient to perturbations to structure, composition, and processes of their biological or physical components. Proposed Action: In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or action a federal agency intends to implement or undertake and which is the subject of an environmental analysis. Public Involvement: A Forest Service process designed to broaden the information base upon which agency decisions are made by (1) informing the public about Forest Service activities, plans and decisions, and (2) encouraging public understanding about and participation in the planning processes. (R) Range Analysis: Systematic acquisition and evaluation of rangeland resource data needed for planning allotment management and overall land management. It consists of two basic parts: (1) an inventory of the resource, and (2) a narrative evaluation of the resource data, range management alternatives, and other information key to management of the grazing area. Range Improvement: (1) Any structure or excavation to facilitate management of range or livestock. (2) Any practice designed to improve range condition. Range (Rangeland): Any land supporting grazable or browsable vegetation and managed as a natural ecosystem; can include grasslands, forestlands, shrub lands, and pasture. “Range” is not a land use. Range Management: The art and science of planning and directing range use intended to yield the sustained maximum animal production and perpetuation of the natural resources. Responsible Official: The Forest Service employee who has been designated the authority to carry out specific planning action. Rest: Leaving an area ungrazed, thereby foregoing grazing of a forage crop. Normally, rest implies absence of grazing for a full growing season.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 187 Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Rest Rotation: A grazing-management scheme in which rest periods for individual pastures, paddocks, or grazing units, generally for the full growing season, are incorporated into a grazing rotation. Restoration (of Ecosystems): Actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve a desired, healthy, and functioning condition. Riparian/ Riparian Area/ Riparian Zone: The banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, water courses, seeps and springs whose waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available locally, so as to provide a more moist habitat than that of contiguous flood plains and uplands. Riparian Vegetation: Plant communities dependent upon the presence of free water near the ground surface (high water table). (S) Salting: (1) Providing salt as a mineral supplement for animals. (2) Placing salt on the range in such a manner as to improve distribution of livestock grazing. Scale: In ecosystem management, it refers to the degree of resolution at which ecosystems are observed or measured. Scoping: The ongoing process to receive comments and suggestions, and determine issues during the environmental analysis process. It may involve public meetings, telephone conversations, or letters. Season of Use: The season of the year when livestock, wildlife, or humans use a resource. Season-Long Grazing: Grazing takes place through out the growing season. Under a season-long grazing system permitted livestock are authorized to be anywhere on the allotment from the permitted turn-out date until the permitted off-date, as long as other management standards are not exceeded. Sediment: Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, being transported, or has been moved from its site or origin by air, water, gravity, or ice. Sensitive Species: Those plant or animal species that are susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat alterations and will be managed similar to threatened or endangered species. The Forest Service policy is to ensure that species would not be affected in such a manner as to have them listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. The policy for the management of Forest Service sensitive species is contained in FSM 2670.32, 6/23/95 (http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/fsm/2600/). Seral Stages: The developmental stages of an ecological succession. Soil: The unconsolidated mineral or organic material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. This unconsolidated mineral or organic matter has been subjected to and shows effects of genetic and environmental factors of climate (including water and temperature effects), and macro- and microorganisms, conditioned by relief, acting on parent material over a period of time. A product-soil differs from the material from which it is derived in many physical, chemical, biological, and morphological properties and characteristics. Soil Structure: The arrangement of primary soil particles into compound particles or aggregates. The principal forms of soil structures are: platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), and granular. Structureless soils are either single grain (each grain by itself, as in dune sand) or massive (the particles adhering without any regular cleavage, as in many hardpans). Stability: The ability of the channel banks and bottom to resist the erosive powers of flowing water. Inherent stability refers to the potential stability of a riparian system.

188 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

Stable: The condition of little or no perceived change in plant communities that are in relative equilibrium with existing environmental conditions; describes persistent but not necessarily culminating stages (climax) in plant succession. Implies a high degree of resilience to minor perturbations. Standard: Standards specify the desire result in specific enough terms to provide meaningful direction and to permit compliance to be measured or verified. Standards can, however, be phrased to require different levels of compliance. In some cases, there will be a need to establish absolute limits. In other cases some discretion may be permitted; in these cases the standard can be written to build in the permissible discretion. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): The appointed State official charged with administration of the National Historic Preservation Act on State lands, and charged with consultation regarding cultural resources on Federal lands in Nevada. Stocking/ Stocking Rate: The number of specific kinds and classes of livestock grazing or utilizing a unit of land for a specific time period. Streambank Stability: The ability of the channel banks and bottom to resist the erosive powers of moving water. Inherent stability refers to the potential stability of a riparian system. Stream Bed/Stream Bottom: The substrate plane, bounded by the streambanks, over which the stream water flows. Structure: How parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and vertically. Structure might reveal a pattern, or mosaic, or total randomness of vegetation. Substrate: Inorganic materials that comprises the bottom and banks of a watercourse. Succession: The natural progressive replacement of plant communities on a site, which leads to the potential natural plant community. Surface Soil: The uppermost part of the soil, ordinarily moved in tillage, or its equivalent in uncultivated soils and ranging in depth from 7 to 25 cm. Frequently designated as the plow layer, the surface layer, the Ap layer, or the Ap horizon. See also topsoil. (T) Topsoil: The layer of soil moved in cultivation. Frequently designated as the Ap layer or Ap horizon. See also surface soil. Trampling: Treading under foot; the damage to plants or soil brought about by movements or congestion of animals. Threatened and Endangered Species (TES and T&E): Threatened and endangered species of plants and animals listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and protected under the terms of the Endangered Species Act. Threatened Species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a specific portion of their ranges within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The policy for the management of federally listed threatened species is contained in FSM 2670.31, 6/23/95 (http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/fsm/2600/). Trailing: The practice among livestock producers of moving herds of livestock from one pasture to another by forcing the herd to follow a designated route used year after year, across public and private land, and along public roadways. Trend: The direction of change in ecological status or resource value ratings observed over time.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 189 Chapter 5 – Acronyms and Glossary

(U) Unauthorized Use: Livestock on the National Forest in violation of 36 CFR 261.7, a crime punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. Unauthorized use normally involves a non-permittee. Unauthorized use would apply to a grazing permittee only when a violation is clearly not related to use authorized by the grazing permit. Understory: An underlying layer of low vegetation. The trees, shrubs, and grasses growing beneath the overstory in a stand of trees. Uplands: Land at a higher elevation, in general, than the alluvial plain or stream terrace; land above the foot slope zone of the hill slope continuum. Use: (1) The proportion of current year’s forage production that is consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. May refer either to a single species or to the vegetation as a whole. (2) Utilization of range for a purpose such as grazing, bedding, shelter, trailing, watering, watershed, recreation, forestry, etc. Utilization: Use. (V) Vegetation: Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life above and below ground in an area. Vegetation Community Type: An aggregation of all plant communities distinguished by floristic and structural similarities in both overstory and undergrowth layers. A unit of vegetation within a classification. Vegetation Management: Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forested and non- forested vegetation for multiple-use purposes. Vegetation Type: A plant community with distinguishable characteristics. Vegetative: Relating to nutritive and growth functions of plant life, in contrast to reproductive functions. Should not be confused with vegetation. Vigor: Relates to the relative robustness of a plant in comparison to other individuals of the same species. It is reflected primarily by the size of a plant and its parts in relation to its age and the environment in which it is growing. (W) Water Developments: Structures installed to provide water for livestock where it does not naturally exist. Water developments may be constructed stock ponds, spring developments, and ditches or pipe systems bringing water from a water source to another location. Water developments are usually designed to accomplish one of three purposes: to provide water in areas where no natural surface water exists; to increase the availability of water to livestock where surface water naturally exists; and to provide alternative water locations near riparian areas and seeps needing particular protection from livestock. Water Table: The upper surface of groundwater. Below it, soil is saturated with water. Wet Meadow: A meadow where the surface remains wet or moist throughout the growing season, usually characterized by sedges and rushes. Width to Depth Ratio (w/d): Is an index value that indicates the shape of the channel cross-section. It is a ratio of how wide the channel is at bankfull compared to the average depth of the channel at bankfull (in feet). This is a non-dimensional parameter (bankfull width/mean bankfull depth) describing whether a stream is wide and shallow vs. narrow and deep. Winter Range: Range used by livestock or wildlife during the winter months.

190 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 6 - Literature Cited

Chapter 6 – Literature Cited Anacker L, Brian, Harrison P, Susan, Safford D, Hugh, Veloz, Samuel. 2010. Predictive Modeling of Cheatgrass Invasion Risk for the Lake Tahoe Basin Final Report (revised Oct 31, 2010) Anderson, J.E. and R.S. Inouye. 2001. Landscape-Scale Changes in Plant Species Abundance and Biodiversity of a Sagebrush Steppe over 45 years. Ecological Monographs 71:531-556. Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1994. The Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Stream Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Position Statement. January-February. Audubon. 2012. Life history Information for mountain quail obtained online at http://birds.audubon.org/species/mouqua on September 10, 2012. Augustine J, David and McNaughton, Samuel J. 1998. Ungulate Effects on the Functional Species Composition of Plant Communities: Herbivore Selectivity and Plant Tolerance. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 1165 – 1183. Barney, M.A. and N. C. Frischknecht. 1974. Vegetation Changes Following Fire in the Pinyon- Juniper Type of West Central Utah. Journal of Range Management 27(2): 91-96. Bartos, D. L., and R. B. Campbell Jr. 1998. Decline of Quaking Aspen in the Interior West- Examples from Utah. Rangelands 20: 17-24. Beck, T.W., J. Winter. 2000. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Behnke, R.J. and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Technical Report RM-28. 45 pp. Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Volume 54, Number 1, pages 419-431. Belsky, A.J. and Gelbard, J. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. Oregon Natural Desert Association. Bend, OR Bi-State Plan. 2012. Bi-state action plan: Past, present, and future actions for conservation of the greater sage grouse bi-state distinct population segment. Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee Nevada and California. Pages pertaining to Pine Nut PMU: 15, 53, and 86. Branson, F.A., G.F. Gifford and R.F. Hadley. 1981. Rangeland Hydrology. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Buckhouse, J.C. 2000. Drinking water from forests and grasslands. In Domestic Grazing, Dissmeyer, G.E. (editor). General Technical Report SRS-39. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Ashville, North Carolina. Pages 153-157. Buskirk, S. W., and L.F., Ruggiero,1994. Chapter 2 American Marten; found in Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds: The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. CDFG, California Department of Fish and Game, 2007. California Wildlife Action Plan. Chapter 13, pp 299. Obtained online from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habitats/WDP on August 24th 2007.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 191 Chapter 6 – Literature Cited

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. Report to the fish and game commission: a status review of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in California. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. CDFG -California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Email correspondence dated October 10, 2011 with CDFG biologists Tim Taylor and Scott Gardner regarding sage grouse occupancy in the Monitor Pass area. On file Carson Ranger District. CDFG -California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Email correspondence dated January 20, 2012 with CDFG Biologist Julia Runcie regarding locations of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. On file Carson Ranger District. CNDDB, California Natural Diversity Database. 2012a. Historic observations of great gray owls in Mono and Alpine County CA. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. CDFG California Department of Fish and Game. 2012b. 2012 Deer Zone information for the Alpine County area. Obtained online from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/zoneinfo/x7bzoneinfo2012.pdf. CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. Version 1.1. The coniferous forest bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coniferous forest habitats and associated birds in California (J. Robinson and J. Alexander, lead authors). PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. Chambers, J. C. and MacMahon, J.A. 1994. A day in the life of a seed: Movements and Fates Of Seeds And Their Implications For Natural And Managed Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25: 263-92. Chambers, J. C., Roundy, B.A., Blank, R.R., Meyer, S.E., and Whittaker, A. 2007. What Makes Great Basin Sagebrush Ecosystems Invasible By Bromus Tectorum. Ecological Monographs 77(1) 117-145. Cheveau, M., P., Drapeau, L. Imbeau, Y., Bergeron. 2004. Owl winter irruptions as an indicator of small mammal population cycles in the boreal forests of North America. Oikos 107: 190-198. Clary, W.P. 1995. Vegetation and Soil Responses to Grazing Simulation on Riparian Meadows. Journal of Range Management 48(1): 18-25. Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the Intermountain Region. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-263. 11 p. Clary, W.P. and Leininger, W.C. 2000. Stubble Height As A Tool For Management of Riparian Areas. Journal of Rangeland Management 53: 562-573. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 36 CFR 222.4(a)(8).Accessed at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology. 2012. Species life history information for yellow-rumped warbler obtained on line at: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Yellow- rumped_Warbler/lifehistory. Courtois, D.R.B.L Perryman, H.S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation Change after 65 Years of Grazing and Grazing Exclusion. Journal of Range Management. 57: 574-582. Cowley, Ervin and Tim Burton, 2005. Monitoring Streambanks and Riparian Vegetation - Multiple Indicators. Idaho Technical Bulletin No. 2005-02Crawley, M.J. 1983. Herbivory: the dynamics of animal-plant interactions. University of California Press, Berkeley.

192 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 6 - Literature Cited

Cox. M. 2008. Big Game Wildlife Biologist, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV. Personal communication via email regarding the status of the Carson River deer herd. Email dated: May 22, 2008. Cox M. 2012. Big Game Wildlife Biologist, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV. Personal communication via email regarding potential habitat for desert bighorn sheep in the East Alpine Project area. Crawford, J. A., R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C. Mosley, M. A. Schroeder, T. D. Whitson, R. F. Miller, M. A. Gregg, and C. S. Boyd. 2004. Synthesis paper: ecology and management of sage grouse and sage grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management 57:2–19. Crawley, M.J. 1983. Herbivory: the Dynamics of Animal-Plant Interactions. University of California Press, Berkeley. (1983). DBC, Desert Bighorn Council Technical Staff. 1990. Guidelines for the management of domestic sheep in the vicinity of desert bighorn sheep habitat. Obtained online Sept 3, 2012 at: http://www.bighorndiseaseinfo.org/Bighorn_Disease_Documents/Guidelines. D’Antonio, C. and L.A. Meyerson. 2002. Exotic Plant Species as Problems and Solutions in Ecological Restoration: A Synthesis. Available: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526- 100X.2002.01051.x. Society for Ecological Restoration. Restoration Ecology Vol. 10 No. 4: 703- 713. Accessed April 2012 Davidson, C., H.B. Shaffer, and M.R. Jennings. 2002. Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines. Conservation Biology. 16 (6):1588-1601.Davies, K.W., T.J. Svejcar, J.D. Bates. 2009. Interaction of Historical and Non-historical Disturbances Maintains Native Plant Communities. Ecological Applications DeCesare, Nicholas J. and D.H Pletscher (2006) Movements, Connectivity, and Resource Selection of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. Journal of Mammalogy: June 2006, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 531- 538. Deinstadt, J.M., D.C. Lentz, E. Gerstung, D.E. Burton, R. Bloom, W.L. Somer, S.K. Lehr, and R. Wickwire. 2004. Survey of fish populations in streams of the East Fork Carson River drainage, California. California Department of Fish and Game. Fisheries Programs Branch: Adminsitrantive Report No. 2004-8. Dietz, H.E.. 1989. Grass: The Stockman’s Crop How to Harvest More of it. Soil Conservation Service. Dunham, S., L. Butcher, D.A., Charlet, and J.M. Reed. 1996. Breeding range and conservation of flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) in Nevada. J. Raptor Res. (30) 4:189-193. Edwards S.W. 1992 Observations on the Prehistory and Ecology of Grazing in Califorina. Fremontia 20: 2-11 Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Perceptions in Management. Rangelands 9(6) 260-265. Evans D.M., S.M.,Redpath, D.A., Elston, D.A.,S. Evans, R.J., Mitchell, P. Dennis. 2006. To graze or not to graze? Sheep, voles, forestry and nature conservation in the British uplands. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:499-505 Finch, D. M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirements, and Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech., Rep. RM-205, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Farrar, D. 2006. Systematics of Moonworts Botrychium subgenus Botrychium. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State Univ. 34 pgs.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 193 Chapter 6 – Literature Cited

Freilich, J.E. Emlen, J.M. Duda, J.J., Freeman, C., and Cafaro, P.J. 2003. Ecological Effects of Ranching: A Six Point Critique. BioScience 53(8). Available: http://alamedacreek.org/Educational%20Resources/Livestock%20grazing%20resources/Ecologic al%20Effects%20of%20Ranching%20--%20A%206%20point%20critique.pdf. Accessed December 2011 Gelbard, J.L. and Belnap, J. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2) 420-432. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01408.x/pdf. Accessed December 2011. GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory). 2003. Nevada Bird Count. A Habitat-Based Monitoring Program for Breeding Birds of Nevada. Instruction Package and Protocol for Point Count Surveys. On file at Carson Ranger District, Carson City, NV. GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory). 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. Available online at www.gbbo.org/bird_conservation_plan.html. Specific pages for species accounts: Mountain quail: SPP-1-11;11-4; Flammulated owl: 45-1;45-4; White-headed woodpecker:56-1;56-4. George, J.L., D.J., Martin, P.M., Lukacs, M.W., Miller. 2008. Epidemic pasteurellosis in a bighorn sheep population coinciding with the appearance of a domestic sheep. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44 (2) pp. 388-403. Gould. G. 2003. Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game (retired). Great gray owl observation database for California. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Green, G.A., H.L. Bombay, M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of thewillow flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. On file at the Carson Ranger District, Carson City, NV. Hamlet A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettnmaier. 2005. Effects of Temperature and Precipitation Variability on Snowpack Trends in the Western U.S. Journal of Climate 18: 4545– 4561. Hayward, G.D. and R. E., Escano. 1989. Goshawk Nest Site Characteristics in Western Montana and Northern Idaho. The Condor , Vol. 91, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 476-479. Hendrickson, J. and B. Olson. 2006. Understanding Plant Response to Grazing. (Chapter 4, pp. 32‐29). In: Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Published by the American Sheep Industry Association. Centennial, CO. Available online at: www.cnr.uidaho.edu/rx‐grazing/Hanbook.htm. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming Hoegh- Guldberg and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change. Nature 416: 389-395. Holechek, J.L. and T. Stephenson. 1983. Comparison of Big Sagebrush Vegetation in Northcentral New Mexico Under Moderately Grazed and Grazing Excluded Conditions. Journal of Range Management 36: 455-456. Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing Studies: What We’ve Learned. Rangelands 21(2).

194 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 6 - Literature Cited

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management Principles and Practices. 5th Edition. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J. Chapter 8: 216-260 pgs. Hull, J. M., J. J. Keane, W. K. Savage, W. K. Godwin, J. A. Shafer, E. P. Jepson, R. Herhardt, C. Stermer, and H. B. Ernest. 2010. Range-wide genetic differentiation among North American great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) reveals a distinct lineage restricted to the Sierra Nevada, California. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56:212–221 Jennings, M.R. 1996. Status of amphibians. Pp. 921-944 in: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem. Johnson, D.D. 2005. The influence of environmental attributes on temporal and structural dynamics of western juniper development and associated fuel loading characteristics. Thesis Oregon State University. 1-112 pgs. Jones, Bobette, Rickman, Tom, Sado, Yukako, Tate, Kenneth, Vazquez, Alfred. 2005. Removal of Encroaching Conifers to Regenerate Degraded Aspen Stands in the Sierra Nevada. Restoration Ecology. Vol. 13, 2, pp. 373-379. Jones, Z.F, C.E., Bock, J.H. Bock. 2003. Rodent communities in a grazed and ungrazed Arizona grassland, and a model of habitat relationships among rodents in southwestern grass/shrublands. American Midland Naturalist 149:384–394. Kattelmann, R., and Embury, M. 1996. Riparian areas and wetlands. In Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to congress, Volume 3, Assessments, commissioned reports, and background information, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, California. Kauffman, J.B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside Management Implications...A Review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-437. Kay, C.E. 1997. Is Aspen Doomed? Journal of Forestry 95(5): 4–11 Kay, C.E. and D.L. Bartos. 2000. Ungulate Herbivory on Utah Aspen: Assessment of Long-term Exclosures. Journal of Range Management. 53:145-153.Kromschroeder, L., E. Atwil, R. Dahlgren, and K. Tate. 2012. Association of cattle grazing and recreation with water quality of grazing allotments in National Forests of Northern California. University of California, Davis. Keane, J. J., H.B., Earnest, DR. J.M.,Hull. 2011. Conservation and management of the great gray owl 2007-2009: Multiple stressors and ecologically limiting factors. National Park Service, Yosemite National Park and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 50pp. Kellner. C. 2012. Wildlife Biologist with private consulting firm LSA Associates. Personal communication via email regarding sage grouse surveys conducted for the Leviathan Peak Communication Project located adjacent to the East Alpine Rangeland project area. Email received on June 20, 2012. Krueger, W.C. and M.A. Sanderson (cochairs). 2002. Environmental impacts of livestock grazing on U.S. grazing lands. Task Force Issue Paper Number 22. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. Lacy, R.C. and T.W., Clark. 1993. Simulation modeling of American marten (Martes americana) populations: Vulnerability to extinction. Great Basin Naturalist. Vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 282-292. 1993. Lackey, C. 2012. Big Game Biologist, Nevada Department of Wildlife. Personal communication via email regarding habitat potential for Desert bighorn sheep in and near the East Alpine Range project area. Email dated: September 7, 2012.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 195 Chapter 6 – Literature Cited

Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Board. 2007. Surface water ambient monitoring program (SWAMP) at the Lahontan Region: Summary of Results for Years 2000–2005. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, South Lake Tahoe, CA. July 2007. Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Board. 2012b. July 2012 board meeting agenda: Workshop on livestock grazing and water quality. Website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/board_info/agenda/2012/jul/agenda071112.pdf Larrucea, E.S. 2007. Distribution, Behavior, and Habitat Preferences of the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in Nevada and California. University of Nevada. Reno. Laycock, W.A. 1999. Implications of grazing vs. no grazing on today’s rangelands. In Vavra, M., W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds). 1999. Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. 2nd ed. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. Pg. 250-280. Laycock, W.A. and P.W. Conrad. 1981. Responses of Vegetation and Cattle to Various Systems of Grazing on Seeded and Native Mountain Rangelands in Eastern Utah. System of cattle grazing at moderate use in mountain big sagebrush. Journal of Range Management 34(1): 52-58. Mangum, F.A. 1984. Aquatic Ecosystem Inventory, Macroinvertebrate Analysis. Annual Progress Report. Toiyabe National Forest. Manley, P.N., W.J. Zielinski, C.M. Stuart, J.J. Keane, A.J. Lind, C. Brown, B.L. Plymale, and C.O. Napper. 2000. Monitoring ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada: the conceptual model foundation. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64: 139–152. Manning, E.M. and Padgett, G.W. 1995. Riparian Community Type Classification for Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada and Eastern California. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, R4-Ecol-95-01. Martin, S.K. and R.H., Barrett. 1991. Resting site selection by marten at Sagehen Creek,California. Northwestern Naturalist. 72: pp.37-42. Martin, K.D., T. Schommer, V.L. Coggins. 1996. Literature review regarding the compatibility between bighorn and domestic sheep. Proceedings of the Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 10:72-77. McCarty, J.P. 2001. Ecological Consequences of Recent Climate Change. Conservation Biology 15: 320– 331. Mika, M. and B.R. Riddle 2006. Biological Investigation of Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Distributions and densities on National Forest Lands in Nevada: Status Report for 2005 (on file at Carson Ranger District). Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland. Menke, J.W., C. Davis, and P. Beesley. 1996. Public Rangeland / Livestock Grazing Assessment. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume 3, Assessments, commissioned reports, and background information, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, California. Miller, R.F., Bates, J.D., Svejcar, T.J., Pierson, F.B., and Eddleman, L.E. 2007. Western Juniper Field Guide: Asking the Right Questions to Select Appropriate Management Actions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1321, 61 p. Miller, R.F., Svejcar, T.J., and Rose, J.A. 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper on Plant Community Composition and Structure. Journal of Range Management 53: 574-585.

196 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 6 - Literature Cited

Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and N.E. West. 1999. Implications of Livestock Grazing in the Intermountain Sagebrush Region: Plant Composition. In: Vavra, M. W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds). 1999. Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. 2nd ed, Society for Range Management, Denver. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Revised and Expanded .Berkeley, California. Mueggler, W.F. 1988. Aspen Community Types of the Intermountain Region. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT0250. December. 135 p. Myers, T.J. and S. Swanson. 1995. Impacts of Deferred Rotation Grazing on Stream Characteristics in Central Nevada: A case study. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 428-439 Naillon, D., Memmott, K., and Monsen, S. 1999. A Comparison of Understory Species and Tree Densities in a Pinyon-Juniper Woodland. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon- Juniper Communities Within the Interior West. RMRS-P-9. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Ogden, UT. 72-75 pgs. NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: September 3, 2012 ). Nevada Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2004. Available: http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/cwcs/final/148_155aspen.pdf. Accessed on August 15, 2012. NDOW, Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2001. Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Department of Wildlife, and Game Bureau. October 2001. NDOW, Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2011. 2010-2011 Big Game Status Report. Desert Bighorn Sheep. pp. SS-2 and Mule Deer pp.20. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno Nevada Nilson, C. et.al. 2012. Bacteria monitoring in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Summary of results for 2011. Staff report for Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. O’Brien, R.A., Johnson, C.M., Wilson, A.M., and Elsbernd, V.C. 2003. Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-104. Olsen, B.E, 1999. Grazing and weeds. Page 85-97 in R.L, Sheley and J.K, Petroff, editors. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Parendes A. Laurie and Julia A. Jones. 2000. Role of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic Plant Invasion along Roads and Streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conversation Biology 14(1). Parks, G. Catherine, M. J. Wisdom, and J.G. Kie. 2005. The Influence of Ungulates on Non-native Plant Invasion in Forest and Rangelands: A Review. Appendix D PNW Causal Paper Ungulates Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants final Environmental Impact Statement April 2005. Pieper, R.D. 1999. Ecological implications of livestock grazing. In Vavra, M., W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds). 1999. Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West, 2nd ed. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. Pg. 177-211. Platts, W.S. 1982. Livestock and Riparian-Fishery Interactions: What Are The Facts? Trans. North America. Wild land and Natural Resources Conference. 47: 507-515.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 197 Chapter 6 – Literature Cited

Platts, W.S. 1990. Fish, Wildlife and Livestock: Protection of Riparian Areas. Western Wildlands Summer. Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: State of Knowledge. General Technical Report PSW-84. Berkeley: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. General Technical Report PSW-GTR- 141. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. Reynolds, R.T., E.C., Meslow, H.M., Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting accipiters in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(1): pp124-137. RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2004. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian_v-2.pdf. Robertson, J.H. 1971. Changes on a Sagebrush-Grass Range in Nevada Ungrazed for 30 years. Journal of Range Management 24(5): 397-400. Runcie, J.2012. Wildlife Biologist working under the supervision of Dr. Tom Stephenson, Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Program Leader. Email correspondence regarding the current distribution of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Email dated January 20, 2012. Ryan, J.H. and S.J. Nicola. 1976. Status of the Paiute cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki seleniris Snyder, in California. Department of Fish and Game. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 76-3. August 1976. Ryser, F.A., Jr. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. University of Nevada Press, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. Pp. 461-464. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Information for multiple migratory bird species, mountain quail, Williamson’s sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, yellow warbler, and yellow- rumped warbler obtained at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html -September 2012. Schmidt W. 1989. Plants Dispersal by Motor Cars. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u35q740210635215/. Vegetation 80: 147-152. Accessed July 2012. Schultz T. Terri and Wayne C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in Riparian Vegetation Structure between Grazed Areas and Exclosures. Journal of Rangeland Management 43(4): 295-299. Schwartz, M.W., D.J. Porter, J.M. Randall, and K.E. Lyons. 1996. Impact of Non-indigenous Plants. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume 2, Assessments and scientific basis for management options, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, California. Shanley, P. Wildlife Biologist, Lincoln Ranger District, Helena National Forest. Previously District Wildlife Biologist on the Carson Ranger District. Email regarding great gray owl sightings in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness and other areas of the District. March 7, 2006. Sheley, R.L., Brett S. Bingham, and Tony J. Svejcar. 2008. Crested Wheatgrass Defoliation Intensity and Season on Medusahead Invasion. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 61(2):211-217. Sheley, R,L. and Petroff, J.K.. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, Oregon. Oregon State University Press: 204, 274, 275, 316, 317.

198 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 6 - Literature Cited

Shepperd, W. D., P. C. Rogers, D. Burton, and D. L. Bartos. 2006. Ecology, Biodiversity, Management, and Restoration of Aspen in the Sierra Nevada. RMRS-GTR-178, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr178.html Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Draft Avian Conservation Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: Report to California Partner in Flight: Conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Point Reys Bird Observatory, Point Reyes, CA. Smith, L., G. Ruyle, J. Maynard, S. Barker, W. Meyer, D. Stewart, B. Coulloudon, S. Williams and J. Dyess. 2007. Principles of Obtaining and Interpreting Utilization Data on Rangelands. Arizona Cooperative Extension, Tucson, AZ. May 2007. 11 p. Society for Range Management (SRM), Public Affairs Committee. 1989. Assessment of Rangeland Condition and Trend of the United States. Squires, J. R. and P.L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of currentknowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:8–62. Stebleton, A., and S. Bunting. 2009. Guide for Quantifying Fuels in the Sagebrush Steppe and Juniper Woodlands of the Great Basin, Technical Note 430. 57 p. Stephenson, T. 2012. Wildlife Biologist/Bighorn sheep expert with California Department of Fish and Game, Bishop, CA. Email correspondence regarding potential habitat for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep to occur in the project area. Email dated September 14, 2012. Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Taylor, D. and M. Tuttle. 2007. Water for Wildlife: A Handbook for Rangers and Range Managers. Bat Conservation International. Taylor, T. 2011. Wildlife biologist and sage grouse expert for the California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication regarding the potential for sage grouse to occur in the East Alpine Rangeland project. Email dated October 10, 2011. Taylor, T. 2012a. Wildlife biologist, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication regarding the potential for bighorn sheep to occur in the East Alpine Rangeland project. Email dated September 10, 2012. Taylor, T. 2012b. Wildlife biologist, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication regarding the habitat potential for mule deer within the East Alpine Rangeland project. Email dated September 10, 2012. Trunkle Phil, Fay Pete. 1999. Transportation of Spotted Knapweed Seeds by Vehicles. Department of Plant and Soil Science, Montana Weed Control Association USDA Forest Service. 1951. Indicators of Condition and Trend on High Range-Watersheds of the Intermountain Region. Agricultural Handbook No. 19. USDA Forest Service. 1981. Forest Service Range Analysis Handbook. Region 4, Chapter 2 – Inventory. December 1981. Amendment 11. USDA Forest Service. 1981. Analysis of the Management Situation. On file Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 1986. The Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. United States Forest Service, Toiyabe National Forest. USDA. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1991. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of the Intermountain Region. Ogden UT. Forest Service. United States Department of Agriculture

East Alpine Rangeland Project 199 Chapter 6 – Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) Intermountain Region, 2209.13, Chapter 10, Section 16.5, Changes in Grazing Permits. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Rangeland Management Program on National Forest System lands. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Eastern Sierra Nevada Riparian Field Guide. Weixelman, D., Zamudio, D., Zamudio, K.. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, R4-ECOL-99-01. Sparks, Nevada. USDA Forest Service. 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Chapter 3 (multiple species). Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-046. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) Intermountain Region, 2209.21, Chapter 20, Section 22, Rangeland Health. Accessed at: www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/field/r4/fsh/2209.21/2209.21_20.doc USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200. Range Management. Section 2203.1 – Policy, National Forest System. USDA Forest Service 2006a. Risk analysis of disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep on the Payette National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Manual 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management. Chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management. Section 2323. Management of Other Resources in Wilderness. Accessed at: www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2200/2200_zero_code.doc. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Toiyabe National Forest Capability/Suitability for Livestock Grazing Consistency of Projects with the Forest Plan. A summary of Forest Level capability suitability analysis prepared for Great Basin South Draft Environmental Impact Statement USDA Forest Service. 2009. Resource Implementation Protocol for Rapid Assessment Matrices. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. USDA Forest Service 2012a. Risk analysis of disease transmission between domestic sheep and goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep on the Shoshone National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Shoshone National Forest. USDA Forest Service 2012b. Occupied bighorn sheep maps obtained from the Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Area and Rare Plants, U.S. Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/wildlife/curl.html on September 4, 2012. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Quality Information Sheet: Rangeland Soil Quality, Rangeland Sheets 1-10. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Sampling Vegetation Attributes. Interagency Technical Reference, 1734-4. Copies available from Bureau of Land Management. National Business Center. BC-650B. PO Box 25047. Denver, Colorado 80225-0047

200 East Alpine Rangeland Project Chapter 6 - Literature Cited

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Asher, Jerry and Spurrier, Carol. The Spread of Invasive Weeds in Western Wildlands: A State of Biological Emergency. The Governor’s Idaho Weed Summit. http://www.blm.gov/weeds/BOIUMMI.WPD.html. p. 4-5, 8-9. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Lahontan cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi, recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 147 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the plant Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort) as threatened. Federal Register 66: 30368-30372. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the Yosemite Toad. Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 237. Tuesday, December 10, 2002. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Revised Recovery Plan for the Paiute cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris). Portland, Oregon. ix + 105 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Sacramento, California. xiv + 199 pages. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. 19 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) and Taxonomic Revision; Final Rule. August 5, 2008. Pages 45563-45567; 45580,45577,45574. USGS Geological Survey. 2012. July Progress Update (Pine Nut Mountains); Progress report on the Bi- State sage grouse population in the Pine Nut Mountains (on file Carson Ranger District). United States Federal Court for the District of Nevada. 1980. Alpine final decree. Pg. 147-150 University of California, Davis. 2012. Water quality on US Forest Service grazing allotments. California Rangeland Watershed Laboratory. Website: http://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu/main/projects/public_grazing_water_overview.html University of California, Davis. 2012a. Rangeland Streams – water quality conditions. California Rangeland Watershed Laboratory. Website: http://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu/main/projects/rangeland_streams.html Vavra Marty, Parks G. Catherine, Wisdom J. Michael. 2007. Biodiversity, Exotic Plant Species, and Herbivory: The Good, The Bad, and The Ungulate. Forest Ecology and Management 246: 66-72. Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menze, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J. Fromentin, O. West, N.E., F.D. Provenza, P.S. Johnson, and M.K. Owens. 1984. Vegetation Change After 13 Years of Livestock Grazing Exclusion on Sagebrush Semidesert in West Central Utah. Journal of Range Management 37(3): 262-264. Williams, C.K. 2009. Properly Functioning Condition. Unpublished Report by the Intermountain Region, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ogden, UT. Williams, E.J. 2012. Conservation assessment for the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 55 pp. Winward, Alma H. 2000. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas. General Technical Report. RMRS GTR-47. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.49 p. Zornes, M. 2008. Western Quail Management Plan. Information for mountain quail for the Sierra Nevada region on page 39. 76 pp.

East Alpine Rangeland Project 201