DOCSLIB.ORG

National Park Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Park Service BLM Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2012-0055-EA Owyhee Complex Herd Management Area Gather Humboldt River Field Office /Nevada October 2012 Prepared by: U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Bureau of Land Management Winnemucca District Office Elko District Office 5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd. 3900 Idaho Street Winnemucca NV 89445-2921 Elko, Nevada 89801-4211 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2012-0055-EA Contents Page Figures............................................................................................................................................ ix Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ x Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 October 2012 Site Assessment................................................................................... 8 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................... 12 1.3 Decision to be Made ........................................................................................................ 12 1.4 Scoping, Public Involvement and Issues ......................................................................... 13 Chapter 2. Action Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Actions Common to Alternatives A-C ............................................................................ 15 2.2 Alternative A. Phased-in Gather, Selective Removal, and Population Growth Control. .................................................................................................................................. 18 2.3 Alternative B. Selective Removal of Excess Wild Horses to Low AML and Population Growth Control.................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Alternative C. Remove Excess Wild Horses to within AML without Population Growth Control.................................................................................................... 20 2.5 Alternative D. No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 20 2.6 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ....................................................... 20 2.6.1 Use of Bait and/or Water Trapping Only ................................................................. 20 2.6.2 Field Darting PZP Treatment ................................................................................... 21 2.6.3 Gathering the Owyhee Complex to High AML ....................................................... 21 2.6.4 Control of Wild Horse Numbers by Natural Means ................................................ 22 2.6.5 Raising the Appropriate Management Levels for Wild Horses ............................... 22 2.6.6 Remove or Reduce Livestock within the Owyhee Complex ................................... 22 2.6.7 Control of Wild Horse Numbers by Fertility Control Treatment Only ................... 23 2.6.8 Make Individualized Excess Wild Horse Determinations Prior to Removal ............................................................................................................................ 24 2.6.9 Use of Alternative Capture Techniques Instead of Helicopter Capture .................. 25 2.6.10 Designation of the HMAs to be Managed Principally for Wild Horses. ............... 26 2.7 Conformance .................................................................................................................... 26 2.8 Relationship to Laws, Regulations and other Plans ......................................................... 27 2.9 Conformance with Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines .................................... 27 Chapter 3. Affected Environment: ................................................................................................ 28 3.1 General Description of the Affected Environment .......................................................... 28 3.2 Supplemental Authorities ................................................................................................ 28 iv 3.2.1 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 29 3.2.2 Invasive, Nonnative Species .................................................................................... 29 3.2.3 Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................ 30 3.2.4 Native American Religious Concerns ...................................................................... 31 3.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 32 3.2.6 Water Quality (Surface) ........................................................................................... 35 3.2.7 Wetlands and Riparian Zones .................................................................................. 35 3.3 Additional Affected Resources ........................................................................................ 38 3.3.1 Fisheries ................................................................................................................... 38 3.3.2 Public Health and Safety .......................................................................................... 38 3.3.3 Rangeland Management........................................................................................... 39 3.3.4 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 45 3.3.5 Soils.......................................................................................................................... 45 3.3.6 Special Status Species .............................................................................................. 46 3.3.7 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 48 3.3.8 Wild Horses ............................................................................................................. 50 3.3.9 Wilderness Study Areas ........................................................................................... 59 3.3.10 Wildlife .................................................................................................................. 61 Chapter 4. Environmental Effects ................................................................................................. 63 4.1 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 63 4.1.1 Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives A-C .............................................. 63 4.1.2 Impacts from Alternative A ..................................................................................... 63 4.1.3 Impacts from Alternative B ..................................................................................... 63 4.1.4 Impacts from Alternative C ..................................................................................... 64 4.1.5 Impacts from Alternative D ..................................................................................... 64 4.2 Invasive, Nonnative Species ............................................................................................ 64 4.2.1 Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives A-C .............................................. 64 4.2.2 Impacts from Alternative A ..................................................................................... 65 4.2.3 Impacts from Alternative B ..................................................................................... 65 4.2.4 Impacts from Alternative C ..................................................................................... 65 4.2.5 Impacts from Alternative D ..................................................................................... 65 4.3 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................... 66 4.3.1 Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives A-C .............................................. 66 4.3.2 Impacts from Alternative A ..................................................................................... 66 4.3.3 Impacts from Alternative B ..................................................................................... 66 4.3.4 Impacts from Alternative C ..................................................................................... 67 4.3.5 Impacts from Alternative D ..................................................................................... 67 4.4 Native American Religious Concerns ............................................................................. 67 v 4.4.1 Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives A-C .............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Land-Use Plan
    B2H Final EIS and Proposed LUP Amendments Appendix D—Supporting Data for Vegetation Resources Appendix D SUPPORTING DATA FOR VEGETATION RESOURCES D . 1 N O X I O U S W EEDS Noxious weeds are a subset of aggressive, non-native invasive plants that have been officially designated as detrimental to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property. Noxious weeds include all species listed on state and county noxious weed lists. Table D-1 identifies the noxious weeds potentially occurring in the vegetation resources study corridor (0.5 mile on either side of the centerline for all alternative routes). Table D-1. State- and County-Designated Noxious Weeds with Potential to Occur Oregon Scientific Name Common Name Idaho State List State List County List Peganum harmala African rue N/A A, T N/A Armenian Rubus armeniacus N/A B N/A blackberry Hedera hibernica Atlantic Ivy N/A B N/A Austrian peaweed Sphaerophysa salsula N/A B A (Malheur), B (Umatilla) or swainsonpea Acaena novae-zelandiae Biddy-biddy N/A B N/A Big-headed Centaurea macrocephala N/A N/A A (Malheur) knapweed Control (confirmed in Hyoscyamus niger Black henbane N/A A (Baker) Owyhee County) Bohemian Control (not known in Polygonum x bohemicum N/A A (Union) knotweed Owyhee County) EDRR (not known in Egeria densa Brazilian Elodea B, T N/A Owyhee County) Brownray Centaurea jacea N/A N/A A (Umatilla) knapweed Control (confirmed in A (Baker, Malheur, Solanum rostratum Buffalobur B Owyhee County) Union) Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle N/A B B (Baker), C (Malheur) Ceratocephala testiculata Bur buttercup N/A N/A C (Baker) (Ranunculus testiculatus) Buddleja davidii Butterfly bush N/A B N/A Alhagi maurorum (A.
    [Show full text]
  • Too Wild to Drill A
    TOO WILD TO DRILL A The connection between people and nature runs deep, and the sights, sounds and smells of the great outdoors instantly remind us of how strong that connection is. Whether we’re laughing with our kids at the local fishing hole, hiking or hunting in the backcountry, or taking in the view at a scenic overlook, we all share a sense of wonder about what the natural world has to offer us. Americans around the nation are blessed with incredible wildlands out our back doors. The health of our public lands and wild places is directly tied to the health of our families, communities and economy. Unfortunately, our public lands and clean air and water are under attack. The Trump administration and some in Congress harbor deep ties to fossil fuel and mining interests, and today, resource extraction lobbyists see an unprecedented opportunity to open vast swaths of our public lands. Recent proposals to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and shrink or eliminate protected lands around the country underscore how serious this threat is. Though some places are appropriate for responsible energy development, the current agenda in Washington, D.C. to aggressively prioritize oil, gas and coal production at the expense of all else threatens to push drilling and mining deeper into our wildest forests, deserts and grasslands. Places where families camp and hike today could soon be covered with mazes of pipelines, drill rigs and heavy machinery, or contaminated with leaks and spills. This report highlights 15 American places that are simply too important, too special, too valuable to be destroyed for short-lived commercial gains.
    [Show full text]
  • Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks
    B L M U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Decision Record - Memorandum Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 3900 E. Idaho St. Elko, NV 89801 Decision Record - Memorandum Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Elko, NV This page intentionally left blank Decision Record - Memorandum iii Table of Contents _1. Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks Decision Record Memorandum ....... 1 _1.1. Proposed Decision .......................................................................................................... 1 _1.2. Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 6 _1.3. Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 7 _1.4. Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 7 _1.5. Authority ......................................................................................................................... 8 _1.6. Provisions for Protest, Appeal, and Petition for Stay ..................................................... 9 _1.7. Authorized Officer .......................................................................................................... 9 _1.8. Contact Person ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Growth Curve of White-Tailed Antelope Squirrels from Idaho
    Western Wildlife 6:18–20 • 2019 Submitted: 24 February 2019; Accepted: 3 May 2019. GROWTH CURVE OF WHITE-TAILED ANTELOPE SQUIRRELS FROM IDAHO ROBERTO REFINETTI Department of Psychological Science, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho 83725, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Daytime rodent trapping in the Owyhee Desert of Idaho produced a single diurnal species: the White-tailed Antelope Squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus). I found four females that were pregnant and took them back to my laboratory to give birth and I raised their litters in captivity. Litter size ranged from 10 to 12 pups. The pups were born weighing 3–4 g, with purple skin color and with the eyes closed. Pups were successfully weaned at 60 d of age and approached the adult body mass of 124 g at 4 mo of age. Key Words.—Ammospermophilus leucurus; Great Basin Desert; growth; Idaho; Owyhee County The White-tailed Antelope Squirrel (Ammo- not differ significantly (t = 0.715, df = 10, P = 0.503). spermophilus leucurus; Fig. 1) is indigenous to a large After four months in the laboratory (after parturition and segment of western North America, from as far north lactation for the four pregnant females), average body as southern Idaho and Oregon (43° N) to as far south mass stabilized at 124 g (106–145 g). as the tip of the Baja California peninsula (23° N; Belk The four pregnant females were left undisturbed and Smith 1991; Koprowski et al. 2016). I surveyed a in individual polypropylene cages with wire tops (36 small part of the northernmost extension of the range cm length, 24 cm width, 19 cm height).
    [Show full text]
  • University of Nevada, Reno Plant Community Response to Mowing In
    University of Nevada, Reno Plant community response to mowing in Wyoming big sagebrush habitat in Nevada A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources and Environmental Science By Matthew Church Sherman Swanson/Thesis Advisor May 2017 Copyright by Matthew Church 2017 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by MATTHEW CHURCH Entitled Plant Community Response to Mowing in Wyoming Big Sagebrush Habitat in Nevada be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Sherman Swanson, Phd, Advisor Elizabeth Leger, Phd, Committee Member Barry Perryman, Phd, Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School May, 2017 i Abstract Thousands of acres of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) habitat have been mowed throughout Nevada to create fuelbreaks for wildfire control, enhance resilience and resistance to invasive plant species, increase perennial herbaceous understory, and improve wildlife habitat. To improve our understanding of how these plant communities respond to mowing and whether treatment goals are being met, an observational study of paired mowed and unmowed locations was conducted between 2010 and 2015 across the geographic extent of mowed Wyoming big sagebrush in Nevada. In 2015, foliar and ground cover, perennial herbaceous density, and soil profile data were collected at 32 locations within 16 individual mow projects of different ages. Wilcoxon signed rank tests indicated significantly different mean cover values of ground cover, functional groups and individual species between treated and untreated locations. Bare ground (p < 0.01), moss (p < 0.01), cryptogam (p = 0.01), total foliar cover (p < 0.01), non resprouting shrub (p < 0.01), Poa secunda (p = 0.01) and Phlox sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Marsing Grad’S Career, Page 10 BLM Could Release Records, Page 2 Prep Basketball, Page 11 Ranchers’ Addresses Could Go Public Huskies Win Own Tournament
    Childhood days spark Marsing grad’s career, Page 10 BLM could release records, Page 2 Prep basketball, Page 11 Ranchers’ addresses could go public Huskies win own tournament Established 1865 VOL. 26, NO. 1 75 CENTS HOMEDALE, OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2011 New commissioners take office Monday Two commissioners-elect take the oath of office Monday in Murphy. Kelly Aberasturi for District 2 and Joe Merrick for District 3 will begin their terms after a 10 a.m. ceremony in Courtroom 2 of the Owyhee County Courthouse, 20381 State Hwy. 78. Aberasturi starts a four-year term, succeeding fellow Homedale resident George Hyer. A Grand View resident, Merrick will serve two years in succession of Murphy’s Dick Freund. Also taking the oath of office to begin new Kelly Abersaturi four-year terms are Clerk Charlotte Sherburn, District 2 Treasurer Brenda Richards, Assessor Brett Endicott and Coroner Harvey Grimme. The four are incumbents, with only Sherburn seeing a challenge in last year’s Republican primary from Marsing resident Debbie Titus. After the swearing-in ceremony, the Board of County Commissioners reorganization takes place, including the election of a new board chair. District 1 Commissioner Jerry Hoagland New safety signs in a new year (R-Wilson) has been chairman of the board for Motorists line up as they wait for Homedale High School students to clear the crosswalk on Monday the past two years. afternoon. The crosswalk is one of two spanning East Idaho Avenue for which city crews installed Hoagland is the only BOCC holdover and is Joe Merrick safety signs last month to enhance pedestrian safety around the school.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon's Owyhee Canyonlands
    Oregon’s Owyhee Canyonlands Protecting Our Desert Heritage A Citizens Guide to the Wild Owyhee Canyonlands Three Fingers Butte, proposed Wilderness in the Lower Owyhee Canyonlands. Photo: © Mark W. Lisk 2 oregon’s owyhee canyonlands: protecting oregon’s desert heritage At 1.9 million acres, the Owyhee Canyonlands represents one of the largest conservation opportunities in the United States. Welcome to Oregon’s Owyhee Canyonlands—the center of the sagebrush sea and iconic landscape of the arid West. This remote corner of Southeast Oregon calls to those seeking solitude, unconfined space and a self-reliant way of life. Come raft the Wild & Scenic Owyhee River; hunt big game and upland birds; and walk dry streambeds surrounded by geologic formations from another world. We live and visit here because it is truly unique. owyhee canyonlands campaign 3 Greeley Flat–Owyhee Breaks Wilderness Study Area. Photo © Mark W. Lisk The Oregon Owyhee Canyonlands Campaign is working to protect one of the most expansive and dramatic landscapes in the West, featuring rare wildlife, pristine waterways and incredible outdoor recreational opportunities. Stretching from the mountain ranges of the Great Basin to fertile expanses of the Snake River Plain, the Owyhee Desert ecosystem encompasses nearly 9 million acres across three states. Local residents refer to it as ION country, since the Canyonlands lie at the confluence of Idaho, Oregon and Nevada. The name Seventeen Owyhee hearkens back to a time before state lines were drawn, when three Hawaiian trappers were contiguous Wilderness Study killed by local residents. An archaic spelling of their island home (oh-WYE-hee) became the name of this Areas, spanning landscape of deep riverine canyons and sagebrush sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Temporal and Spatial Variability of Millennial and Decadal- Scale Sediment Yield to Aquatic Habitat in the Columbia River Basin
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2014 Linking Temporal and Spatial Variability of Millennial and Decadal- Scale Sediment Yield to Aquatic Habitat in the Columbia River Basin Elijah Portugal Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Other Life Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Portugal, Elijah, "Linking Temporal and Spatial Variability of Millennial and Decadal-Scale Sediment Yield to Aquatic Habitat in the Columbia River Basin" (2014). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2087. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2087 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LINKING TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF MILLENNIAL AND DECADAL-SCALE SEDIMENT YIELD TO AQUATIC HABITAT IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN by Elijah Portugal A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Watershed Science Approved: __________________________ __________________________ Patrick Belmont Nicolaas Bouwes Major Professor Committee Member __________________________ __________________________ Tammy Rittenour Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2014 ii Copyright © Elijah W. Portugal, 2014 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Linking Temporal and Spatial Variability of Millennial and Decadal-Scale Sediment Yield to Aquatic Habitat in the Columbia River Basin by Elijah W. Portugal, Master of Science Utah State University, 2014 Major Professor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Raptors and the Energy Sector Understudied Open Land Raptors Migration I (C
    THANKS TO OUR Raptors and the Energy Sector SPONSORS Understudied Open Land Raptors Innovations in Raptor Education Environmental Contaminants RE R SE O A T R P C A H R F O N U I O N D A T CONFERENCETuesday, November 7 AT-A-GLANCE 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Raptor Research Foundation Board Meeting North Star Anonymous reporting on our website: http://www.raptorresearchfoundation.org/contact/ A Board member will respond as quickly as possible. Wednesday, November 8 8:00 am - 12:00 pm ECRR Workshop: Harnessing Raptors with Transmitters Deer Valley Investigation Procedure 8:00 am - 12:00 pm ECRR Workshop: The Graduate Student’s Toolbox: Tips and Tricks Solitude 8:00 am - 12:00 pm ECRR Workshop: Raptor Field & In-Hand ID, Ageing & Sexing, Recent Taxonomic... Sundance 1) Whenever possible, the situation will be dealt with informally and in real time by approaching the offender and communicating a 8:30 am - 12:00 pm ECRR Workshop: Raptor Road Trapping Canyons Lobby warning to the offender to immediately cease the behavior, without revealing the identity of the complainant and after approval about this procedure by the complainant. 1:00 - 5:00 pm ECRR Workshop: Techniques for Handling, Auxiliary Marking, and Measuring... Solitude 2) Should this not be enough, and previous approval by the complainant, the RRF Board will name one or two impartial 1:00 - 5:00 pm ECRR Workshop: Handling and Taking Biomedical Samples in Raptors Sundance investigators, considered to be sensitive to the delicacy of the task and capable to assess it professionally.
    [Show full text]
  • Sen. Jim Demint Charges Democrats with 'Federal Land Grab'
    Sen. Jim DeMint charges Democrats with ‘federal land grab’ By Agri-Pulse Staff © Copyright Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc . Washington, Feb. 26 – Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) charged Friday that Democrats are pursuing “a big government land-grab that appeases liberal environmental lobbyists at the expense of American jobs, energy resources, and economic development.” DeMint’s charge followed a 58-38 Senate vote against an amendment he sponsored that would have stopped the Obama administration from giving National Monument status to some 10 million acres in Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. DeMint warns that the designation by the Interior Department “would immediately halt use of the lands for mining, forestry, ranching activities, and energy development which would negatively affect employment and local tax bases.” DeMint says that “Without this amendment, the President will be able to lock up millions of acres with the stroke of a pen, instead of working with the states and towns that will be most affected. Jobs in these areas provide taxes that are essential to funding local schools, fire houses and community centers. The Democrat majority could have stood up for Americans and saved jobs today, but instead they chose to placate liberal activists. This out-of-control federal government should stop from taking freedom away one acre at a time.” The 14 new National Monuments under consideration by the Interior Department are the Northwest Sonoran Desert, Arizona; the Berryessa Snow Mountains, California; the Bodie Hills, California; the expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, California; the Modoc Plateau, California; the Vermillion Basin, Colorado; the Northern Montana Prairie, Montana; the Heart of the Great Basin, Nevada; the Lesser Prairie Chicken Preserve, New Mexico; the Otero Mesa, New Mexico; the Owyhee Desert, Oregon and Nevada; the Cedar Mesa region, Utah; the San Rafael Swell, Utah; and the San Juan Islands, Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah, Endemic And
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
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Department of Wildlife Wildlife Heritage Program Project
    Nevada Department of Wildlife Wildlife Heritage Program Project Summaries and State Fiscal Year 2022 Proposals Table of Contents Page Section 1: Summaries of Recently Completed 1-1 and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects Summary Table: Recently Completed and Active 1-2 Wildlife Heritage Projects Project Summaries 1-5 to 1-22 2-1 Section 2: Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for State Fiscal Year 2022 Funding 2-2 Summary Table: Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for FY22 Funding FY22 Proposals (proposal numbers from the 2-5 to 2-193 summary table are found on the upper right corner of each proposal page) Section 1: Summaries of Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects This section provides brief summaries of Wildlife Heritage projects that were recently completed during State Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and 2021. It also includes brief status reports for projects that were still active as of April 10, 2021. The table on the following pages summarizes key characteristics about each of the projects that are addressed in this section. The financial status of these projects will be updated in early June and in time to be included in the support material for the June Wildlife Heritage Committee Meeting and the Board of Commissioners meeting. 1-1 Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects (active projects and those completed during FY20 and 21; expenditure data is according to DAWN as of April 10, 2021) Heritage Project Heritage Award Dollars Spent as Number Name of Heritage Project Project Manager Amount of April
    [Show full text]