Stillwater Field Office, Nevada
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pilot Table Mountain Permit Renewal
DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2018-0029-EA
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Stillwater Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 775-885-6000
August 2019
1
Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 5 1.1 Project Overview ...... 5 1.2 Identifying Project Information ...... 5 1.3 Grazing Allotment Background ...... 5 1.3.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 6 1.3.2 Rangeland Health Assessment Results ...... 6 1.4 Purpose and Need ...... 8 1.5 Decision to Be Made ...... 8 1.6 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement ...... 8 1.7 Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, Other Plans and Environmental Analysis Documents ...... 8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 2.1 Management Common to Proposed Action and Year-Round Grazing ...... 10 2.1.1 AUM and Water Base Property Overview ...... 10 2.1.2 Proposed Improvements...... 13 2.1.3 Existing Range Improvements ...... 13 2.1.4 Monitoring Goals and Objectives ...... 17 2.1.5 Other Terms and Conditions for Proposed Action and Alternative 2 ...... 19 2.2 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only ...... 20 2.2.1 Grazing Plan...... 20 2.2.2 Grazing Schedule ...... 21 2.3 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing ...... 22 2.3.1 Grazing Plan...... 22 2.3.2 Grazing Schedule ...... 23 2.4 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative: Graduated AUMs ...... 23 2.4.1 Proposed Permittee Range Improvements to be Maintained ...... 25 2.5 Alternative 4: No Action Alternative ...... 26 2.6 Alternative 5: No Grazing Alternative ...... 28 2.7 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ...... 28 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, & CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 28 3.1 Scoping and Issue Identification ...... 29 3.2 General Setting...... 30 3.3 Supplemental Authorities ...... 30 3.4 Resources or Uses other than Supplemental Authorities ...... 32 3.5 Resources Present and Brought Forward for Analysis ...... 33 3.5.1 Threatened or Endangered Species ...... 33 3.5.2 Water Quality, Surface/Ground ...... 38 3.5.3 Wetlands/Riparian Areas ...... 45 3.5.4 BLM Sensitive Species (animals and plants) ...... 52 3.5.5 General Wildlife and Migratory Birds ...... 59 3.5.6 Livestock Grazing ...... 65 3.5.7 Soil ...... 69 3.5.8 Vegetation ...... 75 3.5.9 Wild Horse and Burro ...... 78 2
3.5.10 Noxious and Invasive, Non-native Species ...... 80 3.5.11 Socioeconomics ...... 83 3.5.12 Wilderness Study Area ...... 84 3.5.13 Cumulative Impacts ...... 88 4.0 PERSONS, GROUPS OR AGENCIES CONSULTED ...... 98 4.1 List of Preparers ...... 98 5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 99 6.0 APPENDICES ...... 103
Tables Table 1: Current Permitted Livestock Grazing ...... 6 Table 2: Summary of Results for the Rangeland Health Assessment and Determination ...... 7 Table 3: Summary of Alternative Actions ...... 9 Table 4: Proposed Pasture Fences...... 14 Table 5: Proposed Action Mandatory Terms and Conditions ...... 20 Table 6: Proposed Action Grazing Rotation Schedule after Fencing Construction ...... 21 Table 7: Mandatory Terms and Conditions for Year-round Grazing ...... 22 Table 8: Year-Round Rotational Grazing Schedule after Fencing Construction ...... 23 Table 9: Permittee Alternative Mandatory Terms and Conditions ...... 24 Table 10: Permittee Alternative Range Improvements Identified for Maintenance ...... 25 Table 11: No Action Alternative Mandatory Terms and Conditions ...... 27 Table 12: Supplemental Authorities ...... 30 Table 13: Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities ...... 32 Table 14: Persons, Groups, or Agencies Consulted ...... 98 Table 15: Stillwater Field Office Resource Specialists ...... 98
Appendices Appendix A: List of Acronyms Appendix B: PTMA Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Appendix C: PTMA Standard Determination Document Appendix D: Decisions and Objectives from the CCFO CRMP (2001) Applicable to the EA Appendix E: Federal Laws and Regulations, Plans, Programs, and Policies of Affiliated Tribes, other Federal Agencies, State, and Local Governments Applicable to the EA Appendix F: Monitoring Plan to Assess Whether Objectives are Being Met Appendix G: Standard Terms and Conditions Applicable to all BLM Livestock Grazing Permits Appendix H: Priority Range Improvements Appendix I: Project Design Features and Processes Appendix J: Base Water Suitability Status Appendix K: Cattlemen’s Texas Longhorn Registry and the Livestock Conservancy Letter Appendix L: Additional Maps not included in the RHA Map 1: Proposed Pasture Fencing Creating Pastures within the Allotment 3
Map 2: Proposed Pastures within the Allotment Map 3: Service Areas for Suitable Base Waters and Potential Transferable Waters Map 4: Priority Spring Improvements Map 5: Critical Water Resources for Livestock Distribution Map 6: Proposed Blue Link Spring Improvement Area Map 7: Proposed Summit Spring Improvement Area Map 8: Proposed Corral Spring Improvement Area Map 9: Proposed Cornelius Spring improvement Area Map 10: Permittee Alternative Proposed Water Haul Locations Map 11: Permittee Alternative Water Source Locations Appendix M: Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines Appendix N: Environmental Justice Summary
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences of renewing the livestock grazing permit for 10 years on the Pilot- Table Mountain Allotment (#03574), along with changes in management and range improvement projects. A rangeland health assessment (RHA), rangeland health evaluation (RHE) and standard determination document (SDD) were completed to determine whether the Resource Advisory Council (RAC) standards and guidelines were being met. This analysis informed the proposed action, alternatives, and analysis of potential impacts, which may result by implementing the proposed action or an alternative.
This EA will allow the Authorizing Officer (AO) to determine whether implementing the proposed action or an alternative may cause significant impacts to the human environment. If the AO determines no significant impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be prepared and a decision record (DR) would be issued. If significant impacts are likely to occur, or a FONSI cannot be reached, an environmental impact statement (EIS) would be prepared with a subsequent record of decision (ROD). This EA has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) following the guidance provided in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Handbook H-1790-1 (National Environmental Policy Act, Rel. 1-1710, January 2008), hereafter referred to as H-1790-1.
1.2 Identifying Project Information Title: Pilot-Table Mountain Allotment Grazing Permit Renewal EA Number: DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2018-0029-EA Type of project: Grazing Permit Renewal Location of Proposed Action: Pilot-Table Mountain Allotment Name and Location of Preparing Office: Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Stillwater Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 Authorization #: 2703557 Applicant Name: Rawhide Ranch
1.3 Grazing Allotment Background The Pilot-Table Mountain Allotment (PTMA) is located approximately 10 miles east of Hawthorne, Nevada (NV) in Mineral County. The allotment includes both the Gabbs Valley Range and the Pilot Mountains. The northwestern allotment boundary is adjacent to the Gillis Mountain Allotment. United States (US) Highway 95 establishes the southwestern boundary of the allotment, running adjacent to the small towns of Luning, Mina, and Sodaville. The Le Beau Flat and Phillips Well Allotments form the northern boundary. The Nye, Mineral, and Esmeralda County lines form the eastern and southeastern boundary. The allotment consists of 512,449 acres of public land administered by the Carson City District (CCDO) Stillwater Field Office (SFO), and 8,771 acres of private lands (Appendix B, Appendix A, Map 1). Elevations range from about 4,200 feet in Gabbs Valley to 9,182 feet at the top of Pilot Peak. The PTMA 5
encompasses most of the Pilot Mountain Herd Management Area (HMA); the appropriate management level (AML) for wild horses in the PTMA portion of the Pilot Mountain HMA is between 249-415 wild horses. The Gabbs Valley Range Wilderness Study Area (Gabbs WSA) falls entirely within the northern half of the allotment and contains 79,600 acres of public land and one 40-acre private inholding (Appendix B, Appendix A, Map 1).
1.3.1 Livestock Grazing Refer to Section 4.2 in Appendix B for a detailed analysis of current and historical livestock grazing within the PTMA.
Table 1: Current Permitted Livestock Grazing
Livestock Kind Season of Use % Public Type Use AUMs Number Land 900 Cattle 11/01 – 03/31 100% Active 4,468 150 Cattle 04/01 – 10/31 100% Active 1,055 12 Horse 03/01 – 2/28 100% Active 144 TOTAL 5,667 AUM: Animal Unit Month
1.3.2 Rangeland Health Assessment Results A RHA/RHE and SDD were completed for the PTMA using monitoring data collected through 2018 (Appendices B & C), using Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM), Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (IIRH), frequency and photo trend plot data, utilization, and actual use data. These data sources were used to determine whether rangeland health standards (RHA) are being met. Table 2, below, summarizes the results of the RHA/RHE; the full document can be found in Appendix B.
The Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health on the allotment are as follows (Appendix M); which were developed pursuant to 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §4180.2 (b) (2005), and were approved by the Secretary of the Interior on February 12, 1997:
1) Soils - Soil processes will be appropriate to soil types, climate and land form. 2) Riparian/Wetlands - Riparian/Wetland systems are in Proper Functioning Condition. 3) Water Quality - Water quality criteria in Nevada or California State Law shall be achieved or maintained. 4) Plant and Animal Habitat - Populations and communities of native plant species and habitats for native animal species are healthy, productive and diverse. 5) Special Status Species (SSS) Habitat - Habitat conditions meet the life cycle requirements of SSS.
6
Table 2: Summary of Results for the Rangeland Health Assessment and Determination
Current livestock are the causal or Rangeland Does Not Meets contributing Health Meet Remarks (locations, etc.) Standard factor for not Standard Standard meeting (Yes or No) Soils Yes While only 27% of plots had average ✔ values lower than the reference range, the IIRH assessment results revealed departures in soil and site stability for over 60% of plots assessed. Additionally, over 80% of AIM plots on the PTMA did not meet the bare ground, litter cover, and canopy gap benchmarks. Riparian Yes Of the 37 springs assessed for proper ✔ and functioning condition (PFC), only one Wetlands spring achieved PFC while 24% of the springs were rated functioning at risk with no apparent trend, 19% were rated functioning at risk with a downward trend, and 51% of the springs were rated as non-functioning. Water Yes Qualitative water quality assessments ✔ Quality were completed in conjunction with PFC; the majority of springs and streams indicated poor water quality conditions based on Nevada State water quality standards. Plant and Yes In addition to standards 1-3 not being ✔ Animal met, various data sources assessed -- Habitat including frequency, photo plot, and LPI derived plant composition -- revealed a shift towards shrub dominated ecosystems indicating a departure from the reference grass dominated state. Additionally, a majority of plots did not meet the benchmarks set for mule deer and pronghorn preferred habitat. Special Yes In addition to standards 1-3 not being ✔ Status met, various data sources assessed -- Species including frequency, photo plot, and Habitat LPI derived plant composition -- revealed a shift towards shrub dominated ecosystems indicating a departure from the reference grass dominated state. Additionally, most
7
Current livestock are the causal or Rangeland Does Not Meets contributing Health Meet Remarks (locations, etc.) Standard factor for not Standard Standard meeting (Yes or No) plots did not meet the foliar cover benchmark for bighorn sheep.
1.4 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Federal action is to: • Consider whether to issue a fully-processed ten-year grazing permit for the PTMA. • Modify current grazing practices on the allotment to ensure an appropriate grazing system is established so that significant progress is made towards meeting RHS. • Develop range improvements that will contribute to making significant progress towards meeting RHS.
The need for the Federal Action is to: • Convert the expired FLPMA grazing permit to a fully processed ten-year grazing permit in accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, and other regulations, including but not limited to, 43 CFR 4100. • Ensure grazing use is compatible with achievement of the Secretary of the Interior’s approved Rangeland Health Standards. • Protect and restore riparian and upland habitat.
1.5 Decision to Be Made Based on the results of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, the authorized officer will make an informed decision whether, and under what terms and conditions, to renew grazing permits for the PTMA and whether or not to implement proposed range improvements.
1.6 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement Resource management planning regulations mandate that all actions approved or authorized by the BLM be reviewed for conformance with existing land use plans (43 CFR 1610.5-3; 516 Departmental Manual [DM] 11.5 [BLM 2009b]). A Proposed Action and alternatives must be consistent with applicable land use plans and with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan (BLM 2008). The Proposed Action and BLM alternatives are in conformance with the management decisions and objectives from the Carson City Field Office Resource Management Plan (CRMP) (2001) listed in Appendix D.
1.7 Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, Other Plans and Environmental Analysis Documents The Proposed Action and BLM Alternatives are consistent with Federal laws and regulations, plans, programs, and policies of affiliated Native American tribes, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments listed in Appendix E.
8
2.0 ALTERNATIVES In order to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project in a way that resolves any resource conflicts and issues, the BLM has developed four alternatives, in addition to the permittee’s alternative, for the renewal of the grazing permit (Table 3). The Proposed Action Alternative was developed by the BLM to allow for the attainment of the RAC Standards and Guidelines (S&G). The Cool Season Only Alternative analyzes a grazing management system that has no grazing during most of the critical growing period. The No Action Alternative would allow continuation of the current grazing system, and is being brought forward for a detailed analysis to provide a baseline from which to compare the alternatives. The No Grazing Alternative is also used as a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The Permittee Alternative, reflecting the grazing management system proposed by the permittee, is also being evaluated as provided by the 2008 Settlement Agreement between BLM and the Holmgrens (Appendix B, Section 4.2.1.3).
Table 3: Summary of Alternative Actions
Alternatives Mandatory Terms Total Interim Proposed Range and Conditions AUMs Management Improvements (Yes or No)
1) Proposed Phased 4 spring improvements and Action: Cool implementation of 5,664 Yes pasture fencing Season Grazing grazing management 1) 300 Cattle* 08/15- 03/31 2) 526 Cattle* 08/15- 03/31 3) 752 Cattle* 08/15- 03/31
2) Year-round Phased 5,662 Yes 4 spring improvements and Grazing implementation of pasture fencing grazing management 1) 150 Cattle* 03/31- 2/28 2) 300 Cattle* 03/31- 2/28 3) 472 Cattle* 03/31- 2/28
3) Permittee 658 Cattle 03/01- 7,896 Yes 3 spring improvements, Alternative: 2/28 maintenance of existing Graduated AUMs improvements, water haul locations
4) No Action 900 Cattle 11/01- 4,468 N/A N/A 3/31
9
Alternatives Mandatory Terms Total Interim Proposed Range and Conditions AUMs Management Improvements (Yes or No)
150 Cattle 4/1-10/31 1,055 N/A N/A
12 Horse 11/01- 144 N/A N/A 03/31
5) No Grazing No Cattle 0 N/A N/A
AUM: Animal Unit Month
* Phased Implementation is based on 3-year cycles where monitoring and range improvement objectives must be met before increasing the number of cattle
Management Common to All Alternatives • Standard Terms and Conditions: located in Appendix G (These terms and conditions apply to all BLM livestock grazing permits).
2.1 Management Common to Proposed Action and Year-Round Grazing For these alternatives, the BLM proposes to issue a 10-year term livestock grazing permit with the following changes to grazing management: a grazing plan with three phases tied to achievement of monitoring goals and objectives (Section 2.1.3), a change in the season of use, and cancellation of 144 AUMs of domestic horse use. The change in the season of use and initial reduced AUMs is based on the following: the PTMA allotment is failing to meet all five RAC Standards for Rangeland Health (Section 1.3.2) under the current grazing permit and management system, the current condition of the base waters does not support the grazing preference, the analysis of actual use, and because 97 percent of the assessed springs are not meeting PFC.
Under both alternatives, the BLM is proposing to construct 45 miles of pasture fencing (Appendix L, Map 1) to create pastures (Appendix L, Map 2) and implement a rotational grazing schedule (identified in Section’s 2.2.2 and 2.3.2), to construct four spring improvements, and to implement a schedule for maintenance of existing range improvements.
2.1.1 AUM and Water Base Property Overview Cancelling Domestic Horse AUMs Consistent with existing laws and regulations, BLM proposes to cancel 144 AUMs permitted for domestic horse use within the PTMA. The Pilot Mountain HMA encompasses approximately half of the allotment which has little to no fencing to prevent domestic horse access from intermingling with wild horses. Following enactment of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (P.L. 92-195, December 1971), the BLM can no longer authorize grazing by domestic horses within wild horse herd management areas. Regulations at 43 CFR 4710.5(b) provide that: 10
“All public lands inhabited by wild horses or burros shall be closed to grazing under permit or lease by domestic horses and burros.” BLM therefore cannot authorize domestic horse AUMs for the PTMA.
Actual Use Grazing Evaluation Actual grazing use was reported by the permittee to be 150 head of cattle year-round from April 2008 through October 2014. From November 2014 to the present, cattle numbers have been between 150 to 554 head of cattle year-round. During livestock distribution flights between 2016-2018, the BLM consistently counted higher numbers of cattle than what was reported by the permittee (Appendix B, Table 5 shows billed AUMs and cattle numbers). Although grazing on the PTMA has likely not exceeded the currently authorized 5,667 AUMs, within a given grazing year, and despite significantly reduced grazing year-round by only 150 head of cattle from 2008 to 2014, the allotment is still not meeting the five RAC Standards for Rangeland Health. The lack of grazing management and summer grazing in excess of 150 head of cattle after 2014 has resulted in declining rangeland health conditions and has contributed to the failure to meet rangeland health standards. The proposed action would make changes to grazing management that would allow for significant progress in meeting rangeland health standards
Base Water Evaluation The PTMA is a base water allotment with AUMs originally attached to 29 waters and their service area (Appendix B, Appendix A, Map 9). At the time of the original adjudication in 1960 the evaluation considered forage per acre associated with the 29 base waters and concluded the PTMA could support 7900 AUMs of cattle. BLM uses a forage per acre calculation based on distance from water source: five miles for source on flat ground and four miles from source on uneven ground.
In order for a water source to be considered suitable base property, it must meet the following criteria: the water source must be accessible, suitable for consumption, and available in sufficient quantities for the authorized number of livestock when the allotment is being used for grazing (43 CFR 4100.0-5). The current evaluation of the base waters (Appendix J) and the AUMs attached to those base waters were used to determine the number of cattle the allotment can support today.
Where a base water source becomes non-suitable for livestock use, the grazing preference may be transferred from one base water source to another if the new water source can service the area of the replaced (non-suitable) base water source (BLM 1984). Stipulations for this base water transfer include: 1) the permittee must hold the water right to the replacement base water source, and 2) the replacement base water must meet the suitability definition. A spatial evaluation was implemented to identify water sources with the potential to replace non-suitable base waters as determined by monitoring data (Appendix J).
A status evaluation of the 29 base waters (Appendix J) revealed that only ten of the base waters (34 percent) are suitable based on the regulatory criteria; of these ten suitable base waters, five (17 percent) were determined to be limited based on only having seasonal water availability. Of the remaining 19 base waters (66 percent) determined to be non-suitable, eight (28 percent) of these waters were identified as having another potential suitable water source to replace the 11
existing non-suitable base water. However, for five of these eight potential replacement base waters, maintenance of existing range improvements would need to be implemented before the water could officially be considered suitable to serve as base water and be transferred. To maintain suitability, these potential new base waters would most likely require improvements to existing structures such as exclosure fencing, pipelines and troughs. If the five alternative base water sources requiring range improvement maintenance are determined to not be suitable because range improvements would not suffice in providing suitable available or consumable water, then they would no longer be considered as an alternate water source for a base water transfer, leaving only three alternative water sources to replace existing non-suitable base waters. Lastly, of the 29 original base waters, 11 (38 percent) were determined to be non-suitable and non-transferable because there are no other potential water sources within the same service area to transfer base water property to. In summary, up to 16 original base waters may be determined not suitable for base water use or transfer to an alternative water source, and as such would no longer have any associated AUMs. This base water evaluation supports limiting the maximum AUMs to no more than the 5,667 AUMs authorized under the current permit for the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, rather than allowing for an increase to the full preference of 7,900 AUMs.
The condition of the water sources (i.e., from PFC assessments) was also taken into consideration when evaluating the ability of the 29 original base waters to support grazing. Riparian and wetland areas (springs and streams) are complex and dynamic ecosystems that incorporate biological, physical and chemical processes; all of which are necessary for a spring or stream to function properly. If one, or all, of these processes are not functioning properly, this could impair (or potentially eliminate) the ability of a spring or stream to provide sufficient water quantity or quality for livestock. The ability of these processes to function properly is related to both natural and management-based changes. The biological, physical and chemical processes were assessed during PFC and evaluated in detail in the RHA/RHE for the PTMA (Appendix B). When evaluating the appropriate AUM level for grazing management, PFC was taken into account because a spring or stream that rates as functioning-at-risk or non-functioning may continue to decline, thus potentially providing non-suitable water for livestock consumption.
The base water evaluation determined there are five suitable and five suitable-but limited original base waters, in addition to three confirmed potential new transferable replacement water sources that could be suitable as base water property for purposes of calculating AUMs and livestock numbers for the PTMA (Appendix L, Map 3). An additional five original base waters may be suitable for transfer to alternative water sources; however range improvements would have to be repaired and maintained for these alternative waters to become suitable, therefore there are currently only 13 original or transferable replacement base waters (44 percent) that could be confirmed for calculating AUMs.
The 13 base waters determined to be suitable to water livestock would yield 3,555 AUMs; under year-round grazing management, this equates to approximately 300 head of cattle per grazing year. Since AUMs are based on the suitability of available water at base properties, and over half of those properties (56 percent) are not currently suitable to provide water to cattle, the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 would reduce authorized AUMs. The proposal to decrease AUMs, adjust grazing schedules, incorporate pasture rotation, and construct new range improvements on
12
base water properties, is critical for the recovery of riparian and wetland areas within the PTMA. Under the Proposed Action, a base number of 300 cattle limited to cool-season grazing reflects AUMs tied to current base water availability, and would allow for base water properties to improve suitability and thus could lead to an increase in AUMs over time through phased incremental increases. Under Alternative 2, the proposal to initially reduce AUMs to authorize year-round grazing by 150 cattle reflects current authorized numbers during the growing season. This proposal would also allow for phased AUM increases as base water properties improve over time and rangeland health conditions improve.
The unsuitability of base waters, PFC status, actual use evaluation, and failure to meet standards for rangeland health, support the initial reduction in AUMs for the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. The following actions common to both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 detail specific management phases and the goals and objectives that would have to be met in order to move through the phases and increase AUMs. Grazing management objectives are tied to the priority spring improvements that would promote spring functionality and base water improvements so that livestock numbers can be sustainably increased in a manner that is consistent with achieving rangeland health standards.
2.1.2 Proposed Improvements 2.1.2.1 Existing Range Improvements Appendix H contains a list of existing range improvements on the PTMA, their current condition, and the assigned maintenance responsibility based on available documentation. The ability to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health depends, in part, on fully operational range improvements, which are necessary to control livestock movements in accordance with grazing schedules. The grazing permittee is responsible for maintenance of all range improvements that are under either a Range Improvement Permit (RIP) or Cooperative Agreement as provided under 43 CFR 4120.3-1(c) and 43 CFR 4130.3-2.
The BLM has identified range improvements as high, medium, or low priority for repair or maintenance. Range improvements and maintenance responsibility are identified in Appendix H. Priority is based on identified important water sources for livestock distribution, key spring sites for monitoring, improvement in PFC, and resource impacts. Repair or maintenance of these range improvements would depend on the availability of funding or the cost effectiveness and/or viability of fixing the range improvement (e.g., has a well and/or spring source gone dry?). The goal would be to maintain and/or repair high priority projects within one to three years so they become functional; medium and low priority projects would be maintained and/or repaired to ensure functionality following completion of high priority projects. The proposed phased increases in AUMs would be dependent upon these maintenance and/or repair improvements.
2.1.2.2 Proposed New Improvements 2.1.2.2.1 Pasture Fencing The Proposed Action Alternative would require approximately 45 miles of fence to create three separate pastures within the allotment (Appendix L, Map 1; Table 4). The three pastures, Deadhorse–Poinsettia, Stinson, and Pilot-Table-Luning, would be formed by taking advantage of pre-existing fence(s), steep mountain range fronts that impede livestock drift, locations of livestock water sources, and major roads such as the Calavada Flat, Highway 361, and Stewart 13
Valley Road. Many of the proposed boundaries of these pastures have been identified in older AMPs for the allotment that combine grazing management concepts with localized knowledge (i.e., livestock drift, traveling distance from water, natural barriers and forage production).
Table 4: Proposed Pasture Fences
Name Estimated Distance - Miles Legal Location
Win Wan Drift Fence 2.6 10N 33E Sec 35
Rhyolite Pass Fence 8.9 9N 34E Sec 34
Stewart Valley Black Cabin Fence 5.7 8N 36E Sec 24
Mitchell and Black Jack Connector 2.6 7N 27E Sec 30
Hwy 361 Fence Stinson to Calavada 9.4 10N 35E Sec 11
Hwy 361 Calavada Summit 4.9 9N 35E Sec 28
Calavada Flat to Stewart Valley 11.2 8N 36E Sec 24
TOTAL 45.3
2.1.2.2.2 Spring Improvements Spring improvements are proposed to help address management concerns in selected areas that are not currently achieving the standards and guidelines within the project area. A total of 34 spring and range improvements following the project design features (PDF) and processes listed in Appendix I are analyzed in this EA; this includes four site specific spring improvements (described below), plus an additional 30 priority range improvements (Appendix H and Appendix L, Map 4).
Prior to and during implementation and maintenance, these projects would follow the required design features.
For the four spring exclosures described below, a fence gate would also be installed to allow for potential controlled grazing of the enclosed riparian area. Controlled grazing of the exclosure would be determined based on whether the enclosed area is meeting and maintaining monitoring objectives identified in Section 2.1.3 and would require length of time, seasonal timing and AUM numbers plan submitted in writing and dependent on written approval by the BLM before livestock could be turned out in the exclosure. If monitoring should indicate that further potential actions beyond the exclosure are needed to restore the springs to PFC, such actions would be subject to a separate decision process.
Blue Link Spring Blue Link Spring was rated as Functioning at Risk (FAR) with a not apparent trend, during a 2016 PFC assessment of the upper pond; the lower reach was rated as FAR with a downward monitored trend. BLM holds an existing water right for wildlife purposes. Blue Link Spring is 14
located in the proposed Pilot-Table-Luning Pasture. Blue Link Spring supports a refugium population of federally endangered Hiko White River springfish (Crenichthys baileyi grandis) and there is currently no fence protecting the artificial pond/reservoir and overflow water from excessive livestock grazing and wild horse use. In addition, there is an approximately 10-foot- wide, minimally maintained, dirt road that bisects the upper pond from the lower stream reach which flows out from a pipe in the pond downslope by means of a natural drainage channel for approximately 0.5 mile. The road crosses the riparian area and lotic section just below the dam of the artificial pond and is impacting the connectivity and function of this riparian system.
To reduce grazing pressure, meet riparian health standards, and enhance riparian habitat to maintain Hiko White River springfish populations, the BLM is proposing to: (1) re-route the road around the pond by building approximately 1,200 feet of new graded road and decommission the road through the spring by possible reseeding with a native seed species mix; (2) construct approximately 600 feet of new exclosure fencing which would enclose both the pond, dam, springbox, and outflow pipe, and a portion of the old road that crosses the lotic section of the spring (approximately one acre) (Appendix L, Map 5); and (3) if determined necessary, replace the existing outflow pipe with a larger pipe for overflow events and repair the dam, as needed. Disturbance associated with this activity would include ripping, blading, and vegetation and topsoil removal. Large equipment used would include, but is not limited to, road graders, tracked backhoes, tractors, dozers and pickup trucks.
Depending on available funding, the exclosure fence would be either a pipe rail fence or a standard BLM 4-wire fence; either fence material would allow access to wildlife and would meet specifications in BLM Handbook 1741-1. Fence construction could involve the use of pick-up trucks, post-hole augers (possibly attached to tractors or backhoes), and other equipment, as necessary. The majority of the lower outflow water would remain unfenced, allowing livestock and wild horse’s access to water outside of the exclosure below the dam. Controlled grazing of the enclosed riparian vegetation would be authorized as needed to meet objectives to control bulrush/cattail encroachment so that it does not encompass more than 25 percent of the artificial pond, in order to maintain sufficient open habitat for the springfish; this monitoring objective would be specific to this improvement. Grazing of the exclosure would be dependent on meeting and maintaining monitoring objectives; timing and duration of this grazing action may occur on a periodic or seasonal basis and is dependent upon the amount of vegetation present that is in need of removal and will be done with prior written approval by the BLM. If additional vegetation treatment on the pond is needed, beyond controlled grazing as determined by annual monitoring, hand pulling and/or cutting bulrush/cattails below the water surface would assist in keeping the pond habitat open for springfish.
Summit Spring Summit Spring was rated as non-functional during a 2016 PFC assessment. Summit Spring is located in the proposed Pilot-Table-Luning Pasture; the permittee holds a current stockwater right. A fixed steel post and cable fence currently exists around the upper half of the spring, with cables attached by turnbuckle screws. Vandalism of the fence is continuous; the turnbuckles are unscrewed or completely removed from the exclosure fence, allowing for uncontrolled access of the riparian area by livestock and wild horses. The continuous downed fence has also posed a safety risk to livestock, as there are at least two documented instances where cattle have gotten 15
stuck in the mud and then died in the spring. There is also a minimally-maintained dirt road, approximately 10-foot wide, which abuts the lower half of the spring. During high flow events, water from the spring runs off alongside and over a portion of the road due to lack of protective riparian vegetative cover within the wetland area.
The BLM is proposing to replace the fixed post and cable fence with approximately 600 feet of new pipe-rail fence, as well as reroute the road further away from the spring to protect the riparian area from further damage (Appendix L, Map 6). A short section of the existing road would be re-routed away from the spring and the old section scarified and reseeded with a native seed species mix. The exclosure fence would be modified to enclose approximately one acre of riparian area, including the spring and a portion of the rehabilitated roadbed. The BLM would install a pipeline and a trough down slope and outside of the exclosure fence to allow for livestock and wild horse watering. A spring box may also be added if necessary to provide adequate water collection and storage for the trough.
Corral Spring During the 2016 PFC assessment, Corral Spring was rated FAR with a downward trend that was attributed to the disrepair of existing spring improvements, livestock and wild horse use, loss of riparian vegetation, soil erosion, and poor water quality. The site is located in the proposed Deadhorse-Poinsettia Pasture, and is a complex of three spring sources. The permittee holds a stock water right to the spring for use in grazing operations. Existing infrastructure (RIPs No 546468) consists of two holding corrals located below the lower spring originally constructed of wood post and rail; a spring box; an above ground poly-pipeline and metal water trough located downstream of the lower spring; and a wooden buck and rail exclosure fence around the upper spring.
The current condition of the range improvements is poor. Remnants of the holding corrals are deteriorated wood posts, the spring box and piping system are not functioning, and the upper spring exclosure fencing is in various states of disrepair and consists of a mix of the original fencing and newer metal post and rails that were installed in 1988. Inspections dating back as far as the early 1980s have documented the poor water quality and condition of the site as well as the continued damage to the fence caused by wild horses attempting to access the spring source. These conditions negatively impact the visual quality of the wilderness character as well as the natural functioning condition of the spring complex.
Because of the degraded water quality, reduced water quantity and the loss of riparian vegetation at this spring, there is a negative effect on general wildlife, migratory birds, and big game species such as pronghorn and bighorn sheep. Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has been collaborating with the BLM to address the factors leading to the overall degradation of the site. Please refer to Section 3.5.12 for further discussion on proposed action at this site
Cornelius Spring Cornelius Spring was rated FAR with a downward trend during a 2016 PFC assessment. Cornelius Spring is located in the proposed Pilot-Table-Luning Pasture. Cornelius Spring is a complex consisting of at least two spring sources. When inspected in 2016, there were metal scraps scattered throughout the riparian area, and a metal pipe leads to a large metal trough from 16
one of the spring sources. There are also two separate wooden fences that appeared to have been small spring box exclosures at one time. The pipeline, trough, and wooden fences are not in functioning order.1
The BLM is proposing to replace the existing, non-functional wooden fence material with pipe rail or wire fence (Appendix L, Map 8). The new exclosure fence would be approximately 600 feet and would enclose approximately one acre of Cornelius Spring for the purpose of enhancing riparian habitat and meeting riparian health standards. Depending on the availability of funding, the fence would be a pipe rail or a standard BLM 4-wire fence. The fence would be built to meet specifications regarding cattle, horses and/or wildlife (BLM Handbook 1741-1).
The BLM would also install approximately 80 feet of new pipeline to a new trough down slope and outside of the exclosure fence to allow for livestock and wild horse watering. The trough would be fitted with a wildlife ramp. A spring box would be installed at the head of the spring below ground.
2.1.3 Monitoring Goals and Objectives In addition to the proposed fencing infrastructure and the implementation of priority range improvements at the four springs, the BLM would also require: 1) progress towards meeting the RAC S&G, and 2) achievement of associated monitoring goals and objectives established for this permit renewal. Goals and objectives were formulated using multiple resources including the RAC S&G, CRMP (BLM 2001), scientific research (Carter et al. 2017; Okin et al. 2009; NRCS 1997), established monitoring protocols and guides (Swanson et al. 2018; NAC 2018; Herrick et al. 2017), technical references (BLM 2015; BLM 2011), and Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) review and input. Achievement of short-term and long-term monitoring objectives would allow for significant progress towards meeting all five RAC S&G, and would support incremental or phased increases in AUMs under the Proposed Action and the Year-Round Grazing Alternative (section 2.3).
Prior to implementation of monitoring, objectives (listed below) and data collection methods (Appendix F) would be assigned to key monitoring sites. Monitoring sites were selected as representative areas for the PTMA and include key springs, established AIM, frequency and photo plots (Appendix F). If it is determined the monitoring sites, objectives or data collection methods are not sufficient to determine progress towards achieving standards, additional monitoring objectives, data collection methods and adaptive management would be implemented to ensure significant progress is made to meet objectives.
1 During a recent inspection in July, 2019, BLM discovered that the water was diverted from the both spring sources and all of the water had been trenched away from the spring to a trough then from the trough to the upland area, causing the wet meadows to almost completely dry up and wetland vegetation to die off. This recent diversion and trenching is not consistent with the design standards for spring developments or with maintenance responsibilities. BLM is considering the appropriate next steps to address this recent work at Cornelius Spring, and how to proceed diverting the water back to the wetland area to improve functioning of this spring. 17 Goals Goal 1 – Manage livestock grazing on public lands to promote healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems. Goal 2 – Improve function of riparian and wetland areas over time in order to achieve Standard 2 and 3, as well as to facilitate meeting Standard 4 and 5. Goal 3 – Maintain or improve upland native plant communities on stable soils with vigorous, diverse, self-sustaining native grasses, and shrubs and forbs, based on ecological site potential, in order to make significant progress towards achieving Standards 1, 4 and 5.
Objectives
Annual Livestock Indicators: • At all riparian areas available to grazing within the use areas and/or pastures maintain an average of >4 inch stubble height of riparian vegetation at the end of the grazing period. • Limit utilization to <30 percent of key upland grass species in during the growing season (May 1 - June 30). Examples of key species are Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), desert needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosum), and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) (Carter et al. 2017; CRMP). • In both upland and riparian areas, limit utilization to <30 percent of key woody species (e.g. Cliff rose (Purshia stansburiana), willow (Salix spp.), four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), spiny hop sage (Atriplex canescens) and winter fat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)). • At all riparian areas available to grazing within the use areas and/or pastures, limit soil/streambank alteration (e.g. trampling damage) to <40% at the end of the grazing period.
The following actions would be implemented when an annual livestock indicator is reached in an area due to livestock grazing:
• Initiate and maintain cattle movement throughout the allotment as specified by the annual livestock indicators above in the upland and riparian areas. • Use management of water sources (e.g. water haul, developed spring boxes, wells) and supplements to move cattle to new locations within the pasture or allotment once the utilization and stubble height thresholds are met.
Short-Term Objectives: • For >50 percent of the key springs: from baseline monitoring results measure a 80 percent increase in percent cover of facultative (FACW) or obligate (OBL) wetland species (including woody species based on site potential) OR a minimum total of 50 percent cover of FACW, FAC and OBL wetland species within the delineated riparian area at the end of the grazing period. • For >50 percent of the key springs: from baseline monitoring results bareground will be reduced by 50 percent OR have reached a total minimum of <50 percent bareground cover within the delineated riparian area at the end of the grazing period.
18 • Implement maintenance and/or repair of all high priority range improvement projects throughout the allotment to approved BLM standards (Section 2.1.2.1 and Appendix H for details).*
Long-Term Objectives: • Improve rating or trend in spring function in >75 percent of key springs towards meeting PFC. • For > 75 percent of the key springs: from baseline monitoring results bareground will be reduced by 70 percent OR have reached a total minimum of <20 percent bareground cover within the delineated riparian area at the end of the grazing period. • For >75 percent of the key springs: from achievement of short-term monitoring results measure a 80 percent increase in percent cover of facultative (FACW) or obligate (OBL) wetland species (including woody species based on site potential) OR a minimum total of 80 percent cover of FACW, FAC and OBL wetland species within the delineated riparian area. • Increase deep-rooted perennials, native forbs, and desirable browse shrubs based on ecological sites within its current state at key monitoring sites (frequency, photo trend, established AIM). • Implement maintenance and/or repair of priority range improvement projects throughout the allotment to approved BLM standards (Section 2.1.2.1 and Appendix H for details).*
*If a range improvement is unable to be repaired, the site could become a water haul site or other achievement of other indicators might allow for additional cattle to be phased in.
2.1.4 Other Terms and Conditions for Proposed Action and Alternative 2 • Grazing Management will be accordance with the 2019 PTMA Permit Renewal and Final Grazing Decision Record. • Grazing management shall be authorized in a manner that will make significant progress towards meeting the standards as set forth by the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC, 1997. • The permittee is required to make written application for grazing prior to each grazing season • Salt and/or supplements must be placed at least 1 mile from live waters (springs, streams), and outside of associated riparian areas, livestock watering facilities, wet or dry meadows and aspen stands. Salt would not be placed in known historic properties. Salt may be used, but supplements are not authorized in the Gabbs WSA per BLM Manual 6330. • Maintenance of range improvements is required and shall be in accordance with all approved cooperative agreements and range improvement permits. Maintenance shall be completed prior to livestock turnout in a pasture or use area scheduled for livestock use. Maintenance activities shall be restricted to the footprint (previously disturbed area) of the project as it existed when initially constructed. The BLM shall be given 48 hours advance notice of any maintenance work that would involve heavy equipment. • No livestock grazing is authorized in any exclosure(s), without prior written authorization by the authorized officer for a grazing prescription to meet specific resource objectives.
19
• Within WSAs, the use of mechanical or motorized transport is restricted to those primitive routes that were identified and documented as ways at the time of the 1979-80 intensive lands with wilderness characteristics inventory. • By accepting this grazing permit, the permittee agrees that the authorized officer or his representatives and contractors shall have the right of ingress and egress over lands controlled by the permittee for the purpose of achieving the management objectives and orderly administration of public rangelands under this grazing permit.
2.2 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only 2.2.1 Grazing Plan The objective of the Proposed Action’s grazing plan is to improve rangeland health and riparian conditions, while allowing for the phased increase in AUMs if grazing management is achieving objectives. Movement from one phase to the next and associated changes in grazing management would have to be approved by the AO prior to implementation. Table 5 below shows the proposed mandatory terms and conditions for the proposed action.
Table 5: Proposed Action Mandatory Terms and Conditions
Livestock Kind Season of Use % Public Type Use AUMs Number Land 752* Cattle 08/15-03/31 100% Active 5,664
TOTAL 5,664 AUM: Animal Unit Month * Maximum number of cattle after implementation of phase 3 as described below
Phase 1 Under phase 1 of the Proposed Action, BLM proposes to authorize 300 head of cattle from August 15 to March 31 (2,259 AUMs). During the first three years under Phase 1 management, monitoring data would be collected following the PTMA Monitoring Plan (Appendix F) and assessed to determine if the annual livestock indicators and short-term monitoring objectives, as outlined in Section 2.1.3, are being met. If the objectives are achieved after the first three years, then grazing management would move to Phase 2. If objectives are not achieved then grazing management would continue under Phase 1 until such objectives are achieved. In addition, the high priority range improvements identified in Appendix H would need to be in working order.
Phase 2 Under this phase, BLM proposes to authorize 526 head of cattle from August 15 to March 31 (3,960 AUMs). During the next three years under Phase 2 management, monitoring data would be collected following the PTMA Monitoring Plan (Appendix F) and would be assessed to determine if the annual livestock indicators and long-term monitoring objectives outlined in Section 2.1.3, are being met. If the objectives are achieved after three years under Phase 2, then grazing management would move to Phase 3. If monitoring objectives are not achieved then grazing management would continue under Phase 2 until such objectives are achieved. In
20
addition, progress towards fixing priority range improvements identified in Appendix H would continue and existing range improvements would be maintained in working order.
Phase 3 Under this final phase, BLM proposes to increase grazing from 526 to 752 head of cattle from August 15 to March 31 (5,664 AUMs). During this last phase of the ten year grazing permit monitoring would continue to ensure annual livestock indicator objectives and long-term monitoring objectives are continuing to be met. Progress towards fixing priority range improvements identified in Appendix H would continue and existing range improvements would be maintained in working order.
2.2.2 Grazing Schedule Interim Management: Prior to the completion of the proposed pasture fencing, interim grazing management would be organized as follows: 1) on even years, cattle would be turned out on the northern end of the allotment and moved south throughout the grazing season, and 2) on odd years, cattle would be turned out on the southern portion of the allotment and moved towards the north end throughout the grazing season where they would be gathered and removed. Existing wells, developed springs, water haul locations, supplements, and active herding, may be utilized in order to assist in distributing the cattle and moving them to new locations on the allotment. This would allow for areas of the allotment to be grazed at different times of the year every other year. Utilization levels would be set at identified key sites (Appendix F). When these levels are reached, the cattle would be moved to a new location on the allotment.
After construction of the pasture fencing is completed, grazing management would be organized as follows (table 6):
The permittee would have two weeks of flexibility when rotating between pastures with prior BLM approval. There would also be two weeks of flexibility built into the beginning of the season of use, and the end of the season (with prior BLM approval). Existing wells, developed springs, water haul locations, supplements, and active herding, may be utilized in order to assist in distributing the cattle and moving them to new locations on the allotment.
Table 6: Proposed Action Grazing Rotation Schedule after Fencing Construction
Name Acres Season of Use Season of Use Season of Use Year One Year Two Year Three
Deadhorse - Poinsettia 216,000 rest 8/15-12/31 11/01-3/31
Stinson 84,100 02/01-3/31 rest 08/15-10/31
Pilot-Table-Luning 233,900 8/15-01/31 01/01-3/31 rest
21
2.3 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing 2.3.1 Grazing Plan The objective of the Year-Round Grazing Alternative is to improve rangeland health and riparian conditions, while allowing for the phased increase in AUMs if grazing management is achieving objectives. Movement from one phase to the next and associated changes in grazing management would have to be approved by the AO prior to implementation. Table 7 below shows the proposed mandatory terms and conditions for this alternative.
Table 7: Mandatory Terms and Conditions for Year-round Grazing
Livestock Kind Season of Use % Public Type Use AUMs Number Land 472* Cattle 03/31-2/28 100% Active 5,662
TOTAL 5,662 AUM: Animal Unit Month * Maximum number of cattle after implementation of phase 3 as described below
Phase 1 In phase 1, BLM proposes to authorize 150 head of cattle from March 1 to February 28 (1,800 AUMs). During the first three years of Phase 1, monitoring data would be collected following the PTMA Monitoring Plan (Appendix F) and assessed to determine if the annual livestock indicators and short-term monitoring objectives, as outlined in Section 2.1.3, are being met. If the objectives are achieved after the first three years, then grazing management would move to Phase 2. If monitoring objectives are not achieved than grazing management would continue under Phase 1 until such objectives are achieved. In addition, the high priority range improvements identified in Appendix H would need to be in working order.
Phase 2 Under this phase, BLM proposes to authorize 300 head of cattle from March 1 to February 28 (3,600 AUMs). During the next three years under Phase 2 management, monitoring data would be collected following the PTMA Monitoring Plan (Appendix F) and would be assessed to determine if the annual livestock indicators and long-term monitoring objectives outlined in Section 2.1.3, are being met. If the objectives are achieved after three years under Phase 2 then grazing management would move to Phase 3. If monitoring objectives are not achieved then grazing management would continue under Phase 2 until such objectives are achieved. In addition, progress towards fixing priority range improvements identified in Appendix H would continue and existing range improvements would be maintained in working order.
Phase 3 Under this final phase, BLM proposes to increase grazing from 300 to 472 head of cattle from March 1 to February 28 (5,662 AUMs). During this last phase of the ten-year grazing permit monitoring would continue to ensure annual livestock indicator objectives and long-term monitoring objectives are continuing to be met. Progress towards fixing priority range improvements identified in Appendix H would continue and existing range improvements are maintained in working order.
22
2.3.2 Grazing Schedule Interim Management Prior to the completion of the proposed pasture fencing, interim grazing management would be organized as follows: 1) on the first year of the permit all cattle throughout the allotment would be pushed to the northern end throughout the grazing season, 2) at the start of the next grazing season the cattle would be pushed to the opposite end of the allotment (southern) throughout the grazing season, and 3) at the start of each new grazing season the cattle would be pushed towards the opposite end of the allotment throughout the grazing season. Annual livestock indicators, existing wells, developed springs, water haul locations, supplements, and active herding, may be utilized in order to assist in distributing the cattle and moving them to new locations on the allotment. This would allow for areas of the allotment to be grazed at different times of the year every other year.
After construction of the pasture fencing has been completed, grazing management would be organized as follows:
The Stinson Use Area would have a two month grazing season due to its smaller acreage and limited water availability. The Deadhorse-Poinsettia and Pilot-Table-Luning Use Area would have five-month grazing seasons and would see deferred use or non-growing season use periodically throughout the three year rotation, as shown in Table 8. There would be two weeks of flexibility when rotating between pastures with prior BLM approval. Existing wells, developed springs, water haul locations, supplements, and active herding, may be utilized in order to assist in distributing the cattle and moving them to new locations on the allotment.
Table 8: Year-Round Rotational Grazing Schedule after Fencing Construction
Name Acres Season of Use Season of Use Season of Use Year One Year Two Year Three
Deadhorse - Poinsettia 216,000 1/1 – 5/31 8/1 – 12/31 6/1 – 10/31
Stinson 84,100 6/1 – 7/31 1/1 – 2/28 11/1 – 12/31
Pilot-Table-Luning 233,900 8/1 – 12/31 3/1 – 7/31 1/1 – 5/31
2.4 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative: Graduated AUMs This alternative was submitted by the permittee and brought forward from the EA that was being developed in 2014, but never completed. Under this alternative, the proposal would be to issue a ten-year grazing permit to the permittee (authorization #2703557) for 658 cattle to graze on the PTMA from March 1 through February 28 for a total of 7,896 AUMs. Starting with 300 head of cattle grazing year-round in the first year, the permittee would add 50 head each year, which equates to 600 additional AUMs each year, to reach a total of 658 head of cattle (table 9) after six years. Under this alternative, grazing would increase from the current 5,667 AUMs of permitted grazing, to the full 7,900 preference for the PTMA. The starting level of 300 head of cattle under this proposal would constitute a reduction from the current permitted level of 900
23
head from 11/1 to 3/31, but would reflect an increase from the current permitted level of 150 head from 4/1 to 10/31.
Under this alternative, as permittee proposed range improvements are completed or repaired, additional AUMs would be authorized for use in the following grazing year until the full potential of the permit as originally adjudicated (7,900 active AUMs) is reached. Before additional cattle would be authorized on the allotment, the range improvements would have to be inspected and approved by the BLM as ready for use. Each additional water source would provide a means to disperse the livestock across the allotment creating more uniform utilization of vegetative resources. Livestock would be herded by the permittee to these new water sources after they are developed so livestock become familiar with the additional availability and locations. Having small groups of cattle utilizing several water sources would reduce the adverse impacts to the water source.
The permittee forwarded a letter from the Cattlemen’s Texas Longhorn Registry (CTLR) and The Livestock Conservancy stating that the CTLR believes the Texas Longhorn breed is of a “unique genetic resources and one that is Critically Endangered at this point” (Appendix K). The permittee’s cattle are currently undergoing genetic testing to determine which of the sub-herds managed by the permittee might be part of the Texas Longhorn conservation population the CTLR is seeking to preserve and expand.
Table 9: Permittee Alternative Mandatory Terms and Conditions
Allotment Number of Livestock Begin End % Public Type of Use AUMs Name Livestock Kind Date Date Land
Pilot-Table 658 Cattle 3/1 2/28 100 Active 7,896 Mountain
Other Terms and Conditions: • As range improvements (Table 10) are completed/ repaired, 50 additional cattle would be authorized to graze in the following grazing year until the full potential of the permit is met. Before additional cattle can be turned on to the allotment, the range improvement must be inspected to insure that BLM specifications have been met. • For improved cattle distribution across the allotment, the water haul sites of Bovard, Nugent Wash, and Copper Mountain would be utilized (Appendix L, Map 9). • Once utilization on key upland forage plant species has reached the moderate level (41- 60 of current year’s growth, livestock would be actively removed from the area. • The permittee shall make written application for grazing prior to each grazing season. • Salt and/or supplements would be placed at least ¼ mile from live waters (springs/streams) and outside of associated riparian areas, permanent livestock watering facilities, wet or dry meadows, aspen stands and the Gabbs WSA. Also salt and/or supplements should not be placed in known historic properties. Salt and/or supplements may be used to move livestock around the allotment and reduce livestock concentration at riparian areas during the summer months.
24
• Identified primitive routes within the Gabbs WSA used to gather cattle or access springs or range improvements would only be maintained by the use of hand tools. Use of motor vehicles off of designated primitive routes is not authorized. • Any activity occurring within the Gabbs WSA, including maintenance or replacement of range improvements, fencing or vegetation management must be reviewed and approved in writing by the authorized officer. • It is the permittee’s responsibility to maintain all assigned range improvements in good working order and in an aesthetic state. • By accepting this grazing permit, the permittee agrees that the authorized officer or his representatives and contractors shall have the right of ingress and egress over lands controlled by the permittee for the purpose of achieving the management objectives and orderly administration of public rangelands under this grazing permit.
Table 10: Permittee Alternative Range Improvements Identified for Maintenance
Range Improvement Estimated Year Number of Cattle Number of AUMs of Completion
Car Frame Well 2019 300 3,600
Black Cabin Well 2020 350 4,200
Cedar Mountain Well 2021 400 4,800
Deep Well @ Luning Corral 2022 450 5,400
Waterhole Well 2023 500 6,000
Kinkade Well 2024 550 6,600
Simon Well 2025 600 6,200
Finger Rock Well #1 2026 658 7,896
Finger Rock Well #2 2026 658 7,896
2.4.1 Proposed Permittee Range Improvements to be Maintained Under this Alternative the schedule of Range Improvements to be repaired is listed in Table 10 above. Repairs would be to existing structures; no new structures would be built or added to these structures without appropriate NEPA evaluation and authorization. In addition to the wells listed in Table 10, the following spring maintenance and/or repair would be additional support towards improving the rangeland health of the allotment.
25
Corral Spring The one mile access road to Corral Spring from the private parcel at Paint Rock Canyon is a designated primitive route within the Gabbs WSA and can only be upgraded through the use of hand tools. The wooden portion of the riparian exclosure fence would be replaced with either a pipe rail fence or a standard BLM 4-wire fence. The black plastic pipe would be buried in its current location leading to the trough and excess water would flow into the small creek/drainage area that is adjacent to the trough. All ground disturbing work at this location would be monitored by an archaeologist.
There are two corrals located at the spring; however neither is in functioning order. The permittee would build new corrals and a loading chute, 50-60 feet in diameter and within the existing disturbance footprint.
A perimeter fence would be built to protect sensitive environmental resources, including riparian vegetation, from further degradation. The fence would surround approximately 1.7 acres and require approximately 1,200 feet of materials. The fence would be built with pipe rails or cables. The location of the fence may change slightly to avoid artifacts and to provide for a minimal amount of material to be used.
Cinnabar Spring Under this alternative, 2 x 4 wooden slats would be placed over the spring source, similar to a cattle guard-like structure, to protect the spring source from trampling.
Taft Spring Under this Alternative, a spring box would be installed at Taft Spring. Water would be piped approximately 150 feet away from the spring source into a trough.
Appendix L, Map 10 shows mapped locations of the above water sources, to include the wells listed in Table 10.
2.5 Alternative 4: No Action Alternative In accordance with Chapter VI, Section 6.6.2 of H-1790-1, this EA evaluates the No Action Alternative. The objective of the No Action Alternative is to describe the environmental consequences that may result if the Proposed Action or the other alternatives are not implemented. The No Action Alternative forms the baseline from which the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives can be measured.
Under the No Action Alternative, BLM would renew the current permit for the PTMA for a period of ten years identical to Authorization Number 2703557 authorizing 5,667 AUMs (table 11) with 100 Percent Public Land (PPL). Other terms and conditions, listed below would also apply.
26
Table 11: No Action Alternative Mandatory Terms and Conditions
Livestock Livestock Grazing Grazing % Public Type AUMs Number Kind Period Begin Period End Land Use
900 Cattle 11/01 03/31 100 Active 4468
150 Cattle 04/01 10/31 100 Active 1055
12 Horse 03/01 02/28 100 Active 144
Total 5,667
Other Terms and Conditions a) You shall make written application for grazing prior to each grazing season. b) Grazing management shall be authorized in a manner that will make progress towards meeting the standards as set forth by the Sierra Front Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, 1997. c) Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4(g), you must notify the AO, by telephone, with written confirmation, immediately upon the discovery of human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony. Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4(c) and (d), you must stop activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery and protect it from your activities for 30 days or until notified to proceed by the AO. d) Salt and/or supplements will be placed at least 1/4 mile from live waters (springs/streams) and outside of associated riparian areas, permanent livestock watering facilities, wet or dry meadows and aspen stands. Salt and/or supplements should not be placed in known historic properties. Salt may be used, but supplements are not authorized in the Gabbs WSA per BLM Manual 6330. e) It is your responsibility to maintain all assigned range improvements in good working order and an aesthetic state. f) The payment of grazing fees is due on or before the due date specified in the grazing bill. if payment is not received within 15 days of the due date, a late fee of $25 or 10 percent of the grazing bill, whichever is greater, not to exceed $250 will be assessed. Failure to make payment within 30 days of the due date may result in trespass action. g) By accepting this grazing permit, the permittee agrees that the AO or his representatives and contractors shall have the right of ingress and egress over lands controlled by the permittee for the purpose of achieving the management objectives and orderly administration of public rangelands under this grazing permit.
This alternative assumes that the current livestock management would reflect the permitted grazing use but over the past five years, BLM has billed the permittee for numbers in excess of the number of cattle authorized during the summer months and has also found discrepancies in the number of livestock reported/authorized and those actually grazing on the allotment based on livestock distribution/compliance flights (Appendix B, Appendix A, Table 5). BLM has also found permittee’s unbranded adult cattle present on public lands in the allotment, even though Nevada requires that all cattle grazing on open range to be branded (NRS 564.025). There is 27
year-round grazing pressure on riparian areas and springs under current grazing management. The failure to maintain range improvements by both BLM and permittee has allowed this riparian grazing pressure to persist and become more acute. Current grazing management offers no rotational grazing prescription or periodic rest. Distribution of cattle and intensity of grazing is only determined by the presence or absence of water for livestock and by the number of livestock being run on the PTMA at any given time.
2.6 Alternative 5: No Grazing Alternative Under the No Grazing Alternative, grazing would not be authorized on public lands within the allotment for a term of 10 years. The 5,667 AUMs of permitted use would be placed in non-use and no grazing permits would be offered or authorized for a ten-year period. Upon expiration of the 10-year period, livestock grazing would be re-evaluated for approval of applications for grazing permits.
2.7 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis An alternative considered but eliminated from further analysis was to add an additional 54 miles of fence in order to increase the total number of pastures from three to seven. These pastures would be divided into North and South Use Areas separated by highway 361. Each grouping of Use Areas would be rested every other year to allow for the grazed pastures to recover and improve in rangeland health and rest for riparian-wetland areas. The goal would have been to work up to 658 head year-round after certain monitoring objectives were achieved. However, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration as this would have required an additional 54 miles of fencing on top of the 45 miles of fencing for the three pastures, under the proposed action, and could interfere with and be detrimental to big game corridors within the PTMA. The high cost and amount of time required to construct an additional 54 miles of fencing would not be cost effective and would likely require construction work beyond the time frame of this 10-year permit renewal.
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, & CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This chapter identifies and describes the current condition and trend of elements or resources in the human environment which may be affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives and the anticipated environmental consequences. Per the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations found at 40 CFR 1508.8, “effects” and “impacts” are synonymous in this EA. Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.
This chapter also identifies cumulative effects. The CEQ formally defines cumulative impacts as follows:
“…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time" (40 CFR 1508.7). 28
For the purposes of this EA, the cumulative impacts are the sum of all past, present (including proposed actions), and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) resulting primarily from authorized activities, and public uses. The purpose of the cumulative analysis in this EA is to evaluate the significance of the Proposed Action and Alternatives’ contributions to the cumulative environment.
3.1 Scoping and Issue Identification On September 14, 2018 a scoping letter was sent to the PTMA interested public mailing list inviting comments. The BLM considered all comments received in determining the scope of this analysis. Based on this external scoping the following issues were identified: • Ensure that consultation occurs with Native American Tribes prior to any Pinyon-Juniper (PJ) removal. • Consider the effect the proposed action would have on the Pilot Mountain HMA and the shared resources with the wild horses and/or burros. • Ensure that the BLM analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives including a no grazing alternative and a reduced grazing alternative. • There is observed wildlife habitat degradation across the PTMA and the public encouraged BLM to include a wide range of tools within this EA to ensure proper resource management occurs. • Encroachment of Pinyon and Juniper into riparian/wetland areas
On September 13, 2018, the BLM range specialist, wildlife biologist, and hydrologist had a phone call with NDOW and USFWS about the Blue Link Spring PFC status and BLM’s proposed fencing and road re-route within the spring. The main concern expressed by NDOW and USFWS was encroachment of the pond by cattails after cattle exclusion, which concern identified the need to install gates to allow for either controlled grazing within the exclosure or for manual treatments to remove cattails.
On November 16, 2018, BLM conducted a tour with members of the interested public to three different sites on the PTMA: an upland site where a frequency plot had been established, Cornelius Spring, and Warner Corral Spring. On this tour several issues were discussed: • The need to better distribute cattle throughout the allotment and the possibility of adding water haul locations to get the cattle to new locations on the allotment and alleviate pressure on the springs. • Degradation to spring sources and the need to fence and protect them and possibly change livestock management, so the area is not grazed year-round, and to allow for rest on riparian systems. • Fencing and development of the springs and on whom the maintenance responsibility would fall if BLM fenced multiple springs on the allotment.
On August 11, 2016, BLM, the Resource Advisory Council, NDOW and the permittee visited Corral Spring for grazing management discussions and to discuss the Sante Fe Guzzler for Bighorn sheep management. During this tour several issues relating to riparian area management
29
were discussed, specifically with respect to resource competition over water by livestock, wild horses and wildlife.
3.2 General Setting The PTMA is located approximately 10 miles east of Hawthorne, Nevada in Mineral County and is administered by the CCDO SFO (Appendix B, Appendix A, Map 1). It consists of 512,449 acres of BLM administered lands and 8,771 acres of private lands. Elevations on the allotment range from around 4,200 feet in Gabbs Valley to 9,182 feet at the top of Pilot Peak. Approximately 481,392 acres or 43 percent of the allotment falls within the Pilot Mountain HMA (Appendix B, Appendix A, Map 4). The Gabbs WSA (Appendix B, Appendix A, Map 1) is entirely within the northern half of the allotment and contains 79,600 acres of public land and one 40-acre private inholding. See Section 4.0, of the RHA/ER (Appendix B,) for more information on the affected environment for the PTMA.
3.3 Supplemental Authorities The BLM is required to address specific elements of the environment by statute or regulation or by executive order (BLM 2008). Table 12 lists the elements that must be addressed in all environmental analyses and indicates whether the Proposed Action and Alternatives affect those elements. Other resources of the human environment that have been considered for analysis are listed in Table 12.
Table 12: Supplemental Authorities
Present Affected Resource or Issue Rationale Yes/No Yes/No
The PTMA is located in an unclassified area and therefore anticipated impacts to air quality Air Quality Yes No would not be expected to exceed ambient air quality standards.
In accordance with the Stewart Valley Fossil Site ACEC Management Plan (BLM 1990), monitoring at fossil localities within the ACEC is required in order to determine any adverse Areas of Critical effects to the resources from grazing. Yes No Environmental Concern Monitoring, conducted regularly since 2002, has identified the area as having slight to no use grazing; no effects to paleontological resources have been identified as a result of monitoring.
Based on a review of cultural resources information (summarized in CRR 3-2566, on file at the BLM CCDO) and livestock use- Cultural Resources Yes No pattern mapping, the alternatives would not affect known or unknown prehistoric or historic cultural resources, including cultural 30
Present Affected Resource or Issue Rationale Yes/No Yes/No
resources of traditional or religious importance to Native Americans. Proposed range improvement projects and pasture fencing would be constructed to avoid cultural resources and would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Potentially Environmental Justice Yes Appendix N Affected
Farm Lands (Prime and No No Unique)
Floodplains No No
Migratory Birds Yes Yes Section 3.5.5
The BLM requested consultation with the Walker River Paiute Tribe (WRPT) and Yomba Shoshone Tribe on June 4, 2019. The BLM received a response from the WRPT on Native American Religious Yes No June 11, 2019, in which the Tribe requested Concerns that cultural resource locations be kept confidential in this EA, and that historic properties be avoided. Consultation with both tribes is ongoing.
Noxious and Invasive, Non- Yes Yes Section 3.5.10 native Species
Threatened or Endangered Yes Yes Section 3.5.1 Species (T&ES)
Any use of hazardous materials would follow all local statutes and Federal Regulations for Wastes, Hazardous or Solid Yes No transport, storage, disposal and best management practices for use of such materials. See Section 3.5.10.2.6
Water Quality, Yes Yes Section 3.5.2 Surface/Ground
Wetlands/Riparian Areas Yes Yes Section 3.5.3
31
Present Affected Resource or Issue Rationale Yes/No Yes/No
Wild and Scenic Rivers No No
Wilderness/Wilderness Yes No Section 3.5.12 Study Area (WSA)
3.4 Resources or Uses other than Supplemental Authorities BLM specialists have evaluated the potential impact of the Proposed Action and Alternatives on these resources and documented their findings in table 13. Resources or uses that may be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternatives are further described in this preliminary EA (BLM, 2008).
Table 13: Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities
Present Affected Resource or Uses Rationale Yes/No Yes/No
BLM Sensitive Species Yes Yes Section 3.5.4 (animals and plants)
Fire Management No No
Forestry Resources No No
General Wildlife Yes Yes Section 3.5.5
There are communications sites and rights-of- way for power lines, roads, solar and geothermal energy sites present within the Land Use Authorization Yes No boundaries of the allotment. As long as current road access is not impeded there should be no impact to existing authorizations.
There are three LWC units within the allotment Lands with Wilderness Yes No but they are designated as manage Characteristics (LWC) commensurate with other resources
Livestock Grazing Yes Yes Section 3.5.6
Minerals Yes No Present, not affected
32
Present Affected Resource or Uses Rationale Yes/No Yes/No
Paleontological Yes No Present, not affected
Recreation Yes No Present, not affected
Socioeconomics Yes Yes Section 3.5.11
Soil Yes Yes Section 3.5.7
Grazing management would not have an Travel Management Yes No impact on travel management or roads.
Vegetation Yes Yes Section 3.5.8
Visual Resources Yes No .Present, not affected.
Wild Horse and Burro Yes Yes Section 3.5.9
Global Yes No This proposed action would provide an Climate/Greenhouse insignificant amount of emissions and gases Gas Emissions relative to other sources of GHGs that would (GHG)cc be difficult – if not impossible -- to measure.
3.5 Resources Present and Brought Forward for Analysis 3.5.1 Threatened or Endangered Species 3.5.1.1 Affected Environment The only endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species found within the PTMA is the Hiko White River springfish (Crenichthys baileyi grandis) that occurs at Blue Link Spring, which the BLM also considers a SSS. Blue Link Spring is located approximately 12 miles from Sodaville on land administered by the BLM. Blue Link Spring is an artificial artesian well resulting from a mining test drilling site that found water (NDOW 2005 as cited in Service 2012). A berm was built to impound the water (likely for livestock use) and dynamite was used to create a deep area (NDOW 2005 as cited in Service 2012b). The BLM holds a water right for wildlife purposes at Blue Link Spring.
The Hiko White River springfish was federally listed as endangered with critical habitat on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39123-39128). Relevant information on the status of the Hiko White River springfish, life history traits, population dynamics, habitat requirements, threats, and historical and current distribution can be found in the Recovery Plan for the Aquatic and Riparian Species of Pahranagat Valley (Service 1998) and Hiko White River Springfish 33
(Crenichthys baileyi grandis) and White River Springfish (Crenichthys baileyi baileyi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2012). The species is endemic to the Pahranagat Valley in Lincoln County, Nevada, where it was historically restricted to the thermal pools and outflows habitats of Hiko and Crystal Springs. Critical habitat was designated at both Hiko Spring and Crystal Spring, as well as the outflows associated with these springs, but no critical habitat has been designated at Blue Link Spring (USFWS 1998). Due to the threats to the Hiko and Crystal Springs populations, the NDOW created a refugium in 1985 for the Hiko White River springfish at Blue Link Spring, and fish were transplanted to this site. This population descends from individuals taken from the Hiko Spring population in Lincoln County when that spring dried up, although Blue Link Spring is not within the range of the species’ original habitat.
Vegetated warm springs and their outflows and marshes provide suitable habitat for the Hiko White River springfish. The springfish is able to survive extremes in water temperatures (26-37 degrees Celsius) and low dissolved oxygen levels (0.7-3.3 O2 parts per million) (USFWS 2012). The Hiko White River springfish is an opportunistic omnivore. More specifically, the fish is primarily herbivorous, though it will feed on invertebrates when available. The most important food for the springfish is filamentous algae (WAPT 2012). From 1993 to 2010, Blue Link Spring was surveyed semi-annually by the NDOW to estimate the size of the population and since 2011 the population has been surveyed annually.
Blue Link Spring located in the Pilot Table-Luning Pasture, which is a 233,900 acre pasture within PTMA. T&ES habitat in relation to the RAC Standards, which includes the Hiko White River springfish habitat, are discussed in detail in Section 5.5 of the RHA. The standards and guidelines evaluation found PTMA was not achieving RHSs for T&ES habitats under the current grazing management, and while the springfish population may currently be stable, grazing management at Blue Link Spring suggests that springfish habitat is being adversely impacted. Blue Link Spring consists of lentic and lotic system and overall, the RHA indicates that the Blue Link Spring in general is not meeting Standard 2 (Riparian and Wetlands, Appendix B). Habitat standards are not being achieved because riparian areas are Functioning At Risk. Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and shade in riparian areas. This leads to trampling and overgrazing of streambanks, increasing soil erosion, loss of streambank stability, declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions (Kie and Boroski 1996, Belsky et al. 1999, Parsons et al. 2003). Livestock grazing can affect riparian areas by changing, reducing, or removing vegetation (Schulz and Leininger 1990, Green and Kauffman 1995). Sediment deposition can also cover gravel substrate needed for spawning. In September 2016, Blue Link Spring lentic showed a decline in functioning state and was rated as FAR, not apparent, in comparison to an October 2009 rating of PFC. Blue Link Spring lotic PFC rated as FAR with downward monitoring trend. Reasons for this rating included livestock and wild horse use, trampling and trailing, as well as recreational travel.
Overall Threats to the species include habitat modification of springs through the impoundment, diversion, and piping of spring outflows for agricultural uses (USFWS 2012), reduction of aquatic vegetation that could impact the available habitat and invertebrate food sources, competition with non-native fish and other aquatic species for space and/or food, and predation (USFWS 1985, 1998, 2012). Uncertainties regarding groundwater withdrawal and climate
34
change may pose future threats to the species (USFWS 2012). Although the population at Blue Link Spring has remained consistent, threats to this species include invasive plants (bull rush and cattail encroachment), overutilization from grazing by cattle and wild horses, and invasive species introduction (crayfish and non-native fish). This resource is also described in more detail in the Section 3.9 of RHA (Appendix B).
3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences of Threatened or Endangered Species 3.5.1.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management The Proposed Action Cool Season Only Alternative as described in Section 2.2, would authorize up to 752 head of cattle for 7.5 months a year from 8/15-3/31, starting with only 300 head of cattle under Phase 1-- which would be a reduction from current authorized grazing use. This Alternative would eliminate year-round grazing as well as the horse AUMs. This Alternative would allow for a phased approach to grazing management which would require meeting the annual livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives (short and long term), as outlined in Section 2.1.3 and Appendix F, prior to commencement of Phases 2 and 3. If indicators and objectives are met, this would allow for up to 5,664 AUMs on the PTMA, which amounts to what is currently authorized. The grazing schedule would have interim management until pasture fencing is installed, as well as a three year rest/rotation schedule as outlined in Table 6. In addition, this Alternative would implement the Proposed Improvements described in Section 2.1.2, including the maintenance of existing range improvements, new pasture fencing, and four new spring improvement projects (including Blue Link Spring). This Alternative would adhere to Terms and Conditions outlined in Section 2.1.4 and Appendix G.
Under the Proposed Action Cool Season Only Alternative, the grazing schedule would allow for vegetative recovery of springs and stream banks during the critical growing period. Improving the vegetation at the spring can help reduce sedimentation and erosion, filter spring water, and maintain water temperatures. All of these factors can improve the habitat used by the springfish. This would allow the spring/pond to become more stable and reduce sedimentation inputs to surface water, reducing impacts to the springfish and allowing for recovery of Hiko White River Springfish habitat. While grazing within springfish habitat has the potential to cause trampling of vegetation, increase erosion and sedimentation and decrease in water quality, the monitoring objectives would set trigger points on key springs, including Blue Link Spring, allowing for cattle to be removed from areas before potential direct and indirect impacts adversely affect T&ES.
The use of the pastures and rest/rotation grazing system would enable the distribution of cattle as well as allow for rest and recovery of upland and riparian vegetation within the PTMA. Prescriptive grazing within the exclosure at Blue Link Spring would help to manage vegetation in the artificial pond in order to control cattails, which can adversely impact the springfish habitat for breeding. In addition, providing alternate water sources and supplements would help distribute livestock use farther away from riparian areas, further reducing livestock impacts. Overall, RHS for T&ES habitats including revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality would be expected under this Alternative.
35
3.5.1.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management The Year-Round Grazing Alternative as described in Section 2.3, would authorize up to 472 head of cattle from 3/31-2/28, starting with 150 head of cattle in Phase 1, which would be a reduction in current authorized grazing, and elimination of the horse AUMs. Like the Proposed Alternative, this Alternative would allow for a phased approach to grazing management requiring the annual livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives (short and long term) to be met, as outlined in Section 2.1.3 and Appendix F prior to commencement of Phases 2 and 3. If indicators and objectives are met, this would allow for up to 5,662 AUMs on the PTMA, which amounts to what is currently authorized. The grazing schedule would have interim management until pasture fencing is installed and a three year rest/rotation schedule as outlined in Table 8. In addition, this Alternative would implement the Proposed Improvements described in Section 2.1.2, including the maintenance of existing range improvements, new pasture fencing, and four new spring improvement projects (including Blue Link Spring). This Alternative would adhere to Terms and Conditions outlined in Section 2.1.4 and Appendix G.
The Year-Round Grazing Alternative as described under Section 2.3 would permit grazing during the critical growing season, where RHS are currently not being met for T&ES habitat that are discussed in detail in the RHA Section 5.5 SSS of Appendix B. Grazing impacts would be similar to those described in Proposed Action Cool Season Only Section 3.5.1.2.1 but would be intensified due to the year-round grazing management. The Year-Round grazing Alternative would not allow for appropriate rest and recovery of springfish habitat at Blue Link Spring to achieve RHS until the spring exclosure is completed. Under the Year-round Alternative, meeting livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives would be harder to achieve, including PFC, until the spring source is fenced. However, providing alternate water sources and supplements, as well as pasture fencing, would help distribute livestock use farther away from riparian areas, further reducing livestock impacts. Overall, revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality would be expected under this Alternative, but these improvements would take longer to achieve the rangeland health standards for T&ES habitats depending on the timing of exclosure fencing.
3.5.1.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management The Permittee Alternative as described under Section 2.4 would allow for year-round grazing on PTMA with up to a maximum of 7,896 AUMs, starting with 300 head and increasing annually. This amounts to 2,229 AUMs over what is currently authorized and under current grazing management, RHS are not being met for SSS/T&ES habitat as described in the RHA Section 5.5. The overall increase in AUMs would further intensify impacts in use areas that are not currently meeting or progressing towards RHS. Overall grazing impacts to T&ES habitat would be similar to those described in the Year-round Grazing Alternative but would be more significant due to the additional AUMs, year-round grazing management, and lack of pasture fencing and range improvement at Blue Link Spring. This increase in AUMs year-round during the critical growing season would hasten the decline in resource conditions and RHS and would not allow for recovery of habitat in the PTMA, including springfish habitat at Blue Link Spring. The current FAR ratings for Blue Link Spring suggest that springfish habitat is being impacted by grazing and would not improve under this alternative. Additional AUMs could increase impacts to 36
upland vegetation and riparian vegetation, soil loss and compaction and cause an indirect impact to fish habitat by increasing sedimentation inputs to Blue Link Spring as well as decrease in water quality. Overall, as described in RHA Section 5.5, T&ES habitat conditions do not meet many of the life cycle requirements of SSS per the RAC indicators and would not be able to progress towards achieving standards under this Alternative and would be expected to continue to decline with an increase in AUMs and without the necessary rest/rotation system provided by pasture fencing, active herding, and supplements. While there would be no direct impacts from construction activities for the fencing/road reroute or pasture fencing under the Proposed and Year-Round grazing alternatives, riparian areas would not improve in condition because they would not be protected by the fencing/road reroute or pasture fencing and alternate water sources. In addition, Proper Functioning Condition at Blue Link Spring as well as conservation and recovery of the Hiko White River springfish would not be achieved in this Alternative, which is required in BLM’s SSS policy, as outlined in BLM Manual 6840.
3.5.1.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management Under the No Action Alternative as described under Section 2.6, grazing would continue to be permitted year-round, with reduced AUMs in the growing season/summer at 5,667 AUMs annually, with additional horse AUMs. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to SSS/T&ES habitat would continue as described in detail in the RHA Section 5.5, Appendix B. The RHA determined that under current grazing management, RHS are not being met for T&ES habitat, therefore, continuing management under the Terms and Conditions of the current grazing management would cause habitat conditions in the PTMA to decline in quality from the current conditions and to continue to not meet RHS, including springfish habitat not meeting the life cycle requirements as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.5 of the RHA. Overall grazing impacts to T&ES habitat would be similar to those described in the Year-round Grazing Alternative. However, under the No Action Alternative, alternate water sources, supplements and pasture fencing would not be provided to help distribute livestock use farther away from riparian areas to reduce livestock impacts and Blue Link Spring would continue to not meet PFC for the springfish habitat. Under the No Action Alternative, there would also be no range improvement to protect Blue Link Spring. Overall, as described in RHA Section 5.5, T&ES habitat conditions do not currently meet many of the life cycle requirements of SSS per the RAC indicators and Blue Link Spring springfish habitat would not be able to progress towards achieving standards under this Alternative.
3.5.1.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management The No Grazing Alternative as described under Section 2.6 would allow the PTMA to recover as a result of extended rest from livestock grazing and to move towards achieving RHS currently not being met for T&ES habitat, as described in the RHA Section 5.5. Blue Link Spring would likely recover from livestock grazing impacts over the 10 year timeframe. This Alternative would also allow for restoration of upland and riparian vegetation, soil stabilization and water quality, moving Blue Link Spring towards achieving PFC. Under the No Grazing Alternative, there would be no range improvement for Blue Link Spring, but riparian areas would still likely recover in the absence of disturbance from cattle. Without managed livestock grazing at Blue Link Spring, unwanted vegetation could encroach upon the pond, which could disrupt feeding 37
and breeding behavior of springfish. However, the springfish habitat would still continue to be grazed by wild horses and native ungulates, or manual removal by BLM, which would help control cattails at Blue Link Spring. Overall, the No Grazing alternative would result in revegetation of riparian areas, improved function of upland and riparian habitat, decrease in soil erosion and compaction, and improved water quality, and T&ES habitat at Blue Link Spring would be expected to recover to the greatest extent under this Alternative.
3.5.1.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only and Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Range improvement projects were identified as integral components of these alternatives for achieving RHS. The range improvement fencing/road reroute for Blue Link Spring would ensure additional protection for T&ES habitat/species to allow for recovery of springfish habitat at Blue Link Spring. Although some temporary short-term impacts may occur from the construction of the proposed fencing, road reroute, replacement of outflow pipe and maintenance of existing dam improvements including habitat disturbance, sedimentation and erosion, increased turbidity and an increase in invasive species, the range improvement over time would allow riparian vegetation to progress towards meeting the RHA Standard 5. Additional range improvements as well as maintenance of existing improvements, pasture fencing, and new water developments described in Section 2.1.2 would aid in better distribution of water and livestock within the PTMA, thereby reducing livestock pressure and competition at Blue Link Spring. Additionally, PDFs outlined in Appendix I would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to T&ES habitat. Range improvement projects would be expected to improve riparian areas by reducing or eliminating direct/indirect impacts from livestock. Recovery of these habitat areas is expected to occur over the short-term due to the small size of the actual disturbed area.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase The Permittee Alternative would not include construction of a range improvement at Blue Link Spring, and impacts from not constructing this improvement are described under Section 3.5.1.2.3. Proposed permittee range improvements within the PTMA would not impact T&ES habitat at Blue Link Spring.
3.5.2 Water Quality, Surface/Ground 3.5.2.1 Affected Environment The PTMA falls within seven designated groundwater basins; the majority of the allotment is in the Rhodes Salt Marsh Valley (119); Gabbs Valley (122); Soda Spring Valley, Eastern Part (121A); and Soda Spring Valley, Western Part (121B) basins. There are over 85 water sources on public land within the PTMA, the majority of which are springs and seeps with only a few flowing stream systems; there are no identified 303(d) impaired water bodies within the allotment. Water quality data was collected at Upper Summit Spring and qualitative water quality observations were reported during all PFC assessments. The details of water quality within the allotment are discussed in the RHA (Appendix B). Water quality was assessed against Nevada state water quality standards (NAC 445A.121; NAC 445A.122; and NAC 445A.424).
Of the 37 springs that were assessed for PFC, 22 springs (59 percent) were determined to be of poor water quality, as evidenced by: excessive algae blooms and mats floating on the water’s surface; discoloration and formation of bottom deposits, typically forming dark brown to rust 38
colored sludge; and the appearance of having a thin, murky film, typically of bluish color, floating on the water’s surface. Livestock fecal matter was observed in 32 of the 37 PFC assessments and was found in, or adjacent to, standing or flowing water; 19 of the 37 PFC assessments also recorded an observation of wild horse fecal matter, however it was typically in less quantity than that observed for livestock fecal matter. In some instances the presence of livestock fecal matter was abundant, suggesting nitrogen loading could be a factor contributing to less than suitable water quality. Dead livestock were observed at Summit spring within the riparian area where there was standing water; decomposition of these remains could increase nitrogen levels as well as cause other toxicity issues to the water. In addition, the overall water appearance at some of the spring sites had a cloudy discoloration observed with sludge formation within the water, indicating less than suitable water quality for livestock, wild horses, and wildlife.
3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences of Water Quality, Surface/Ground Grazing by cattle or wild horses affects water quality at springs and streams in several ways. Hoof action and bank shearing increases the amount of sediment in the water; and fecal matter, urine and decaying animal remains increase bacteria and nutrient loading. In addition, over- grazing can reduce vegetation and increase bare ground, also leading to further sedimentation and nutrient loading to open waters. These impacts to water quality can be more noticeable during certain times of the year, typically during the hot season (July through September), when cattle and wild horses are more likely to congregate at springs and water sources. Cattle also tend linger in and around springs and streams to graze and drink water for longer periods of time throughout the day relative to wild horses; in contrast wild horses typically do not linger at water sources for long of periods of time, instead approaching a spring to drink and then moving on. This behavior supports the observations documented during PFC assessments where livestock impacts typically were more prevalent.
3.5.2.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Proposed Action, the phased approach would initially reduce the number of cattle to 300 head and implement grazing from August 15 through March 31 (Section 2.2). Cattle would be removed from April 1 through August 14, allowing for no grazing during a portion of the spring and summer months. Pasture fencing would be constructed to allow for a rest and rotation grazing system every three years (Section 2.2.2). Monitoring would ensure goals and objectives are being met, or moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 3, and that livestock-related impacts to water quality are being reduced prior to authorizing additional AUM increases.
Current impacts to water quality are discussed in detail in the RHA (Appendix B); under the Proposed Action, livestock-related impacts would be greatly reduced as springs and streams would have less grazing pressure than under current management. Livestock-related impacts include shearing of banks, hummocking, removal of stabilizing riparian-wetland vegetation, increases in bare ground (leading to runoff and erosion), and increased livestock fecal matter and urine within waters. These impacts lead to sedimentation and nutrient loading that can negatively affect water quality of riparian and wetland areas. Reduced water quality may also promote growth of non-ideal riparian-wetland species, such as rabbitsfoot (Polypogon monspeliensis), which may out-compete preferred FACW and OBL species (rushes and sedges) as water quality 39
declines. No grazing during a portion of the spring and summer months, in combination with a full year’s rest of each pasture every three years, would allow for vegetative recovery of springs and stream banks, thereby reducing sedimentation to surface water since vegetation can filter incoming sediment from the water. Decreased cattle numbers would reduce the amount of livestock fecal matter and urine that has been observed at water sources. In addition, as goals and short-term monitoring objectives are achieved, riparian function would improve, allowing springs and streams to more effectively filter sediment and thus reduce sedimentation from erosion, as well as decrease nutrient loading to open waters. Furthermore, impacts to water quality described in the RHA (Appendix B) would be reduced and would improve over time due to a reduction in grazing impacts under the Proposed Action.
As short-term objectives are met, Phase 2 would be implemented during the next three years, and the authorized number of cattle would increase to 526 head (Section 2.2). Although cattle numbers would increase, management of pasture rest and rotation, and no grazing during a portion of the spring and summer months, would generally reduce the amount of cattle congregating at riparian and wetland sites throughout the grazing year. This would allow riparian and wetland areas to continue to recover, while monitoring of long-term objectives during Phase 2 would ensure water quality and riparian-wetland health were also improving. If long-term monitoring objectives are not being met during Phase 2, then cattle numbers would not increase and management would continue under Phase 2 until long-term objectives are achieved.
If long-term monitoring objectives are met during Phase 2, Phase 3 would be implemented and the authorized number of cattle would increase to 752 head. By combining phased AUM increases with monitoring of achievement of goals and objectives, negative impacts to water quality can to be identified, as well as allow for adaptive management changes to be made during the ten year term grazing permit. If monitoring objectives are being met, and water quality is improving, cattle numbers can increase; conversely, if objectives are not being met and negative impacts to water quality are reported, cattle numbers would not increase to ensure the grazing management system is moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 3. Overall, the Proposed Action would reduce negative impacts to water quality identified in the RHA (Appendix B) under the current grazing management system.
Until pasture fencing can be constructed, cattle would be turned out in the north and pushed towards the south in even years, then rotating to turnout in the south to the north in odd years to simulate a rotational pasture grazing system. This rotation would not reduce impacts as much as if there were pasture fencing to assist with reduced grazing pressure; however, it would reduce impacts to water quality relative to current management. Riparian and wetland areas that are not currently protected by fencing would have periods of rest throughout each year when cattle were moved out of the area and into a different portion of the allotment, as well as when cattle are removed from the allotment during the period of April 1 through August 14. Water quality would likely improve as fewer cattle would be grazing within these areas, reducing sedimentation and nutrient loading, and improving water quality over time.
40
3.5.2.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under Alternative 2, the phased approach would initially reduce the number of cattle to 150 head and would implement grazing year-round (Section 2.3). Pasture fencing would be constructed to allow for a rotational grazing system every three years (Section 2.3.2). Monitoring would ensure goals and objectives are being met, or moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 3, and that livestock-related impacts to water quality are being reduced, prior to authorizing phased increases in AUMs.
Livestock-related impacts are described in the RHA (Appendix B) and are similar to those described under the Proposed Action (Section 3.5.2.2.1). Reducing the number of cattle during the grazing year, implementing a three-year pasture rotation system, and monitoring progress towards goals and objectives would reduce livestock-related grazing impacts seen under current management, but not as much as would be expected under the Proposed Action due to year- round grazing with no pasture rest. Water quality impacts would be expected to be greater than the Proposed Action since 150 head of cattle would graze from April 1 through August 14. During these hotter months of spring and summer, cattle tend to congregate for longer periods of time around water sources as they graze and drink, and this would likely lead to increased sedimentation and nutrient loading during these months in comparison to the Proposed Action. However, when compared to current management, the reduced cattle numbers grazing year- round, in combination with pasture rotations, would allow for vegetative recovery of springs and stream banks, thereby reducing sedimentation to surface water since vegetation can filter incoming sediment from the water. Overall, decreased cattle numbers throughout the year would reduce the amount of livestock fecal matter and urine that has been observed at water sources under current management. Similar to the Proposed Action, as goals and short-term monitoring objectives are achieved, riparian function would improve, allowing springs and streams to more effectively filter sediment and thus reduce sedimentation from erosion, as well as decrease nutrient loading to open waters. Impacts to water quality under current management, as described in the RHA (Appendix B), would be reduced and improve over time due to a reduction in grazing impacts under Alternative 2.
Similar to the Proposed Action, as short-term and long-term objectives are met, Phases 2 and 3 would be implemented, and the authorized number of cattle would increase to 300 and 472 head respectively (Section 2.3). Because cattle would be authorized to graze year-round, there may be some slightly increased impacts to unprotected springs and streams than what would be expected under the Proposed Action because of the additional grazing use from April 1 through August 14. However, impacts could be slightly less during the remainder of the year (August 15 through March 31) as there would be fewer cattle authorized to graze compared to the Proposed Action. Although cattle numbers would increase over the term of the grazing permit, the implementation of pasture rotations would generally reduce the amount of cattle congregating at riparian and wetland sites throughout the grazing year and during the hotter months. This would allow riparian and wetland areas to continue to recover, while monitoring of long-term objectives would ensure that water quality and riparian-wetland health was also improving. Overall, Alternative 2 would reduce negative impacts to water quality identified in the RHA (Appendix B) under the current grazing management system, but improvements to water quality would be less than under the Proposed Action. 41
Until pasture fencing could be constructed, cattle would be pushed towards the north during the first year of management; every other year cattle would be moved north to south, then south to north, rotating the location of cattle throughout the allotment. This rotation would not reduce impacts as much as if there were pasture fencing to help reduce grazing pressure; however it would reduce impacts to water quality relative to current management. Riparian and wetland areas that are not currently protected by fencing would have periods of rest throughout each year when cattle were moved out of the area and into a different portion of the allotment. Therefore, water quality would likely improve as grazing pressure within these areas would be reduced, thus reducing sedimentation and nutrient loading, and improving water quality over time.
3.5.2.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Permittee Alternative, there would be an initial reduction in the number of cattle to 300 head (from the current 900 head) from November 1 to March 31, and an increase to 300 head (from the current 150 head) from April 1 to October 31 for a year-round consistent herd size; with 50 cattle added to the allotment each year until a total of 658 cattle grazing year-round is reached. The additional 50 cattle would only be authorized each year if identified range improvements are completed or repaired, as confirmed through an inspection and approval by the authorized officer. A total of nine wells and three springs would be repaired or would have completed projects to aid in distribution of cattle throughout the allotment.
Disbursement of cattle could alleviate some grazing pressure at springs and streams, which could reduce impacts to water quality if cattle were not congregating for extended periods of time around riparian and wetland areas. However, at present, most of the wells in the PTMA are dry and the potential to bring these sources to functioning condition to provide suitable water is not currently known. This Alternative does not propose other means to disburse cattle for extended periods of time, such as by use of pasture fencing or herding, and does not propose to turn out cattle at different locations during different times of the year to rotate areas of use, as proposed under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Because water sources are the only proposed means to distribute cattle throughout the allotment, this does not ensure rest or protection of unfenced streams or springs from congregated livestock use. In addition, this Alternative proposes cattle would be moved from areas once utilization levels reach 41 to 60 percent. Because riparian-wetland areas are desirable congregation areas for forage and use by livestock, these areas would likely see preferred use over upland areas. Grazing riparian areas during the summer should be limited or carefully controlled because of the strong tendency of cattle to concentrate there in the hot and often dry months (NRCS, 2018; Clary and Webster, 1989). With riparian-wetland areas that are in need of improvement in functioning condition, these utilization levels are generally too high to allow for effective recovery, especially without any means of rest by use of protective fencing or rotational/season of use grazing systems (NRCS, 2018; Clary and Webster, 1989). This Alternative also does not provide riparian specific triggers to adequately determine when a riparian area needs removal of grazing pressure. Therefore, it is likely that cattle would continue to congregate at the same areas around springs and streams, resulting in the same impacts as described in the RHA (Appendix B). Livestock could continue to destabilize banks through removal of vegetation and trampling, and defecate and urinate in waters, contributing to further sedimentation and nutrient loading in springs and streams. Negative water 42
quality impacts may generally increase over time if more cattle are permitted on the allotment without having implementing management actions that would prevent congregation at water sources, provide rest from grazing use, and that includes monitoring objectives to ensure riparian and wetland areas are improving in function, with corresponding improvements in water quality.
3.5.2.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management The current management is comprised of year-round grazing totaling 5,667 AUMs; 900 cattle are authorized to graze from November 1 to March 31; 150 cattle are authorized to graze from April 1 to October 31; and 12 horses from March 1 to February 28. Under the No Action Alternative, water quality would continue to be adversely impacted by livestock grazing as described in the RHA (Appendix B). Because there is little active management of grazing under the current permit, and overflights have confirmed that cattle are congregating around riparian areas especially during the growing season, current impacts would continue and water quality would likely continue to decline.
3.5.2.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under the No Grazing Alternative, the removal of livestock from the PTMA would greatly reduce grazing pressure at a majority of riparian and wetland areas across the allotment, reducing impacts to water quality. Current water quality impacts described in the RHA would improve over time, however some springs would still have grazing pressure and fecal matter from wild horse use.
3.5.2.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements The installation of spring improvements under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 would aid in improving water quality and includes construction of new exclosure fencing, and installation of structures such as pipeline, troughs, and spring boxes. Soils would be disturbed during installation of these structures which could cause some local sedimentation to occur in surface waters nearby. However these impacts would be temporary during construction and PDFs (Appendix I) would ensure impacts are minimized. Once projects are completed, overall impacts to water quality would be reduced as troughs would allow livestock and wild horses to access water away from spring sources, reducing sedimentation and nutrient loading from livestock and wild horse impacts.
The installation of exclosure fencing (pipe-and-rail or 4-wire) around identified springs would cause temporary localized disturbance to soil as fence posts are installed and materials are staged. Impacts to water quality during installation are expected to be minimal because proposed fencing would be installed with a buffered distance between the fence line and the spring. Due to local topographic restrictions, some fence line may need to be installed closer to a spring, and in this case there may be some temporary localized sedimentation to open waters until bare ground can be revegetated. In addition, cattle may also walk along the perimeter of exclosures to try to access the riparian-wetland vegetation within the exclosure fence. This behavior may cause trailing if cattle were to continuously walk along the same path, resulting in reduction of protective vegetation, and an increase in bare ground and soil compaction, directly where the trailing forms along the fence line. This in turn could potentially increase some localized 43
sediment load into the riparian area, and have a slight indirect impact to water quality if run off or overland flow from a large storm event brought loose soil into open waters. However this potential impact would likely be negligible as the fence would be buffered away from the riparian-wetland area, and fencing would also improve riparian-wetland function as vegetation increases over time. Improved riparian-wetland function and vegetative growth would aid in filtering sediment and thus reduce these indirect impacts to water quality.
As determined through monitoring and when authorized by the BLM, grazing of a spring may be permitted to aid in control of vegetation as it recovers (such as cattail/bulrush maintenance at Blue Link Spring). This could slightly increase impacts to water quality for a short time period while cattle are allowed within the exclosure to graze, however impacts are anticipated to be minimal because cattle grazing would only be authorized if the BLM determines the spring has improved function and could withstand light grazing. Overall, spring exclosure fencing would ultimately reduce sedimentation by preventing livestock and wild horse’s access to springs and from directly impacting banks and vegetation; nutrient loading would also be reduced by decreasing fecal matter and urine in the water. Bank shearing and trampling, vegetation removal, and fecal matter and urination would be reduced with construction of range improvements, likely improving functioning condition of these springs and improving the overall appearance and quality of open waters.
Under Alternative 3, repairs and maintenance of range improvements includes nine wells, though such repair/maintenance would not likely affect water quality as it is presumed water would be pumped directly from the ground and enter into a trough. Water quality would not be impacted by sedimentation or nutrient loading from trampling or fecal matter/urination. If a well source could not currently provide water, and needs to be drilled to a greater depth to access the groundwater table, water quality could be affected if it is somehow contaminated during the drilling process. This is unlikely though as drilling activities would be in compliance with State well drilling regulations and requirements (NRS 534 and NAC 534). Impacts to water quality during installation of spring improvements would be similar to those under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. During installation of improvements the soil surface would be disturbed where structures would be placed. This could temporarily increase local sedimentation to open waters, especially where there is a lack of vegetation to aid in filtering sediment. Improvements proposed at Corral Spring would ultimately benefit water quality by reducing sedimentation and nutrient loading over time as fencing and structures would restrict livestock and wild horses from accessing the spring. Other spring improvements may aid in slightly reducing water quality impacts, but not much more than what is seen under current management as there would be no fencing to prevent livestock or wild horses from direct access to the spring. In addition, wooden slats proposed as spring protection pose a risk to livestock, wild horses and wildlife as they may injure themselves when walking over slats or become trapped in the structure. If an animal becomes entangled, it may die as a result and this would negatively impact water quality as the animal may decay in or near the water. Installation of wooden slats would also not prevent fecal matter or urine from impacting water quality.
44
3.5.3 Wetlands/Riparian Areas 3.5.3.1 Affected Environment Riparian and wetland areas are the transition zones between aquatic systems and adjacent uplands, and reflect vegetative, hydrologic, geomorphic and soil characteristics that indicate water availability at or near the ground surface. The PTMA has approximately 85 riparian and wetland sites on public land, although there are more streams and springs within the area on privately held lands. The permittee is the owner of some private parcels within the allotment and holds water rights to those water sources on these properties. Riparian (lotic) areas are characterized by actively moving water, and represent two streams in the PTMA, both of which are considered perennial and intermittent. Wetland (lentic) areas are characterized by relatively still water and the presence of saturated soil for extended periods of time, and represent approximately 83 lentic systems in the PTMA; all lentic areas are considered perennial or seasonal springs or seeps. Of these systems, 22 are original base water property.
A total of 44 riparian and wetland sites were visited in the field to evaluate PFC, and to determine available and suitable water for livestock, wild horse and wildlife use. A total of 37 PFC assessments were completed; the remaining seven sites were determined to be dry and an assessment could therefore not be completed. Of the completed assessments, one achieved proper functioning condition; nine were rated as functioning at risk, trend not apparent; eight were rated functioning at risk, downward trend; and 19 were rated as non-functioning (Appendix B, Figure 12 and Table 14). During the assessments, the majority of these areas had observed bank shearing and trampling, poor water quality, lack of riparian-wetland vegetation (obligate and facultative species), soil hummocking, and encroachment of upland vegetation from increased grazing pressure throughout the year. In some cases springs were dry and appeared to be completely converted to an upland site. With the loss of these springs, it appears that grazing pressure and water use of riparian-wetland areas increased towards adjacent or nearby sources where water was available.
Riparian and wetland areas, associated assessments and suitability ratings are described in more detail in the RHA (Appendix B).
3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences Grazing by cattle or wild horses affects springs and streams in several ways. Trampling from livestock and wild horses tends to shear banks and compact soil, increasing both erosion and surface runoff of water as well as decreasing water infiltration. This can affect the growth of riparian-wetland vegetation and reduce soil stability of springs and streams. Hoof action also leads to hummocking which increases channelization, further reducing saturation and infiltration of water into the soil. Over-grazing of vegetation, paired with the loss of soil saturation, can decrease the amount of obligate and facultative wetland species at a spring or stream. This can lead to an increase in bare ground and soil loss through erosion. These impacts can decrease the functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas, and may lead to encroachment of upland vegetation and loss of surface water at a site.
45
3.5.3.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Proposed Action, the phased approach would initially reduce the number of cattle to 300 head and implement grazing from August 15 through March 31 (Section 2.2). Cattle would be removed from April 1 through August 14, allowing for no grazing during a portion of the spring and summer months. Pasture fencing would be constructed to allow for a rest and rotation grazing system every three years (Section 2.2.2). Monitoring would ensure goals and objectives are being met, or moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 3, and that livestock-related impacts to riparian and wetland areas are being reduced prior to authorizing phased AUM increases.
Implementation of the Proposed Action would reduce grazing pressure at sensitive springs and streams, and allow for riparian-wetland vegetation to recover and reestablish in areas where vegetation was previously removed as a result of heavy grazing throughout the year. Increased vegetative cover would allow for dissipation of energy from wind and water, and allow for increased soil stability to decrease soil loss and erosion. Banks would restabilize, channelization would reduce and water infiltration would increase overall. Vegetative recovery would also allow for sediment to filter and deposit where previous soil loss has occurred, and allow water to infiltrate into the soil rather than to run off. Short-term monitoring objectives would ensure riparian and wetland functions are improving and progress is being made toward achieving Standard 2.
The combination of a reduction in cattle numbers, shorter grazing season, implementation of a three-year pasture rest and rotation system, and monitoring of objectives under the Proposed Action would reduce livestock-related grazing impacts to riparian and wetland areas throughout the PTMA. Livestock-related impacts include: shearing and trampling of banks; hummocking; loss of soil saturation; removal of stabilizing riparian-wetland vegetation and increases in bare ground due to over-grazing; soil compaction leading to runoff and erosion; and encroachment of upland vegetation. These impacts reduce spring and stream function and could lead to a loss of riparian and wetland areas throughout the PTMA. A grazing management system of no grazing during a portion of the spring and summer months, in combination with a full year’s rest every three years for each pasture (Table 6), and achievement of short-term monitoring objectives, would allow for spring and stream functioning condition to improve and riparian-wetland areas to recover. Overall, impacts to riparian and wetland areas described in the RHA (Appendix B) would be reduced and improve over time due to a reduction in grazing impacts under the Proposed Action.
As short-term and long-term objectives are met, Phases 2 and 3 would be implemented, and the authorized number of cattle would increase to 526 and 752 head respectively (Section 2.2). Although cattle numbers would increase under this phased approach, the Proposed Action would have the least potential impacts to riparian-wetland areas as there would be no grazing during a portion of the spring and summer months, and pastures would be rested for a full year every three years, allowing for rest of unfenced riparian-wetland areas to further revegetate and stabilize. The combination of a pasture rest and rotation system paired with a shorter grazing season, would allow for continued vegetative recovery and increased function over time during the critical growth period of wetland vegetation. Resting pastures would also allow wetland 46
vegetation to recover over the entire growing season which would reduce bank shearing, hummocking and soil loss while simultaneously improving riparian-wetland function. As noted in literature, and confirmed by 2017 and 2018 flight data, livestock primarily congregate within and around riparian-wetland areas, especially during the summer because of the strong tendency of cattle to concentrate there in the hot and often dry months (Swanson et al., 2015; Clary et al., 2000; Clary and Webster, 1989). Concentrated livestock use, as often occurs in uncontrolled season-long continuous and certain rotational grazing systems, may cause unacceptable damage to woody plants and stream- bank morphology (Clary and Webster, 1989). Therefore a combination of pasture rest and a shorter grazing season would greatly reduce grazing impacts and improve proper functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas over time.
Monitoring for achievement of goals and objectives would also allow for negative impacts to springs and streams to be timely identified, as well as allow for adaptive management changes to be made during the term of the permit. If monitoring objectives are being met, and riparian- wetland function is improving, cattle numbers can increase; conversely, if objectives are not being met and negative impacts to riparian and wetland areas are reported, cattle numbers would not increase to allow for achievement towards RAC Standard 2. Furthermore, the implementation of monitoring objectives would assist with evaluating how riparian-wetland areas respond to change in grazing management and to range improvements, allowing for potential negative impacts to be assessed and remediated prior to introducing more cattle to the allotment. The monitoring objectives would establish trigger points on key springs and streams, allowing for cattle to be removed from areas before overgrazing occurs and the resources are impacted. This would allow riparian and wetland areas to continue to recover, while monitoring of long-term objectives over the course of the phases would ensure riparian-wetland health was improving. Overall, the Proposed Action would reduce negative impacts to riparian and wetland areas as identified in the RHA (Appendix B) under the current grazing management system.
Until pasture fencing can be constructed, cattle would be turned out in the north and pushed towards the south in even years, then rotating to turnout in the south to the north in odd years to simulate a rotational pasture grazing system. This rotation would not reduce impacts as much as if there were pasture fencing to assist with reduced grazing pressure, however it would reduce impacts to springs and streams relative to current management. Riparian and wetland areas that are not currently protected by fencing would have periods of rest throughout each year when cattle were moved out of the area and into a different portion of the allotment, as well as being removed from the allotment from April 1 through August 14. Spring and stream function would likely improve over time as fewer head of cattle would be grazing within these areas. As riparian and wetland areas improve as a result of rest, grazing rotation and a reduced grazing season, water would likely become more available for livestock use. In conjunction with improvements of wells, spring developments and water haul sites, this would allow for greater disbursement of cattle and reduced grazing impacts at springs and streams as more water would be available throughout the allotment.
3.5.3.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under Alternative 2, the phased approach would initially reduce the number of cattle to 150 head and implement grazing year-round (Section 2.3). Pasture fencing would be constructed to allow 47
for a rotational grazing system every three years (Section 2.3.2). Monitoring would ensure goals and objectives are being met, or moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 3, and that livestock-related impacts to water quality are being reduced, prior to authorizing phased AUM increases.
Livestock-related impacts are described in the RHA (Appendix B) and are similar to those described under the Proposed Action (Section 3.5.3.2.1). Reducing the number of cattle during the grazing year, implementing a three-year pasture rotation system, and monitoring progress towards goals and objectives would reduce the livestock-related grazing impacts seen under current management, but not to the same extent as would be expected under the Proposed Action, due to year-round grazing and no pasture rest under this alternative. Impacts (such as trampling, hummocking, bank shearing, and soil compaction) could increase from April 1 through August 14 when 150 head of cattle would be allowed to initially graze compared to the Proposed Action However, under this Alternative, grazing pressure and water use at riparian- wetland areas would be less than what is observed under current management because cattle would be on a pasture rotation system (Table 8) which would allow for reduced use and recovery of these areas over time. During these hotter months of spring and summer, cattle tend to congregate for longer periods of time around water sources as they graze and drink, and soil tends to be more saturated, likely leading to increased impacts during these months compared to the Proposed Action. However when compared to current management, the reduced cattle numbers throughout the year, in combination with pasture rotation, would allow for vegetative recovery of springs and stream banks, and improvement in riparian and wetland function. Similar to the Proposed Action, as goals and monitoring objectives are achieved, riparian function would improve.
As short-term and long-term objectives are met, Phases 2 and 3 would be implemented, and the authorized number of cattle would increase to 300 and 472 head respectively (Section 2.3). Because cattle would be authorized to graze year-round, there may be some increased impacts to unprotected springs and streams than would be expected under the Proposed Action from April 1 through August 14. However, impacts could be less during the remainder of the year as there would be fewer cattle authorized to graze. Although cattle numbers could increase over the term of the grazing permit, implementation of pasture rotation would generally reduce the number of cattle congregating at riparian and wetland sites throughout the grazing year and during the hotter months. This would allow riparian and wetland areas to continue to recover, while monitoring of long-term objectives would ensure riparian-wetland health was also improving. Overall, Alternative 2 would reduce the negative impacts to riparian and wetland areas identified in the RHA (Appendix B) under the current grazing management system, but not as much as for the Proposed Action.
Until pasture fencing could be constructed, cattle would be pushed towards the north during the first year of management; every other year cattle would be moved north to south, then south to north, rotating the location of cattle throughout the allotment. This rotation would not reduce impacts as much as if there were pasture fencing to assist with reduced grazing pressure, however it would reduce impacts relative to current management. Riparian and wetland areas that are not currently protected by fencing would have periodic rest throughout each year when cattle were moved out of the area and into a different portion of the allotment. Spring and stream
48
function would likely improve as fewer cattle would be grazing within these areas, reducing livestock-related impacts over time.
3.5.3.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Permittee Alternative, there would be an initial reduction in the number of cattle to 300 head (from the current 900 head) from November 1 to March 31 and an increase to 300 head (from the current 150 head) from April 1 to October 31 for a year-round consistent herd size, with 50 cattle added to the allotment each year until 658 cattle are reached. The additional 50 cattle would only be authorized each year as range improvements are completed or repaired, and after inspection and approval by the authorized officer. A total of nine wells and three springs would be repaired or have completed projects. Although the wells do not have associated riparian or wetland areas, they could help to disburse cattle to more areas of the allotment by providing additional water sources. However, most of these wells are not functioning and are currently dry; it is unknown if they could provide adequate water without extensive and costly repair such as drilling deeper wells, if necessary. If well improvements could be maintained cattle disbursement would help alleviate some grazing pressure on riparian-wetland areas.
The Permittee Alternative would also include improvements for three spring sources; repair of the fence, pipeline and trough at Corral Spring; placing wooden slats over Cinnabar Spring to simulate a cattle guard; and repair of the spring box, pipeline and trough at Taft Spring. Although the three springs, which are currently not at PFC, would benefit from the proposed improvements, this would not address the need to improve overall riparian and wetland condition across the allotment. Because there is no pasture fencing, or proposed means to remove or distribute cattle other than by water sources, impacts as described in the RHA (Appendix B) would likely be the same as or similar to current management. With the possible exception of Corral Spring for which repair of the existing exclosure fence is proposed under this alternative, cattle would still congregate around riparian-wetland sources as observed in the 2017 and 2018 flights, especially during the summer months. In addition, there are many range improvements that are currently not in functioning order, and do not have any protective fencing to help disburse cattle and directly protect spring sources. This Alternative also proposes cattle would be moved from areas once utilization levels reach 41 to 60 percent. Because riparian-wetland areas are desirable congregation areas for forage and use by livestock, these areas would likely see preferred use over upland areas, especially during the summer because of the strong tendency of cattle to concentrate there in the hot and often dry months (NRCS 2018; Clary and Webster, 1989). With riparian-wetland areas that are in need of improvement in functioning condition, these utilization levels are generally too high to allow for effective recovery, especially without any means of rest by use of protective fencing or rotational/season of use grazing systems (NRCS, 2018; Clary and Webster, 1989). This Alternative does not provide riparian specific triggers to adequately determine when a riparian area needs removal of grazing pressure. Therefore it is likely that current conditions would not improve under this Alternative and riparian and wetland condition would likely further decline as cattle numbers are increased every year. Of the springs assessed, only one spring was achieving PFC; and during evaluation only a few of the base waters were found to currently provide suitable, or even limited, available water.
49
As described in the RHA, riparian and wetland conditions have declined over the evaluation period under the current permit, which requires cattle numbers be reduced to 150 head during the summer months from the 900 head authorized during the remaining months. Over the past 10 years, the permittee has grazed well below 900 head of cattle, with actual grazing reported at 150 head of cattle year-round between 2008 and 2014. Since 2014, although cattle numbers have increased, they have stayed well below 900 head. However, during the summer months, cattle numbers have exceeded 150 head for at least some, if not most years since 2015 or 2016.
The impacts to riparian and wetland areas described in the RHA include bank sloughing, shearing, and trampling; soil erosion and compaction; surface runoff and channelization; and loss of riparian-wetland vegetation. This Alternative would initially double the number of cattle currently authorized to graze during the summer months and during the majority of the growing season for riparian-wetland vegetation; and would potentially allow for an increase to up to 658 head of cattle year-round. Although the initial number of cattle under this alternative is similar to the Proposed Action, the increase in AUMs over the term of the permit would be tied only to the condition of certain range improvements, rather than to achievement of short-term or long-term objectives that would help ensure riparian and wetland areas are improving and standards are being achieved throughout the PTMA. The available data shows a decline in riparian-wetland functioning condition over time, and this trend would likely continue (potentially at a faster rate) if cattle were increased without associated exclosures, pasture fencing or rest/rotation as described under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Proposed upland utilization levels would trigger removal of cattle from areas on the allotment under this alternative, however there are no specific riparian triggers to prevent overgrazing impacts at riparian areas, and no system would be in place to keep cattle from returning to or congregating every year at the same areas that are being negatively impacted.
The proposed range improvements under this Alternative would not ensure that non-functioning or functioning-at-risk base waters become functional and therefore would not support an increase in AUMs for the forage produced around these base water properties. Because the proposed improvements would be the only means to disburse cattle relative to current management, and it is questionable whether wells could be brought to a functioning condition, impacts to riparian and wetland resources would likely be greater than under the other Alternatives, and would likely lead to further degradation of these resources.
3.5.3.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management The current management is comprised of year-round grazing with authorization of 5,667 AUMs; 900 cattle from November 1 to March 31; 150 cattle from April 1 to October 31; and 12 horses from March 1 to February 28. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to riparian and wetland areas would likely continue their current trend as described in the RHA (Appendix B). Because of the lack of grazing management controls under the current permit and given that inspection flights have documented cattle congregating around riparian areas especially during the growing and hot season, current impacts would likely continue and their riparian condition would continue to decline.
50
3.5.3.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under the No Grazing Alternative, the removal of livestock from the PTMA would greatly reduce grazing pressure at the majority of riparian and wetland areas across the allotment. PFC would likely improve over time, however some springs would still see grazing pressure from wild horse use, particularly where horses may concentrate at limited water sources.
3.5.3.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements The installation of spring improvements under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 would aid in improving riparian and wetland functioning condition, and these improvements include construction of new exclosure fencing, and installation of pipeline, troughs, and spring boxes (Section 2.1.3.2.2.2). During maintenance and construction of new fencing and range improvements, soils would be disturbed directly around the area of construction. However PDFs would ensure impacts to riparian-wetland areas would be minimized as a result of the construction or repair of range improvement projects (Section 2.1.3). The minimal direct impact to riparian-wetland areas from installation and maintenance of structures would not outweigh the positive benefits to riparian and wetland resources that the functioning improvements would provide. As range improvements become functional, water availability would likely increase across the allotment, further disbursing cattle and reducing grazing impacts.
The installation of exclosure fencing (pipe-and-rail or 4-wire) around identified springs would cause temporary localized disturbance to surface soil as fence posts are installed and materials are staged. Impacts to springs during installation are expected to be minimal because proposed fencing would be installed with a buffered distance between the fence line and the spring. In addition, cattle may also walk along the perimeter of exclosures to try to access the riparian- wetland vegetation within the exclosure fence. This behavior may cause trailing resulting in reduction of protective vegetation and an increase in bare ground directly where the trailing forms along the fence line. In turn, this could potentially increase some localized sediment load into the riparian area, and have an indirect impact to water quality, which could affect riparian- wetland vegetative growth. However this potential impact would be negligible compared to the overall positive benefits the exclosure fence would provide to these areas. Fencing would improve overall riparian-wetland function as direct grazing and trampling would be reduced, allowing for vegetation increases over time. Thus improved riparian-wetland function and vegetative growth from having an exclosure fence to protect from grazing would ultimately reduce these indirect impacts to riparian and wetland areas.
As determined through monitoring and when authorized by the BLM, grazing of a spring may be permitted to aid in control of vegetation as it recovers (such as cattail/bulrush maintenance at Blue Link Spring). This could slightly increase livestock-related impacts for a short time period while cattle are allowed within the exclosure to graze, however impacts are anticipated to be minimal because cattle would only be allowed in an exclosure if the BLM determines the spring has improved function and could withstand light grazing. Overall, exclosure fencing would ultimately protect the springs by preventing livestock and wild horses from directly impacting springs.
51
Under Alternative 3, impacts to springs during installation of fencing and improvements would be similar to those under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. During installation of improvements the soil surface would be disturbed where structures and fence posts would be placed. Although some temporary disturbance would be caused, improvements proposed at Corral Spring would ultimately benefit the spring by reducing direct trampling and hoof action as fencing and structures would restrict livestock and wild horses from accessing the spring source. The exclosure fence would likely improve spring function over time. Other spring improvements may aid in slightly reducing spring impacts, but probably not much more than what is seen under current management as there would be no fencing to prevent livestock or wild horses from directly accessing the spring source. Livestock may congregate more around the trough, providing some relief to the spring, but it is likely trampling would still occur. Installation of wooden slats proposed as spring protection at Cinnabar Spring could assist to minimize bank shearing, however trampling and vegetative removal around the spring would likely still occur. This structure would also pose a risk to livestock, wild horses and wildlife as they may injure themselves or become stuck between slats.
3.5.4 BLM Sensitive Species (animals and plants) 3.5.4.1 Affected Environment The BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2009-039 transmits the BLM 6840 Special Status Species Manual, the principal policy instrument detailing BLM management of SSS. SSS are species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act as well as species designated internally as Bureau sensitive by State Directors. A list of the Nevada BLM sensitive species was released in 2017 (NV IM-2018-003).
Appendix E in the RHA Appendix B lists BLM sensitive plant and animal species for the Carson City District that may be present in the PTMA, based on habitat requirements. The CRMP also provides additional information on BLM sensitive plant and animal species and their habitat needs and some sensitive species are also described in more detail in the RHA Section 3.9 (Appendix B). A number of BLM sensitive wildlife species can also be found in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (NDOW, 2012), which discusses habitat requirements, trends, distribution, and conservation needs for those species.
Sensitive Animals: The PTMA encompasses approximately 208,293 acres of occupied year- round habitat for desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in the Monte Cristo Mountains, Gillis, and Gabbs Valley Ranges in addition to several seasonal migration corridors totaling approximately 27,441 acres (Appendix B, Appendix A map 8). In 2017, the population estimate for desert bighorn sheep within the PTMA was 750 individuals (pers. comm., Jason Salisbury, NDOW). Forage, water, and escape terrain are the most critical components of their habitat (Van Dyke et al. 1983). Competition with livestock and horses for scarce water resources within the PTMA has led to the construction of multiple wildlife water developments by NDOW for big and small game within the PTMA to help alleviate pressure at natural sources. One of the biggest threats faced by desert bighorn sheep is the risk of pneumonia from healthy domestic sheep and goats introduced as livestock and is one of the causes for the historical decline and extirpation of bighorn sheep across the range (Cassirer et al. 2018).
52
Based on NDOW occurrence data, 14 bat species are known or have the potential to occur within the PTMA. These species include western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), western small footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). Water sources, including stock tanks, natural springs and meadows are critical drinking and foraging sources for bat species. The majority of bats documented within the PTMA are aerial foragers and feed on flying insects. Night roosting, maternity, and hibernacula habitat may include caves, rock outcrops, trees, buildings, and abandoned mines. Anthropogenic threats to Nevada’s bat species include invasive species, fire, recreation, artificial water sources (i.e. troughs), water source development, and overgrazing by livestock, (Bradley et al. 2006).
3.5.4.2 Environmental Consequences of BLM Sensitive Species (animals and plants) 3.5.4.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management The Proposed Action Cool Season Only Alternative as described in Section 2.2, would authorize up to 752 head of cattle from 8/15-3/31, starting with 300 head of cattle in Phase 1, which would be a reduction from current authorized grazing. This Alternative would also eliminate year-round grazing as well as the horse AUMs. This Alternative would allow for a phased approach to grazing management which would require meeting the annual livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives (short and long term), as outlined in Section 2.1.3 and Appendix F prior to commencement of Phases 2 and 3. This Alternative would allow for up to 5,664 AUMs, which is the current authorized level. In addition, this Alternative would implement the Proposed Improvements described in Section 2.1.2, including the maintenance of existing range improvements, new pasture fencing, and four new spring improvement projects. This Alternative would adhere to Terms and Conditions outlined in Section 2.1.4 and Appendix G.
Sensitive Animals: BLM Sensitive animal species, including desert bighorn sheep and bats, and other sensitive species habitat condition and trends are discussed in detail in the RHA Section 5.5. Based on the RHA, the evaluation found the PTMA is not achieving RHS for SSS animal species habitats under the current grazing management that are necessary for healthy, productive and diverse habitat. Grazing impacts for this alternative would be similar to those described in Proposed Action Cool Season Only Section 3.5.1.2.1 but would be expected to result in a decline and reduction in upland habitats, especially those in close proximity to water sources. The Cool- Season Only Alternative would allow for recovery of riparian vegetation at springs and stream banks, reduce sedimentation inputs to surface water, and allow for improvements in habitat conditions for sensitive species. Removing cattle during the growing season and reducing authorized numbers of cattle that can graze would reduce grazing pressure on habitat for BLM sensitive animal species, including upland habitats which are a critical foraging source for bighorn sheep and bats. The flexibility built into the phased grazing system would allow for habitat objectives to be met in order to move to higher authorized numbers of cattle. To assist in achieving standards for these SSS habitats, proposed improvements as described in Section 2.1.2 include several additional range improvements as well as repair of existing improvements, new 53
pasture fencing, and new water developments, which would improve availability of water to allow livestock to better distribute within the PTMA, therefore reducing livestock pressure and competition at key water sources for sensitive species. Overall, RHS for SSS species habitats, including revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality would be expected under this Alternative.
Sensitive Plants: Under the Proposed Action, the phased approach would allow for an initial reduction of cattle to 300 head with no grazing during the majority of the growing season (Phase 1, Section 2.1.1). Direct and indirect effects to sensitive plant species resulting from livestock grazing are described in the RHA section 5.5 and are hereby referenced in this analysis. Removing cattle during the growing season and reducing authorized numbers would reduce grazing pressure on BLM sensitive plant species allowing plant species to direct more of their resources to the production of stem, leaf and root tissue rather than allocating substantial amounts of resources to repair above-ground biomass damaged by herbivory and trampling. Plants would also devote more resources to seed production which would result in greater seedbank accumulation in the soil while allowing for a greater expansion of population densities and extent over time. The net result would be more vibrant and resilient plant communities that would be better able to ward off invasive species and persist during drought conditions. Range improvement projects and noxious weed treatments would still occur and could result in impacts such as cutting or crushing of above ground biomass and/or chemical damage due to contact with or intake of herbicides. These impacts would be harmful in the short term but the improvement in habitat conditions as a result of these range improvements would result in overall improved conditions for sensitive species. In addition to the effects of cattle grazing pressures on sensitive plant species, wildlife and wild horse use would continue under this alternative with the above- ground biomass consumed and crushed. However, with reduced livestock grazing during the cool season there would be an overall decrease in impacts which is beneficial for sensitive plants.
Short-term monitoring objectives would establish baseline and trend data that would be used to determine if sensitive plant species are improving over time and if verifiable progress is being made toward achieving standard 5.
As short-term objectives are met, the permittee may increase the number of cattle under Phases 2 and 3. With dispersed livestock grazing, sensitive species should be able to withstand grazing pressures however if cattle congregate in areas with sensitive plant species, impacts would be significantly higher with increased livestock in which case added protection measures such as enclosures or active herding may be necessary to protect sensitive plant species.
Impacts from wildlife and horse use would remain the same as described under the Proposed Action.
The Proposed Action would also implement monitoring objectives under all phases that would assist with evaluating range conditions, and that would allow for potential negative impacts to be assessed and addressed prior to introducing more cattle to the allotment. The monitoring objectives would set triggers for key springs and streams, allowing for cattle to be removed from areas before potential direct and indirect impacts negatively affect sensitive plant species.
54
3.5.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Sensitive Animals: The Year-Round Grazing Alternative as described in Section 2.3, would authorize up to 472 head of cattle from 3/31-2/28, starting with 150 head of cattle in Phase 1, which would be a reduction from current authorized grazing, and elimination of the horse AUMs. Like the Proposed Alternative, this Alternative would allow for a phased approach to grazing management requiring the meeting of the annual livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives (short and long term), as outlined in Section 2.1.3 and Appendix F prior to commencement of Phases 2 and 3. If indicators and objectives are met, this would allow for up to 5,662 AUMs on the PTMA, which would equal what is currently authorized. The grazing schedule would have interim management until pasture fencing is installed and a three year rest/rotation schedule as outlined in Table 8 is implemented. In addition, this Alternative would implement the Proposed Improvements described in Section 2.1.2, including the maintenance of existing range improvements, new pasture fencing, and four new spring improvement projects. This Alternative would adhere to Terms and Conditions outlined in Section 2.1.4 and Appendix G.
The Year-Round Grazing Alternative as described under Section 2.3 would permit grazing during the critical growing season, where RHS are currently not being met for SSS habitat which is discussed in detail in the RHA Section 5.5 SSS of Appendix B. Grazing impacts would be similar to those described in Proposed Action Cool Season Only Section 3.5.1.2.1 but would be more significant due to the year-round grazing management. The Year-Round grazing would not allow for appropriate rest and recovery of upland and riparian vegetation, or for water quality standards to improve for sensitive animal species, including desert bighorn sheep and bats. Under the Year-round Alternative, meeting livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives would be harder to achieve, including PFC for lentic and lotic systems not proposed to be fenced. However, providing alternate water sources and supplements, as well as pasture fencing, would help distribute livestock use farther away from riparian areas, which would reduce livestock impacts relative to current management. Desert bighorn sheep, bats and other sensitive animals would experience competition for water sources from cattle. The loss of many of these springs due to dry or non-functioning conditions would force these sensitive species to expend energy resources by traveling farther to seek water. Under this Alternative, if short-term and long term objectives are met, then over time SSS habitat conditions would likely progress towards meeting SSS life cycle requirements for healthy, productive and diverse habitats as defined as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.5 of the RHA. Overall, revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality would be expected under this Alternative, but it would take longer to achieve RHS for SSS habitats.
Sensitive Plants: Impacts to BLM sensitive plant species under Alternative 2 include consumption of above-ground biomass, crushing of plants due to trampling and modifications the habitat such as soil compaction, and introduction and spread of noxious and invasive species which would compete with sensitive plant species. Under Phase 1, the lowest number of cattle would be permitted compared to the other Alternatives. However, the fact that grazing would occur year-round would not allow sensitive species that are impacted the chance to rest from grazing pressures. This effect would be magnified as the number of permitted livestock increases
55
to 300 and 472 during Phase 2 and 3, respectively. The lack of rest from grazing pressures would have a more negative effect than that anticipated under the Proposed Action.
Range improvement projects and noxious weed treatments would occur under this Alternative and could result in impacts such as cutting or crushing of above ground biomass and/or chemical damage due to contact with or intake of herbicides. These impacts would be harmful in the short term but the improvement in habitat conditions as a result of these range improvements would result in overall improved conditions for sensitive species. Year-round wildlife and wild horse use would continue as well under this Alternative with the above-ground biomass consumed and crushed. However, with reduced numbers of permitted livestock there would be a decrease in impacts which is beneficial for sensitive plants, but with year-round grazing the benefits would be less than what is anticipated under the Proposed Action.
3.5.4.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management Sensitive Animals: The Permittee Alternative as described under Section 2.4 would allow for year-round grazing on PTMA of up to 7,896 AUMs, but starting with 300 head (3,600 AUMs) and increasing grazing levels annually. This would be 2,229 AUMs over what is currently authorized and under current grazing management, RHS are not being met for SSS animal habitat as described in the RHA Section 5.5. The overall increase in AUMs would further intensify impacts in use areas that are not currently meeting or progressing towards RHS. Overall grazing impacts to SSS habitat would be similar to those described in the Year-round Grazing Alternative but would be significantly greater due to the additional AUMs, year-round grazing, and lack of pasture fencing and range improvements.
This increase in AUMs year-round during the critical growing season would likely worsen the decline in resource conditions and RHS and not allow for recovery in the PTMA, including habitat for species such as desert bighorn sheep, bats and other BLM sensitive animals. With nearly all of the springs on PTMA rating as either non-functioning or FAR, this suggests that these critical water sources for sensitive species like bighorn sheep and bats have become significantly impaired in function or no longer support habitat and suitable drinking water. Increased grazing pressure would lead to higher utilization levels, which would result in a reduction of forage and cover for nesting, fawning, or foraging important for wildlife, including sensitive species.
Additional AUMs could increase impacts to upland vegetation, soil loss and compaction and sedimentation inputs to springs. An increase in AUMs year-round would allow for continued degradation of range resources in the PTMA, and would adversely affect SSS habitat, as conditions would not improve under this alternative and would not meet the life cycle requirements for SSS for healthy, productive and diverse habitats as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.5 of the RHA. Overall, as described in RHA Section 5.5, SSS animal habitat conditions do not meet many the life cycle requirements of SSS per the RAC indicators and would not be able to progress towards achieving standards under this Alternative, and would not be afforded protection from fencing improvements such as those proposed under the Proposed Alternative. Under this Alternative, it is unlikely that cattle would better distribute across PTMA in the absence of pasture fencing or alternate water sources, which is necessary to 56
decrease pressure on and competition for water resources. This Alternative would likely increase negative impacts on SSS animal habitat, potentially resulting in a decrease in reproductive success for impacted species, and would not allow for recovery of suitable habitat to its full ecological potential.
Sensitive Plants: Alternative 3, would permit 300 livestock year-round with an increase of 50 head per year until a maximum of 658 cattle is reached at the start of the year 6. Year-round livestock grazing during the growing season would result in the consumption of above-ground biomass during critical phenological stages such as flowering and seed production. Excessive trampling crushes plants and compacts soils in areas where livestock congregate. Because the use of the PTMA is heavily dependent on limited water sources such as springs and water developments, it is likely that the same areas will be grazed year after year. Sensitive plants within these areas will not have the same chance for recovery as they would under the Proposed Action.
Range improvement projects and noxious weed treatments would occur and could result in impacts such as cutting or crushing of above ground biomass and/or chemical damage due to contact with or intake of herbicides. These impacts would be harmful in the short term but the improvement in habitat conditions as a result of these range improvements would result in overall improved conditions for sensitive species. Wildlife and wild horse use would continue under this alternative with the above-ground biomass consumed and crushed.
3.5.4.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management Sensitive Animals: Under the No Action Alternative as described under Section 2.5, grazing would continue to be permitted year-round, with reduced AUMs in the growing season/summer for 5,667 AUMs annually, with additional horse AUMs. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to SSS animal habitat would continue as described in detail in the RHA Section 5.5 Appendix B. The RHA determined that under current grazing management, RHS are not being met for SSS animal habitat. Therefore, continuing management under the Terms and Conditions of the current grazing management would cause habitat conditions in the PTMA to decline in quality from the current conditions and to continue to not meet RHS, including desert bighorn sheep and bat habitat not meeting the life cycle requirements as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.5 of the RHA. Overall grazing impacts to SSS animal habitat would be similar to those described in the Year-round Grazing Alternative. However, under the No Action Alternative, alternate water sources, supplements and pasture fencing would not be implemented to help distribute livestock use farther away from riparian areas to reduce livestock impacts and would continue to not meet PFC for the lentic and lotic systems. Under the No Action Alternative, there would also be no range improvements proposed, which are critical to meeting RHS for SSS habitat. Overall, as described in RHA Section 5.5, SSS animal habitat conditions do not meet many of the life cycle requirements of SSS per the RAC indicators and would not be able to progress towards achieving standards under this Alternative.
The No Action Alternative as described under Section 2.5, would continue to permit year-round grazing with reduced AUMs in the growing season. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to special status animal species habitat would likely continue as described in detail in the RHA 57
Section 5.5 Appendix B. Under current grazing management, rangeland health standards are not being met for SSS habitat as described in the RHA Section 5.5, so this alternative would result in continued degradation of SSS habitat and conditions and would not meet the life cycle requirements of SSS as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.5 of the RHA. Under this Alternative, cattle would continue to congregate in the same areas of the PTMA and competition for limited water resources would continue. The No Action Alternative would likely continue to increase negative impacts on special status animal species, including potential decreases in reproductive success and would not allow for recovery of suitable habitat (though likely to a somewhat lesser extent than the Permittee Alternative).
Sensitive Plants: Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to BLM sensitive species would likely continue as described in detail in the RHA (Appendix B). Because livestock management has been uncontrolled throughout the year, sensitive plant species are especially impacted during the growing season, with little opportunity for recovery. Under this alternative sensitive plant species would be weakened and vulnerable to specific and regional threats as identified in the RHA.
3.5.4.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects Sensitive Animals: The No Grazing Alternative as described under Section 2.6 would allow the PTMA to recover as a result of extended rest from livestock grazing and to move towards achieving RHS currently not being met for SSS animal habitat, as described in the RHA Section 5.5. Where recovery is achievable, springs and associated riparian habitats would likely recover from livestock grazing impacts over the 10 year time frame and the No Grazing Alternative would allow for restoration of upland and riparian vegetation, soil stabilization, improved water quality, resulting in springs moving towards or achieving PFC. With nearly all of the springs on PTMA rated as either non- functioning or FAR, this suggests that these critical water sources for sensitive species like bighorn sheep and bats have become significantly impaired in function or no longer support habitat and suitable drinking water. Under the No Grazing Alternative, there would be no range improvements on PTMA, but riparian areas would still likely recover at a faster rate in the absence of disturbance from cattle. Under the No Grazing Alternative wildlife species, including desert bighorn sheep and bats would continue to experience negative impacts caused by wild horses, particularly where horses congregate at limited water sources. Overall, RHS for SSS animal habitats, including revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality, would be expected to recover to the greatest extent under this Alternative but habitat would still continue to be impacted by wild horses.
Sensitive Plants: Alternative 5 would not allow any permitted livestock in to the PTMA over the next 10 years. The impacts to sensitive plant species and habitat associated with domestic livestock grazing would not occur. This would have a positive effect as sensitive plants would not have to allocate resources to the repair of damaged above-ground biomass. Sensitive plant species would be able to complete their lifecycles and devote resources to maintain and expand plant densities and extent. Negative impacts to sensitive plant species would continue with herbivory and trampling from wildlife and wild horses, as there would be no range
58
improvements designed to protect sensitive plant species. However, any negative impacts would be less than those anticipated under all the other alternatives.
3.5.4.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only and Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Range improvement projects were identified as integral components of the Proposed Action Alternative and Alternative 2 due to RHS not being met for PTMA. Although some temporary short-term impacts may occur to SSS from the proposed improvements including habitat disturbance, noise disturbance, temporary displacement of individual wildlife, erosion/sedimentation and an increase in invasive species; the range improvement over time would allow riparian vegetation to progress towards meeting Standard 5. Additional range improvements as well as maintenance of existing improvements, pasture fencing, and new water developments described in Section 2.1.2 would aid in better distribution of water and livestock within the PTMA, thereby reducing livestock pressure and competition at critical water sources and adjacent upland habitat. Several seasonal migration corridors totaling approximately 27,441 acres exist within the PTMA and pasture fencing has the potential to restrict movements and/or injure/kill big game utilizing these corridors. However, any new fencing would be designed and constructed to meet specifications of BLM H-1741-1, BLM Fencing Standards Manual. Additionally, PDFs outlined in Appendix I would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to SSS animals and their habitat. Range improvement projects would be expected to improve riparian areas by reducing or eliminating direct impacts from livestock. Recovery of these habitat areas is expected to occur over the short-term due to the small size of the actual area that would be disturbed by construction activities.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase The Permittee Alternative would not include construction of new range improvements as described in Section 2.1.2 which would leave key springs unprotected. Proposed permittee range improvements within the PTMA would negatively impact some SSS animals as many of these improvements cause a trap hazard and can cause injury or morality to wildlife. The existing range improvements on the PTMA do not have the required BLM-approved escape ramps installed for wildlife and are known to cause mortality to sensitive bat species.
3.5.5 General Wildlife and Migratory Birds 3.5.5.1 Affected Environment General Wildlife: Based on the SWReGAP (2005), the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s Wildlife Action Plan (NDOW, 2012) characterized Nevada’s vegetative land cover into broad ecological system groups and linked those with 22 key habitat types. Along with survey data, key habitats can be used to infer likely occurrences of wildlife species assemblages. The CRMP also provides additional information on wildlife and their habitat needs and some wildlife species are also described in more detail in the RHA Section 3.8, Appendix B. A number of wildlife and migratory bird species that are known to occur in the PTMA can be found in the Wildlife Action Plan, which discusses habitat requirements, trends, distribution, and conservation needs and can be found here: http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada_Wildlife_Action_Plan/
59
Big Game: The PTMA contains 130,606 acres of year-round mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) habitat for the Ferguson, Gabbs Valley, North Cedar Ranges, which equates to approximately 26 percent of the allotment (Appendix A, map 6 of RHA). In 2017, the population estimate for mule deer within the PTMA was approximately 100 individuals (Jason Salisbury NDOW, pers. comm.). Factors affecting mule deer across Nevada’s range include loss of plant vigor, pinyon- juniper encroachment, overgrazing, invasive species, fire, drought, mining and other anthropogenic developments, and migration corridor impediments (Wasley 2004).
The PTMA is almost entirely composed of year-round pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra Americana) habitat (approximately 469,544 acres or 92 percent) except for a small portion in the southern end of the allotment (Appendix A, map 7 of RHA). Approximately 26,493 acres or 5 percent of the allotment is designated as crucial summer habitat for the Calvada and Winwam pronghorn herds. In 2017, the population estimate for pronghorn within the PTMA was 140 individuals (Jason Salisbury NDOW, pers. comm.). Vegetation height, cover, and community type, as well as elevation, topography, and distance to water, all influence pronghorn antelope habitat selection.
Migratory Birds: In addition to protections for migratory birds that are considered Nevada BLM Sensitive Species, all migratory birds are offered certain protections under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Presidential Executive Order. In 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13186 placing emphasis on the conservation and management of migratory birds. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and EO 13186 addresses the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds by taking actions to implement the MBTA. BLM policy for migratory bird management is provided in Information Bulletin (IB) No. 2010-110 and is based on the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the BLM and the FWS for the conservation of migratory birds. According to the MOU, BLM Priority Migratory Birds are those listed in the periodic USFWS report Birds of Conservation Concern (FWS 2008) and those identified by the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management as game birds below desired condition. Appendix D of the RHA provides a list of Birds of Conservation Concern that may be present in the allotment.
3.5.5.2 Environmental Consequences of General Wildlife and Migratory Birds 3.5.5.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management The Proposed Action Cool Season Only Alternative as described in Section 2.2 would authorize up to 752 head of cattle from 8/15-3/31, starting with 300 head of cattle in Phase 1, which would be a reduction from current authorized grazing. This Alternative would eliminate year-round grazing as well as the horse AUMs. This Alternative would allow for a phased approach to grazing management which would require meeting the annual livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives (short and long term), as outlined in Section 2.1.3 and Appendix F prior to commencement of Phases 2 and 3, which would eventually allow for up to 5,664 AUMs, which amounts to what is currently authorized. In addition, this Alternative would implement the Proposed Improvements described in Section 2.1.2, including the maintenance of existing range improvements, new pasture fencing, and four new spring improvement projects. This Alternative would adhere to Terms and Conditions outlined in Section 2.1.4 and Appendix G. 60
General wildlife habitat, including mule deer and pronghorn as well as migratory bird habitat condition and trends are discussed in detail in the RHA Section 5.4, Appendix B. Based on the RHA, the evaluation found PTMA not to be achieving RHS for animal habitat that are necessary for healthy, productive and diverse habitat. Wildlife populations are closely linked to the condition of upland and riparian vegetation, which provides hiding and thermal cover, nesting structure, foraging and fawning areas, quality food and water sources for a variety of wildlife species. Grazing impacts would be similar to those described in Proposed Action Cool Season Only Section 3.5.1.2.1 but would also cause a decline and result in a reduction in upland habitats, especially those in close proximity to water sources. Riparian areas are critically important habitats for a large number of wildlife and migratory bird species and generally have higher diversity compared to uplands and other habitat types (Ohmart 1996). The Cool-Season Only Alternative would allow for recovery of riparian vegetation at springs and stream banks, reduce sedimentation inputs to surface water, and allow for improvements in habitat conditions for sensitive species.
Removing cattle during the growing season and reducing authorized numbers would reduce grazing pressure on habitat for wildlife and migratory bird species, including riparian habitats which are a critical for foraging source for big game and migratory birds. The flexibility built into the phased grazing system would allow for habitat objectives to be met in order to move to higher authorized numbers during later phases. To assist in achieving standards for these wildlife and migratory bird habitats, proposed improvements as described in Section 2.1.2 include several additional range improvements as well as repair of exiting improvements, new pasture fencing, and new water developments, which would aid in improving availability of water to allow livestock to better distribute within the PTMA, thereby reducing livestock pressure and competition at key water sources for wildlife species. Reducing impacts to riparian habitats by eliminating loafing and concentration of livestock in riparian areas and wet meadows would allow these areas to improve and make progress towards achieving PFC. Overall, RHS for animal habitats, including revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality would be expected under this Alternative.
3.5.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management The Year-Round Grazing Alternative as described in Section 2.3, would authorize up to 472 head of cattle from 3/31-2/28, starting with 150 head of cattle in Phase 1, which would be a reduction from current authorized grazing, and elimination of the horse AUMs. Like the Proposed Alternative, this Alternative would allow for a phased approach to increasing grazing over time and would require meeting annual livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives (short and long term), as outlined in Section 2.1.3 and Appendix F prior to commencement of Phases 2 and 3. If indicators and objectives are met, this would allow for up to 5,662 AUMs on the PTMA under Phase 3, which amounts to what is currently authorized. The grazing schedule would have interim management until pasture fencing is installed and a three year rest/rotation schedule as outlined in Table 8 is implemented. In addition, this Alternative would implement the Proposed Improvements described in Section 2.1.2, including the maintenance of existing range improvements, new pasture fencing, and four new spring
61
improvement projects. This Alternative would adhere to Terms and Conditions outlined in Section 2.1.4 and Appendix G.
The Year-Round Grazing Alternative as described under Section 2.3 would permit grazing during the critical growing season, where RHS are currently not being met for wildlife and migratory bird habitats that are discussed in detail in the RHA Section 5.4 Plant and Animal Habitat of Appendix B. Grazing impacts would be similar to those described in Proposed Action Cool Season Only Section 3.5.1.2.1 but would be more significant due to year-round grazing. The Year-Round grazing alternative would not allow for rest and recovery of upland and riparian vegetation or for water quality standards to improve for wildlife species, including big game and migratory birds. Under the Year-round Alternative, meeting livestock indicators and monitoring goals and objectives would be harder to achieve, including PFC for lentic and lotic systems not proposed to be fenced. However, providing alternate water sources and supplements, as well as pasture fencing, would help distribute livestock use farther from riparian areas, further reducing livestock impacts. Big game, migratory birds and other wildlife species would experience competition at water sources from cattle and the loss of many of these springs due to dry or non- functioning conditions would force these sensitive species to expend energy resources by traveling father to seek water. Under this Alternative, if short-term and long term objectives are met, then over time wildlife species, including pronghorn, mule deer and migratory bird habitat conditions would likely progress towards meeting plant and animal life cycle requirements for healthy, productive and diverse habitats as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.4 of the RHA. Overall, revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality would be expected under this Alternative, but it would take longer to achieve RHS for wildlife habitats.
3.5.5.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management The Permittee Alternative as described under Section 2.4 would allow for year-round grazing on PTMA with up to 7,896 AUMs starting with an initial 300 head and increasing annually. This amounts to 2,229 AUMs over what is currently authorized and under current grazing management, RHS are not being met for wildlife habitat as described in the RHA Section 5.5. The overall increase in AUMs would further intensify impacts in use areas that are not currently meeting or progressing towards RHS. Overall grazing impacts to wildlife habitat would be similar to those described in the Year-round Grazing Alternative but would be significantly greater due to the additional AUMs, year-round grazing management, and lack of pasture fencing and range improvements.
This increase in AUMs year-round during the critical growing season would hasten the decline in resource conditions and would not allow for recovery in the PTMA, including habitat for wildlife species such as mule deer, pronghorn, migratory birds and other wildlife. Grazing practices and lack of water resources for livestock have affected lentic riparian areas on PTMA because livestock tend to concentrate use in these small isolated areas. Livestock trampling impacts on these areas leads to loss of available moisture, which can lead to changes in the vegetation from riparian obligate species to upland species as well as weeds. Increased AUMs and utilization objectives may put these riparian habitats at even more at risk due to livestock concentration, which can lead to changes in riparian structure and vegetation components over time (Swanson 62
2015). With nearly all of the springs on PTMA rating as either non-functioning or FAR, this suggests that these critical water sources for sensitive species like big game and migratory birds have become significantly impaired in function or no longer support habitat and suitable drinking water.
The increase in AUMs could increase impacts to upland vegetation, soil loss and compaction and sedimentation inputs to springs. These riparian areas are repeatedly disturbed and grazed by livestock during the same growth period annually, which does not provide grasses and forbs the necessary rest period for growth and reproduction. An increase in AUMs year-round would allow for continued degradation of range resources in the PTMA, adversely affecting wildlife habitat, as conditions would not improve under this alternative and would not meet the life cycle requirements for wildlife for healthy, productive and diverse habitats as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.4 of the RHA. Overall, as described in RHA Section 5.5, wildlife habitat conditions do not meet many the life cycle requirements of animals per the RAC indicators and would not be able to progress towards achieving standards under this Alternative and further would not be afforded protection from fencing improvements proposed under the Proposed Alternative. Under this Alternative, it is unlikely that cattle would better distribute across PTMA due to lack of pasture fencing, active herding, alternate water sources, and supplements, which is necessary to decrease pressure on and competition for water resources. This Alternative would likely increase negative impacts on wildlife, including mule deer, pronghorn and migratory birds, potentially resulting in a decrease in reproductive success, and would not allow for recovery of suitable habitat to its full ecological potential.
3.5.5.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management Under the No Action Alternative as described under Section 2.6, grazing would continue to be permitted year-round, with reduced AUMs in the growing season/summer for 5,667 AUMs annually, with additional horse AUMs. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to wildlife habitat would continue as described in detail in the RHA Section 5.4 Appendix B. The RHA determined that under current grazing management, RHS are not being met for wildlife and migratory bird habitat. Therefore, grazing under the current grazing management system would cause habitat conditions in the PTMA to decline in quality from the current conditions and to continue to not meet RHS, including big game and migratory bird habitat not meeting the life cycle requirements as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.4 of the RHA. Overall grazing impacts to wildlife habitat would be similar to those described in the Year-round Grazing Alternative. However, under the No Action Alternative, alternate water sources, supplements and pasture fencing would not be used to help distribute livestock use farther away from riparian areas to reduce livestock impacts and the PTMA would continue to not meet PFC for the lentic and lotic systems. Under the No Action Alternative, there would also be no new range improvements proposed that could help achieve RHS for SSS habitat. Overall, as described in RHA Section 5.4, wildlife habitat conditions do not meet many of the life cycle requirements of wildlife per the RAC indicators and would not be able to progress towards achieving standards under this Alternative.
The No Action Alternative as described under Section 2.5, management would continue to permit year-round grazing with reduced AUMs in the growing season. Under the No Action 63
Alternative, impacts to wildlife habitat would likely continue as described in detail in the RHA Section 5.4, Appendix B. Under current grazing management, rangeland health standards are not being met for wildlife habitat as described in the RHA Section 5.4, so this alternative would result in continued degradation of wildlife habitat, including big game and migratory bird habitat, and the PTMA would continue to not meet the life cycle requirements of animals as defined by the RAC indicators in Section 5.4 of the RHA. Under this Alternative, cattle would continue to congregate in the same areas of the PTMA and competition for limited water resources would continue. The No Action Alternative would likely continue to increase negative impacts on wildlife, potentially decreasing reproductive success, and would not allow for recovery of suitable habitat, though likely to a somewhat lesser extent than the Permittee Alternative.
3.5.5.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management The No Grazing Alternative as described under Section 2.6 would allow the PTMA to recover as a result of extended rest from livestock grazing and to move towards achieving RHS currently not being met for wildlife habitat, as described in the RHA Section 5.4. Where recovery is achievable, springs and associated riparian habitats would likely recover from livestock grazing impacts over the 10 year time frame and the No Grazing Alternative would allow for restoration of upland and riparian vegetation, soil stabilization, improved water quality, and result in springs moving towards or achieving PFC. This recovery, however, might not be possible in parts of the PTMA that have crossed an ecological threshold or where riparian species and resources have been lost. With nearly all of the springs on the PTMA rated as either non-functioning or FAR, this suggests that these critical water sources for wildlife species like mule deer, pronghorn and migratory birds have become significantly impaired in function or no longer support habitat and suitable drinking water. Under the No Grazing Alternative, there would be no new range improvements on PTMA authorized in this EA, but riparian areas would still likely recover at a faster rate in the absence of disturbance from cattle. Under the No Grazing Alternative wildlife species, including pronghorn, mule deer and migratory bird habitat would continue to experience negative impacts caused by wild horses, particularly where horses congregate at limited water sources. Overall, RHS for wildlife habitats, including revegetation and improved function of upland and riparian habitat and improved water quality, would be expected to recover to the greatest extent under this Alternative but habitat would still continue to be impacted by wild horses.
3.5.5.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements Impacts from construction of range improvements would be expected to be the same or similar to those described in BLM Sensitive Species Section 3.5.4. Direct and indirect impacts for most range improvements are similar for all wildlife and include habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and potential mortality. New fencing on the landscape would also provide additional perching opportunities for ravens and raptors, which could increase predation to other wildlife. Additional injury/mortality to wildlife and migratory birds could occur due to collisions with new fencing or entrapment in open pipe features of fencing or range improvements. However, PDFs outlined in Appendix I would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife and migratory birds animals and their habitat.
64
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from construction of range improvements would be expected to be the same or similar to those described in BLM Sensitive Species Section 3.5.4.
3.5.6 Livestock Grazing 3.5.6.1 Affected Environment Appendix B, Sections 3.1 and 4.2, describes current and historical livestock grazing on the PTMA. Additionally, the RHA and SDD (Appendix B) present detailed data on the RHA’s results. Currently, the PTMA is not achieving all 5 Standards for Rangeland Health with livestock grazing identified as a significant causal factor in the failure to achieve these standards.
Recent distribution and census flights have found that the number of cattle on the allotment has been above what the permittee has been authorized to graze during the summer months; even though the total number of AUMs grazed has generally been below the total permitted level in a grazing year (Refer to Section 4.2.2.3 in the RHA for a detailed analysis of the Actual Use history). The flights conducted in July 2017 and October 2018 show the majority of the cattle concentrated around water sources, especially during the hotter summer months. During the flight in October 2018, BLM observed cattle farther from the water sources and they were more dispersed throughout the allotment. The cattle were scattered in several small groups throughout the allotment with the largest group size consisting of about 100 head of cattle. However, with no internal pasture fencing and continuous year-round grazing there is no rest on the key forage plant species.
3.5.6.2 Environmental Consequences of Livestock Grazing 3.5.6.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management Under the proposed action, Phase 1 would result in an initial reduction to 300 cattle and there would be no grazing of the allotment authorized during most of the growing season and during the hot season (Phase 1, Section 2.2.1). This initial reduction would decrease grazing pressure and reduce utilization for many of the key forage plant species in the upland and riparian areas. Additionally, the change of season of use to cool-season grazing only would allow for these key forage species to grow without grazing pressure, and to reproduce and store essential nutrients to meet the growth and respiration demands of the plant. This would allow for recruitment and recovery of these key forage species and increased forage vigor and density of perennial grasses. Increasing the vigor of these key forage species also allows for increased storage of essential nutrients in the plant that cattle also need for growth and energy.
The reduction in AUMs may impact the permittee’s livestock operation in the future, but when analyzing current actual use AUMs, the permittee has not grazed more than the 5,667 AUMs that are authorized under the current permit, and has grazed significantly less in many years. The failure of the allotment to meet rangeland health standards at the current AUM level and seasons of use indicates that the allotment cannot support the current authorized AUMs under the current livestock management. Significantly reducing the AUMs initially (by over 50%) will aid in improving forage for the cattle and rangeland health. Additionally, the base water analysis supports an initial reduction in AUMs (Section 2.1), while allowing the permittee to increase AUMs once the monitoring objectives, including repairs to the base water range improvements 65
to bring them to functioning condition, are met. The benefit to the range and improved forage vigor and nutrient content from reducing AUMs under Phase 1 of the Proposed Action may in turn improve the condition of the cattle and increase calf gain, which would benefit livestock operations.
As short-term objectives are met, grazing management can move to Phase 2 (Section 2.2.1) and cattle numbers may be increased to 526 head. Once the pasture fencing is completed each pasture would have one year of rest out of a three year rotation cycle, as well as be grazed during different times of the year. Annual livestock Indicators (Section 2.1.3) would be used as a trigger to move cattle to a new location in the pasture or to move to another pasture. This would require increased management of water, supplements and herding the cattle to better distribute them across the allotment (Laycock and conrad, 1981). Under moderate stocking and utilization rates, grazed rest-rotation pastures have higher vigor of key forage plant species and pastures are grazed more evenly (Holecheck et al. 1987). The benefits of this type of grazing system are especially high where animals congregate around water sources and this system appears to be one of the most practical means of restoring and maintaining riparian zones (Holecheck et al. 2004).
As long-term objectives are achieved, grazing management may move to Phase 3 of the Proposed Action. Under Phase 3, cattle numbers may be increased to 752 head. At this stage the Annual Livestock Indicators and key monitoring sites will continue to be monitored to ensure objectives continue to be met and range improvements continue to be maintained and/or kept in working order.
Under this Alternative the benefit to the range resources of not grazing during the late spring and early summer months would be greatest when compared to the other grazing alternatives, but would be most restrictive for the permittee’s grazing operations. The vegetation would have a longer period of time to recover from several years of continuous year-round grazing, especially in the salt-desert shrub ecosystems where recovery from intensive grazing would take many years. The impact to the permittee would be increased, as the permittee would have to remove cattle from the allotment at the end of each grazing season and would have to find alternate means of feeding cattle for the remaining four and a half months of the year.
Until pasture fencing can be constructed, cattle would be turned out in the north and pushed towards the south in even years, then rotated to turned out in the south and pushed to the north in odd years. This would replicate pasture rotation, but without fencing, the permittee would have to increase active management and herding of the cattle to ensure utilization levels are not exceeded and that the cattle are moved to a new location once the Annual Livestock Indicators (Section 2.1.3) levels are reached. Water hauling and supplements may also need to be increased to move and keep cattle in new locations without pasture fences. Maintenance of the pasture fences would add an increased workload and potential cost for the permittee.
3.5.6.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Impacts of Grazing Management Under Alternative 2, pastures Phase 1 would result in an initial reduction to 150 cattle year-round (Phase 1, Section 2.3.1). This initial reduction would decrease grazing pressure and reduce 66
utilization for many of the key forage plant species, however cattle would be grazing during the growing season which may affect regrowth of key forage species and storage of essential nutrients for the plants. The Annual Livestock Indicators (Section 2.1.3) would be used to trigger movement to a new location and would aid in achieving the short-term objectives, so that grazing management may move to Phase 2 of this alternative. Under Phase 2, cattle numbers may be increased to 300 head year-round.
Under this Alternative, pastures would not be fully rested every three years, as for the Proposed Action, but would be on a three-year rotational grazing system where each pasture would be grazed during different times of the year, and the number of authorized livestock would be less than the Proposed Action. A rotational deferred grazing system allows key forage plants an opportunity to maintain and gain vigor, store carbohydrates and set seed when compared to continuous year-round grazing (Holecheck et al. 2004). This alternative would have slightly increased intensive management of water and supplements and movement of cattle, when compared to the Proposed Action, but the permittee would not have to remove the cattle from the allotment at the beginning of the summer grazing season. Overall, Alternative 2 would not reduce grazing impacts as much as the Proposed Action but may be more feasible economically because the permittee would not have to remove the cattle from the allotment at the end of the grazing season and find alternate feed for 4 1/2 months out of the year.
As long-term objectives are achieved grazing management may move to Phase 3 of Alternative 2. Under Phase 3, cattle numbers may be increased to 472 head. At this stage the Annual Livestock Indicators and key monitoring sites will continue to be monitored to ensure objectives continue to be met and range improvements continue to be maintained and/or kept in working order.
3.5.6.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts of Grazing Management Under the Permittee Alternative, there would be an initial reduction in the number of cattle to 300 head (from the current 900 head) from 11/1 to 3/31 and an increase to 300 head (from the current 150 head) from 4/1 to 10/31 for a year-round consistent herd size; with 50 cattle added to the allotment each year until a total of 658 cattle is reached. The additional 50 cattle would only be authorized each year as range improvements are completed or repaired, and after inspection and approval by the authorized officer. A total of nine wells and three springs would be repaired or have completed projects to aid in disbursing the cattle to the lower elevation areas of the allotment. This continuous year-round grazing approach with no pastures does not allow for rest during the growing season and key forage species may be heavily utilized if cattle are not constantly being herded to different areas once those utilization levels are reached. This would require increased management of water and supplements and active herding by the permittee which would add to the cost of permittee’s livestock operations. Another issue with continuous year-round grazing is that areas where livestock congregate, typically where water, forage and cover are in close proximity, receive excessive use, even with low stocking rates (Holecheck, 2004). However, this alternative proposes to fix a number of non-functioning water sources which would assist with distributing cattle in the vicinity of those water sources. This may decrease the grazing pressure on other heavy use areas, but without any other means to distribute cattle other than by water sources, impacts described in the RHA and SDD (Appendix B) would 67
likely be the same or similar to those under current management. Therefore, it is likely that the current impacts would continue under this Alternative or that range resources would experience further degradation as cattle numbers are increased every year.
3.5.6.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts of Grazing Management The current management is comprised of year-round grazing with authorization of 900 cattle from 11/01 to 03/31 and 150 cattle from 04/01 to 10/31; and 12 domestic horse from 03/01 to 02/28. There is no active management of livestock and livestock disbursement is primarily regulated by natural means, such as the availability of functional water systems. Cattle would continue to graze throughout the allotment during all seasons, without any particular rest to any given area. The effect of this current management is analyzed and discussed thoroughly in the RHA and SDD documents. This grazing management system has been problematic for the permittee to implement because it requires removal of a large number of cattle from the range for the majority of the grazing season, and the permittee has indicated a preference for a consistent herd size. If management were to continue under this alternative the allotment’s rangeland health would continue to decline and this would further reduce the allotment’s livestock carrying capacity, which would impact the permittee’s livestock operations over the long-term.
3.5.6.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Impacts of Grazing Management Under this alternative, there would be no authorized grazing over the next 10 years. Impacts from this alternative would likely be to put the permittee out of the livestock business, unless the permittee’s cattle could be grazed on private land or on another allotment.
3.5.6.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements The proposed spring improvements would exclude livestock from riparian areas and associated vegetation around the springs on approximately 4 acres, which is less than 0.5% of the allotment. Riparian areas generally contain very high quality forage when compared to the uplands. However, many riparian sites have been highly degraded from grazing and the benefit of fencing off the spring sources in order to allow recovery of these sites outweighs the loss of any forage that may be present within the small exclosure area. Water would be available outside of the exclosures either in a trough or as runoff from the springs and as these riparian systems improve, the quality and quantity of available water would likely increase (see Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 for further discussion of the impact of the proposed range improvements on riparian vegetation and water). Maintenance of the spring improvements, if assigned to the permittee, would add an increased workload and potential cost for the permittee.
Construction of the 45 miles of pasture fencing would assist in rotating the cattle and resting certain areas on the allotment but would increase management since the permittee would have to train the cattle to learn a new grazing system. Currently, the cattle roam throughout the allotment without internal pasture fencing and with new pasture fencing they would have to change their movement patterns to and from water and forage. There would be an adjustment period as the cattle learn the new fences and pastures but the benefit to the upland and riparian areas from utilizing a rest-rotation or deferred rotation would outweigh the initial effects to the cattle and
68
permittee operation. Maintenance of the pasture fencing, if assigned to the permittee, would add an increased workload and potential cost for the permittee.
Impacts for the improvements under Alternative 3 would be similar except for Taft Spring. The cattle guard like structure over the spring source may be problematic for cattle and wildlife, which could get stuck in between the wooden slats.
3.5.7 Soil 3.5.7.1 Affected Environment The majority of the PTMA is located within the order III NRCS Soil Survey of Mineral County Area, Nevada (NV774), which provides detailed soil map units and soil types that occur across the allotment. Soil map units (MU) are made up of one or more soil series with each series being correlated to a corresponding ecological site, for a given area. Soil resources in the PTMA occur predominantly on valley floors, foothills, mountains, and piedmont slopes and are comprised of various parent material, with volcanic rocks being the dominant source material. Slopes typically range from 0 to 30 percent, however slopes can exceed 60 percent in mountainous areas. The majority of soils across the PTMA are well drained with common soil surface textures being sandy loams and loams, although there are a wide variety of textures represented across the allotment. Rock fragments in the majority of soil profiles range from little to no rock fragments, to gravelly through very stony soils. Soils are commonly moderately deep (50-100 cm) and deep (100-150 cm) to bedrock, but range from very shallow to very deep. Accumulations of silica, carbonates, or clay sometimes exist above the bedrock.
Rangeland Health Assessments (RHA) were conducted at 26 randomly selected sites across the PTMA with results detailed in the RHA and Evaluation (Appendix B). The assessments revealed a majority (20) of the sites had a none to slight, or slight to moderate departure from reference state for surface soil stability; the remaining (six) sites had a moderate to a moderate-extreme departure from reference state. Of the soil surfaces assessed, wind and water erosional features were identified at most of the sites, typically characterized by a loss in top soil, pedestalling, wind scour, rills and water flow patterns. The six sites with moderate and extreme soil loss had noted removal of vegetation due to increased grazing, mainly observed as loss of perennial forbs and deep-rooted grasses within shrub interspaces. Perennial forbs and grasses are important in stabilizing the soil surface and preventing increased soil loss by wind erosion and water runoff.
3.5.7.2 Environmental Consequences Grazing by cattle or wild horses affects soil resources in several ways. Trampling from livestock tends to compact soil, increasing both erosion and surface runoff of water as well as decreasing water infiltration. This can affect the growth of vegetation, especially at sensitive areas such as springs where saturated soil is easily disturbed. Over-grazing of vegetation can increase bare- ground between the interspaces of plants, leading to an increase in bare ground and soil loss through erosion. These impacts can decrease soil stability, and may lead to a loss of soil and vegetation at a site.
69
3.5.7.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Proposed Action, the phased approach would initially reduce the number of cattle to 300 head and limit grazing to August 15 through March 31 (Section 2.2). Cattle would be removed from April 1 through August 14, which would result in no grazing during a portion of the spring and summer months. Pasture fencing would be constructed to allow for a rest and rotation grazing system every three years (Section 2.2.2). Monitoring would ensure goals and objectives are being met, or moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 3, and that livestock- related impacts to water quality are being reduced prior to authorizing phased AUM increases.
Under the Proposed Action, cattle would not graze the allotment during the main part of the growing season. This would reduce grazing pressure and allow for recruitment and recovery of stabilizing vegetation, including perennial forbs and grasses. Since fewer cattle would be authorized to graze throughout a shorter grazing season, soil compaction would be reduced compared to current management. Ground cover would likely increase over time and allow for soil stability to improve by decreasing soil compacting and surface runoff. With increases in vegetation, canopy cover and surface litter would also increase, and thus reduce wind and water erosion of the soil. Under Phase 1, soil impacts would be greatly minimized as vegetation fills in shrub interspaces and stabilizes the soil as a result to the limited season of use for grazing.
As short-term and long-term objectives are met, Phases 2 and 3 would be implemented, and the authorized number of cattle would increase to 526 and 752 head respectively (Section 2.2). Under the Proposed Action, there would be no summer grazing and each pasture would have one year of rest every three years in addition to being grazed during different times of the year (Table 6). This would reduce potential soil impacts relative to current management as the majority of the growing season would have no grazing over the ten-year term of the permit. This would allow for continued vegetative recovery and increased soil stability over time as soil compaction and erosion would be reduced. In addition, each pasture would be rested for one year, on a three- year rotational grazing system, allowing for full rest of areas that have seen continued use in past years. Resting pastures would allow vegetation to recover over the entire growing season, which would reduce soil impacts as vegetation further fills in shrub interspaces. With pasture rest, soil compaction and surface erosion would decrease allowing for heavy use and congregation areas to recover and soil site stability would increase over time. Deep-rooted perennial forbs and grasses would fill interspaces, and litter and canopy cover would increase, allowing for increased infiltration and decreased soil erosion.
Short- and long-term monitoring objectives would ensure soil functions are improving and progress is being made toward achieving Standard 1. Monitoring towards achievement of goals and objectives would allow for negative impacts to soils to be identified, as well as allow for adaptive management changes to be made during the term of the permit. If monitoring objectives are being met, and soil function is improving, cattle numbers can increase; conversely, if objectives are not being met and negative impacts to soil resources are reported, cattle numbers may be reduced to ensure conditions are moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 1. Overall, the Proposed Action would reduce negative impacts to soil resources as identified in the RHA (Appendix B) under the current grazing management system.
70
3.5.7.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under Alternative 2, the phased approach would initially reduce the number of cattle to 150 head and implement grazing year-round (Section 2.3). Pasture fencing would be constructed to allow for a three-year rotational grazing system (Section 2.3.2). Monitoring would ensure goals and objectives are being met, or moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 3, and that livestock- related impacts to water quality are being reduced, prior to authorizing phased AUM increases.
Livestock-related impacts are described in the RHA (Appendix B) and are similar to those described under the Proposed Action (Section 3.5.7.2.1). Reducing the number of cattle during the grazing year, implementing a three-year pasture rotation system, and monitoring progress towards goals and objectives would reduce livestock-related grazing impacts seen under current management, but not as much as would be expected under the Proposed Action due to year- round grazing and no pasture rest. Impacts (such as increased soil compaction and erosion) could increase from April 1 through August 14 since 150 head of cattle would be allowed to graze during that period compared to the Proposed Action, however these impacts would be less than current management.
Although pastures would not have a period of rest, alternating months when cattle are turned out would reduce grazing pressure and allow for recruitment and recovery of stabilizing vegetation, including perennial forbs and grasses. Heavy use and congregation areas would be less compared to current management as these areas would be used during different times of the year under the three year rotational system. Also fewer cattle would be authorized to graze throughout the year compared to current management, therefore soil compaction would be reduced and soil stability could increase as vegetation would be more likely to reproduce with less grazing pressure. Ground cover would likely increase over time and allow for soil stability to improve by decreasing soil compaction and surface runoff. With increases in vegetation, canopy cover and surface litter would also increase, and thus reduce wind and water erosion of the soil.
Similar to the Proposed Action, short- and long-term monitoring objectives would ensure soil functions are improving and progress is being made toward achieving Standard 1. Monitoring towards achievement of goals and objectives would allow for negative impacts to soils to be identified, as well as allow for adaptive management changes to be made during the term of the permit. If monitoring objectives are being met, and soil function is improving, cattle numbers can increase; conversely, if objectives are not being met and negative impacts to soil resources are reported, cattle numbers may decrease to accommodate moving towards achievement of RAC Standard 1. Overall, Alternative 2 would reduce negative impacts to soil resources relative to those identified in the RHA (Appendix B) under the current grazing management system, but not as much as the Proposed Action.
Until pasture fencing could be constructed, cattle would be pushed towards the north during the first year of management; every other year cattle would be moved north to south, then south to north, rotating the location of cattle throughout the allotment. This rotation would not reduce impacts as much as if there were pasture fencing to assist with reduced grazing pressure, however it would reduce impacts relative to current management. Soil resources would have periodic rest throughout each year when cattle were moved out of the area and into a different 71
portion of the allotment. Soil site stability and function would likely improve, reducing livestock-related impacts over time.
3.5.7.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative: Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Permittee Alternative, there would be an initial reduction in the number of cattle to 300 head (from the current 900 head) from November 1 to March 31 and an increase to 300 head (from the current 150 head) from April 1 to October 31 for a year-round consistent herd size, with 50 cattle added to the allotment each year until 658 cattle are reached. The additional 50 cattle would only be authorized each year as range improvements are completed or repaired, and after inspection and approval by the authorized officer. Cattle would be removed from areas when upland vegetation reaches moderate (41-60%) utilization.
There are several areas within the PTMA where current rangeland health standards are not being met. Vegetation recruitment is necessary to improve soil stability and infiltration, which in turn could improve several (if not all) rangeland health standards. A 41 to 60 percent utilization level used as a trigger to move cattle typically would not allow for sufficient recovery or growth of native vegetation, or for appropriate reproduction or recruitment to occur, especially in areas where rangeland health standards are not being met. In areas where native vegetation is in need of recovery, it is common to reduce utilization levels to allow for successful vegetative growth. “In general, during the growing season, plant health is affected by grazing when use levels exceed 50 percent of total current year’s aboveground production by reducing or stopping root growth. In the dormant season, plant health is affected by grazing when use levels exceed 65 percent by reducing thermal cover of remaining stems, removing carbohydrate storage sites, damaging crown buds, etc.” (NRCS, 2018). It is suggested that utilization levels should not exceed 50 percent during the growing season on key species and to rather consider utilization levels of 35 percent during the growing season, in areas where rangelands are in need of vegetation improvement, (or areas receiving less than 10 inches of annual precipitation) (Holechek et. al. 1999 Rangelands, Vol. 21(2)). There are many areas within the PTMA where vegetative recovery is needed to improve soil resources and reduce potential impacts, however under this Alternative recovery would be difficult with these utilization levels (41-60%) set as a trigger for movement. Cattle numbers would be double at the beginning of this grazing schedule during the growing season, and numbers would further increase each year under this Alternative. With no monitoring or objectives set in place to ensure rangeland health was improving, it is likely there would not be sufficient time or opportunity for native vegetation to reproduce or recover, and thus soil impacts would likely increase and standards would decline.
Under this Alternative, the initial reduction in cattle numbers may decrease grazing pressure during the winter months, allowing for some potential vegetative recovery, however there would be double the current authorized number during the summer months and a likely decrease in vegetation recruitment would occur due to growing season grazing and moderate to high utilization triggers. With a reduction in vegetation, soil stability would be decreased and erosion from wind and water may increase. As more cattle are added, soil impacts would likely be most significant at high use and congregation areas, as cattle would not be moved under a rotational system. Soil compaction would increase, reducing water infiltration and increase surface erosion and soil loss. Although cattle may be removed from an area once utilization triggers are met, 72
there is no fencing or private land to ensure cattle do not return to similar or the same use areas. Thus potential soil impacts (reduced soil stability, infiltration, and increase surface compaction) may stay the same, or even increase over time, as vegetation cannot recover as successfully when a 41 to 60 percent utilization trigger is established. Therefore, potential negative soil impacts would be greater under this Alternative than for the Proposed Action and Alternative 2.
Because range improvements would not be available to help disburse cattle under this alternative, soil impacts could be significant in (and surrounding) expected areas of high use and congregation. Vegetation removal may increase due to congregated grazing, decreasing infiltration and increasing surface erosion potential. Soil compaction would also likely increase in areas where soils are more frequently saturated.
3.5.7.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management The current management is comprised of year-round grazing with authorization of 5,667 AUMs; 900 cattle from November 1 to March 31; 150 cattle from April 1 to October 31; and 12 horses from March 1 to February 28. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to soil resources would likely continue with their current trend as described in the RHA (Appendix B).
Under the No Action Alternative, cattle would continue to graze year-round, without any particular rest or rotation to any given area. This would create a large amount of congregated use across the allotment as areas would not be rested, and this would increase the grazing pressure to vegetation and soils in the area, leading to increased soil impacts at congregation sites. This higher concentration of use contributes to soil disturbance and would likely continue to lead to increased loss of soil stability, as well as increase the susceptibility of soils to wind and water erosion, and compaction, as cattle graze at concentration areas and potentially remove more protective perennial forbs and grasses from the shrub interspaces. In addition, soils would continue to be disturbed around already-existing (and still functional) range improvement sites as these areas would not experience rest during the grazing year.
3.5.7.2.5 Alternative 5: No grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under the No Grazing Alternative, the removal of livestock from the PTMA would increase plant vigor, allowing for an increase in litter and organic matter content within the surface horizon to improve soil processes over time. Improvement would be most evident at congregation sites where grazing pressure is currently highest. Soil recovery is generally a slow process, and is dependent on the amount of vegetation that livestock grazing previously impacted, however positive impacts would occur at a faster rate in heavy use areas that would no longer be grazing, allowing perennial vegetation to recover at these sites. Potentially, an increase in annual crop would boost substrate available for soil functional processes. The response from livestock removal would be highest where grasses and forbs thrive and is dependent upon perennial vegetation recovery.
Soil compaction and erosional loss to surface soil structure due to livestock trampling and over grazing would also be reduced. Removal of livestock would reduce bare soil exposure and allow for more vegetative recovery to reduce soil loss from wind and water erosion. Benefits to soils 73
from no grazing use would generally be highest where groundcover slowly re-establishes at grazing congregation areas. The No Grazing Alternative would not eliminate all impacts to soils, since some impacts would still occur across the allotment, especially in susceptible areas, as a result of wild horse use; however these impacts would be considerably less than if livestock were grazing within the allotment. In the long term, litter buildup would increase and soil protection would be greater than for the proposed action or other alternatives.
3.5.7.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements The installation of range improvements under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 would aid in improving soil function, and includes construction of new exclosure fencing, and installation of pipeline, troughs, and spring boxes (Section 2.1.3.2.2.2). During installation of fencing and range improvements, soils would be disturbed around the area of construction. Soil compaction and loss is expected however PDFs would ensure impacts to soils would be minimized (Section 2.1.3). The minimal direct impact to soils from installation of structures would not outweigh the positive benefits the improvements would provide. As range improvements become operational, water availability would likely increase across the allotment aiding in the distribution of cattle herds. As cattle become more distributed, congregation areas are anticipated to be used less, allowing for revegetation and soil stability to improve.
Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the installation of pasture and riparian fencing (pipe-and-rail or 4-wire) would cause temporary localized disturbance to surface soil as fence posts are installed and materials are staged during construction. Approximately 45 miles of pasture fence would be installed, during which soil would be disturbed and some compaction and soil loss may be experienced. Soil disturbance would be highest where fence posts would be placed directly into the ground, however there may also be slight disturbance associated with vehicle use during installation. In addition, cattle may also walk along the perimeter of pasture and spring exclosure fence which may cause trailing, resulting in reduction of protective vegetation and an increase in bare ground and soil compaction directly where the trailing forms. Although some localized soil compaction and loss is expected, the long-term benefits from installation of pasture and riparian fencing outweigh the minimal and localized negative impacts. Pasture fences would allow for rest and rotation of land throughout the allotment; and riparian exclosure fence would prevent cattle and wild horses from accessing sensitive saturated soils commonly found at springs. Pasture fence would reduce grazing pressure as cattle would be rotated through the pastures during different times of the year during the grazing season. Additionally, under the Proposed Action, pastures would also be rested allowing for further recovery of vegetation. This would decrease soil compaction, erosion, and vegetative loss seen at heavy use (congregation) sites, and would allow soils to recover when areas are rested or have less use. Overall, pasture and riparian fencing would allow for improved soil function by reducing livestock-related impacts to soils.
Under Alternative 3, range improvements would have a temporary localized impact to soils by increasing soil compaction and loss where these improvements would be repaired, maintained or installed (as necessary). Maintenance of wells would mostly impact previously disturbed soils, however could cause some additional soil compaction and loss through erosion to areas previously undisturbed if additional drilling or heavy equipment was necessary to improve a well. Soils would also be disturbed when spring improvements were repaired or constructed, 74
although these would likely be similar to impacts described under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Soil would be disturbed, and some compaction and soil loss would occur, when range structures are installed at springs; soils would also be temporarily impacted where fence posts are installed and equipment is staged. Direct impacts would be minimized as range improvements must be inspected prior to installation or maintenance activities are conducted to insure that BLM specifications and PDFs have been met. Range improvements would be inspected by BLM during and after construction to ensure improvement is follow the PDF’s to ensure impacts to soils are minimized.
3.5.8 Vegetation 3.5.8.1 Affected Environment Major vegetation communities within the PTMA consist of Salt-desert shrub, Sagebrush/grass plant communities, Pinyon-Juniper woodlands, and desert playas. The dominant plant species include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), Bailey’s greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus var. baileyi), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and spiny menodora (Menodora spinescens). There are 29 applicable Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) within the allotment with about 43,000 acres currently classified as unknown. Depending on the ecological site potential, plant composition by annual above ground production, ranges from 10-50 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs, and 45-85 percent shrubs. Section 3.5 in the RHA further describes the plant community types and ESDs and Section 2.2 in the RHA describes the completed monitoring on the PTMA.
3.5.8.2 Environmental Consequences of Vegetation 3.5.8.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management The Proposed Action was designed to address the major areas of concern in the RHA evaluation, specifically the loss of key perennial grass species in the uplands and riparian areas, as well as the reduction of the palatable salt desert shrubs that are used as a key forage species in the salt- desert shrub plant communities. The initial reduction in authorized grazing in Phase 1 would allow for rest during the critical growing season for many of the species. This would allow for recruitment and recovery of these key forage species and increase overall vigor and density of the dominant plant communities. Standard 1 in the SDD document (Appendix C) further explains the effect grazing has on perennial grass and shrubs.
The specific short and long term monitoring objectives are designed to ensure that recovery of these major plant communities is occurring before AUMs can be increased under Phases 2 and 3. Under the Proposed Action, there would be no grazing between April 1 and August 14 (which includes part of the critical growing season and summer months) and each pasture would have one year of rest every three years as well as being grazing during different times of the year. According to Hormay and Talbot (1961), a major cause of range deterioration is selective close grazing of plants and range areas in similar yearly patterns of use, and an effective way to control this selective grazing by livestock and counter its harmful effects is to rest these areas from grazing at appropriate intervals. The expected outcome of the rest-rotation grazing strategy on the plant communities within the PTMA would be the following: (1) greater vigor of established plants, (2) greater seed production, (3) higher nutrient content of key forage species, (4) larger cover percentages for desirable species, (5) increased species composition, and (6) more 75
seedlings of desirable species. This would lead to improved rangeland health and an increase in desirable plant communities, and this would occur to a greater extent than the other grazing alternatives.
Until pasture fencing can be constructed, cattle would be turned out in the north and pushed towards the south in even years, then rotating to turnout in the south to the north in odd years. This would replicate pasture rotation but without fencing the permittee would have to increase management and herding of the cattle to ensure utilization levels are not exceeded and that the cattle are moved to a new location when Annual Livestock Indicators (Section 2.1.3) are reached. Water hauling and supplements may also need to be increased to move and keep cattle in new locations without pasture fences. This may increase areas where cattle congregate and increase potential impacts to vegetation around these sites. This effect may be mitigated by the improvement of overall distribution and more uniform utilization throughout the allotment.
3.5.8.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under Alternative 2, pastures would not be rested and cattle would graze year-round. However, pastures would be on a three-year rotational grazing system where each pasture would be grazed during different times of the year, and the number of authorized livestock would be initially less than the Proposed Action. A deferred-rotational grazing system allows a better opportunity for key forage plants to maintain and gain vigor, store carbohydrates and set seed when compared to continuous year-round grazing in a use area or pasture (Holecheck et al. 2004). A drawback of this system is that the allotment is grazed year-round and pastures will be grazed during the summer season once during the three rotation period and once during the early spring in the three rotation period. In arid areas such as the PTMA, one or more years of rest will generally not compensate for or undo one year of severe defoliation during the growing season. In particular, riparian vegetation such as sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.), recover well from heavy grazing when given periodic rest during the growing season. In contrast, the surrounding upland vegetation are easily damaged by heavy use and do not recover as quickly. Therefore, it is important that once the Annual Livestock Indicators outlined in the monitoring objectives are reached, cattle are moved out of that area to a new location on the allotment by means of herding, water and supplements. Overall, Alternative 2 would not reduce grazing impacts as much the Proposed Action, but may be more economically feasible for the permittee because it would not require that cattle be removed from the allotment at the end of the winter grazing season.
3.5.8.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Permittee Alternative, there would be an initial reduction in the number of cattle to 300 head (from the current 900 head) from 11/1 to 3/31 and an increase to 300 head (from the current 150 head) from 4/1 to 10/31 for a year-round consistent herd size; with 50 cattle added to the allotment each year until a total of 658 cattle is reached. The additional 50 cattle would only be authorized each year as range improvements are completed or repaired, after inspection and approval by the authorized officer. This continuous year-round grazing approach with no pastures does not allow for rest during the growing season. Additionally, allowing moderate utilization (41-60%) on the entire allotment without rest may not allow the upland vegetation to 76
recover before cattle return to the same area, especially if utilization reaches the 60% level. At this level more than half of the available forage has been consumed and if the key forage species are repeatedly grazed at this level plant vigor will be reduced and potentially lead to death of the plant and/or no reproduction. This alternative proposes to fix a number of non-functioning water improvements; this will assist with distributing cattle more evenly throughout the allotment than under current grazing management. As more cattle are added, areas where cattle typically congregate would likely receive the greatest impacts to vegetation, especially during the hot summer months when cattle typically congregate longer around riparian areas. Because there is no pasture fencing under this alternative or proposed means to remove or distribute cattle other than by water sources, impacts as described in the RHA and SDD (Appendix B and C) would likely continue or increase. In addition under Alternative 3, there are many range improvements that are currently not in functioning order, and lack any protective fencing, to help disburse cattle and directly protect the riparian vegetation. Without the means to protect the riparian vegetation which increasing the number of cattle during the growing season and summer months, these critical riparian areas would continue to degrade. Therefore, it is likely that the current impacts would continue under this Alternative or potentially decline in condition as cattle numbers are increased every year.
3.5.8.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management The current management is comprised of year-round grazing for a total of 5,667 AUMs; 900 cattle from 11/01 to 03/31; 150 cattle from 04/01 to 10/31; and 12 horses from 03/01 to 02/28. There is no active management of livestock and livestock disbursement is primarily regulated by natural means, such as the availability of functional water systems. Cattle would continue to graze throughout the allotment during all seasons, without rest provided to any given area. The effect of this current management is analyzed and discussed thoroughly in the RHA and SDD documents. If existing non-functioning water sources were to be improved and/or increased water hauling and supplementation were to occur, then cattle may be better dispersed throughout the allotment and riparian areas may see some improvement. Otherwise, under current management with no maintenance of improvements or increased herding, rangeland health conditions would continue to decline.
3.5.8.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under this alternative, most palatable plant species on the allotment would likely increase in cover, distribution and density. However, depending on the species and its current status in the community, not all species would improve at the same rate. Some species which are currently at low levels as a result of heavy past grazing have likely passed the threshold for recovery, and would not be expected to increase in the absence of vegetation treatments.
3.5.8.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements The proposed site-specific range improvements would exclude livestock from riparian areas and associated vegetation around the springs on approximately 4 acres; which is less than 0.5% of the allotment but these riparian zones are some of the most important areas of the range for wildlife and water quality. Excluding livestock from these riparian areas would allow for riparian- wetland vegetation to recover and reestablish in areas where vegetation was previously removed 77
due to heavy grazing throughout the year. Once, long-term monitoring objectives (Section 2.1.3) are achieved in these riparian areas cattle may be allowed to graze within them at the end of the growing season so impacts on the vegetation and vegetative growth would be minimal, but the grazing would assist in reducing thatch and assist in maintaining species diversity (Swanson et al. 2015). Direct impacts during construction would be minimized by following the PDF’s (Appendix I). There would be short-term disturbance to the riparian vegetation during installation of the spring box and pipeline but such disturbance would be temporary and limited to a small area, and vegetation would be expected to recover quickly following the protection of the exclosure and exclusion of livestock.
Impacts from the construction of the proposed pasture fencing may include occasional pruning of vegetation found directly in the path of the fence lines. For fences and cattle guards, a 6-foot corridor on either side of the centerline of the proposed fence is the proposed disturbance. During construction, vegetation would be crush from vehicle traffic and possible cattle trailing would occur along the fence line. This may result in permanent damage to the vegetation within that proposed disturbance corridor. Intermittent cross-country travel for fence maintenance has the potential to temporarily damage vegetation resources. Projects would be designed and constructed to conform to BLM specifications as identified in BLM Handbook H-1741-1 and follow the PDF’s (Appendix I). The disturbance to affected areas would be short term and vegetation would be expected to recover naturally.
3.5.9 Wild Horse and Burro 3.5.9.1 Affected Environment A large portion of the Pilot Mountain HMA occurs within the PTMA. The HMA is comprised of approximately 475,440 BLM acres and extends into the Dunlop Allotment located within the Battle Mountain District. Approximately 255,040 of the HMA acres fall within the CCDO with roughly 91% of those acres contained within the PTMA, 5% within the Cedar Mountain Allotment, and 4% within the Gillis Mountain Allotment.
Appropriate management level (AML) for the Pilot Mountain HMA was determined by allocating available forage between wild horses, livestock, and wildlife by allotment. The AML within the Pilot-Table Mountain was established in the 1993 Final Multiple Use Decision. AML for the HMA was established at a range of 249-415. Within that AML the PTMA portion is 302. A wild horse population inventory was completed for the entire Pilot Mountain HMA (Appendix B, Appendix A, Map 4) in May 2017. A total of 583 horses were counted with 388 of those located outside of the HMA (and outside of the PTMA) on Hawthorne Army Depot land adjacent to Walker Lake leaving only 195 horses within or near the HMA. Of those 195, sixteen were noted on the Battle Mountain District side, 25 on the Cedar Mountain Allotment section, 35 within the Gillis Mountain Allotment area of the HMA, and 135 wild horses within the PTMA (Appendix L Map 11). Based on the May 2017 inventory and projected recruitment rate of 15% annually, the current wild horse population on the HMA is estimated to be 770 with the largest populations of wild horses, estimated at 512 head, continuing to be located on the Depot land. The remaining 258 horses are scattered throughout the HMA with the majority of of these remaining horses located in the PTMA.
78
3.5.9.2 Environmental Consequences of Wild Horse and Burro 3.5.9.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Alternative, authorized livestock grazing in Phase 1 would be at reduced levels. There would be no changes to the forage allocated to wild horses, although reduced livestock grazing numbers and a shorter season of use may increase forage available for wild horses and reduce competition for essential wild horse habitat resources. Phases 2 and 3 would each increase cattle AUMs while retaining the eight month-long grazing season. Neither of these phases would increase livestock grazing above the current permitted AUMs and livestock would not be competing with wild horses for water and forage yearlong, which would have a beneficial effect for the herds.
3.5.9.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Year-round Grazing Alternative, impacts to wild horses would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action. Competition for resources between cattle and wild horses would continue to occur year-round but livestock AUMs would remain below the preference of 7,900 AUMs and until long-term monitoring objective are achieved, AUMs would be below the current permitted 5,667 AUMs. Retaining resource competition for forage and water during the summer months would be less beneficial to horses within the HMA.
3.5.9.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management Under the Permittee Alternative, impacts to wild horses would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action. While the potential for competition of available forage would likely increase due to increase in permitted livestock AUMs to 7,900 AUMs. The forage amount allotted to wild horses would remain the same. Retaining resource competition for forage and water during the summer months and increasing livestock AUMs from the current maximum of 5,667 AUMs to 7,900 AUMs year-round along with no decrease to a maximum number of 150 head in the hot season grazing (FMUD1993) would not have a beneficial effect on the horses within the HMA. Maintenance of range improvement water sources would have a beneficial effect for the horses and reduce competition for limited water sources.
3.5.9.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management Under the No Action Alternative, authorized grazing would continue at existing levels and seasons of use. There would be no changes to the forage allocated to wild horses and no additional impacts to the free-roaming behaviors of wild horses in the HMA. Subsequent wild horse removals would still be required to maintain animal populations in a thriving natural ecological balance. Competition between livestock and wild horses over the limited water sources and forage around those water sources would continue.
79
3.5.9.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under the No Grazing Alternative there would be no grazing authorized in the Allotment. Elimination of livestock grazing would result in increased available forage for wild horses. Competition for habitat and available resources between horses and livestock would not occur on the PTMA resulting in a positive impact to the horses within the HMA.
3.5.9.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements Range Improvement Projects/Maintenance are proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
The proposed spring developments and exclosures would prevent horses from accessing forage and water located within the exclosure. This would not have a noticeable effect on overall forage availability because the riparian exclosure area is of negligible size compared to the area of available forage outside of the exclosures. Access to water from the spring sources would be available outside of the exclosures thereby having an insignificant effect on horses within the PTMA.
The proposed Highway 361 fence would essentially split the HMA in half but there has been little movement across the highway by the wild horse bands. Prior to 1986, this HMA was considered to be two separate herd areas divided by the highway (FMUD 1993). Permanent sources of water would continue to be available on both sides. Fencing on either side of the highway would be open ended and would not adversely affect the free roaming behavior of wild horses throughout the HMA. Young stallions should be able to wander between pastures allowing for genetic flow. The genetic diversity would be monitored through periodic gathers. Should inbreeding be perceived as becoming a problem, horses from other HMAs could be released into the Pilot Mountain HMA to aid in the perpetuation of their genetic diversity.
3.5.10 Noxious and Invasive, Non-native Species 3.5.10.1 Affected Environment Within the allotment, three noxious weed species, as designated by the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NAC 555.010), have been mapped and previously authorized for treatment following BLM protocol specific to the Carson City District through previous decisions. Two of these species; Russian Knapweed (Acroptilon repens) and Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans) are designated as Category B noxious weeds. The third noxious weed species documented on the allotment is Salt Cedar or Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), a Category C noxious weed.
The Russian Knapweed infestation is an isolated population existing in the southern part of the allotment south approximately one mile from Sodaville, NV. Similarly, the Musk Thistle infestation is an isolated infestation in the central area of the allotment, in a drainage southwest of Middle Spring 1.7 miles. Salt Cedar infestations have been recorded at thirteen locations on the allotment, specifically in the Gillis Spring, Paint Rock Spring, Paint Rock Canyon, Rhodes Salt Marsh, Upper Summit Spring, Lower Summit Spring, Blue Link Spring, Kinkaid Pipeline, Wild Rose Spring, Whiskey Spring, Deadhorse Wells, Poinsettia Spring and Rawhide Hot Spring areas.
80
Invasive species present on the allotment are mostly comprised of Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian Thistle (Salsola kali), Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) and Annual Mustards (Brassica spp. and Sisymbrium spp.). These species are ubiquitous on the allotment, and occur most frequently in heavily disturbed areas. Both current and historical disturbances have contributed to increased frequency of invasive species.
Other non-native species, not categorized as invasive or noxious, are also present on the allotment. These were mostly introduced for reclamation purposes around mining disturbances. The most common non-native reclamation species used on this allotment are Forage Kochia (Bassia prostrata) and Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). An example of this type of reclamation site that now contains non-native species is adjacent to highway 361 on the southeastern side of Calavada Summit, but many such sites exist on the allotment as a result of mining.
Disturbances to soil and the native vegetation community, which can include overgrazing, allow for the establishment and spread of noxious and invasive species. Noxious and invasive species are rapid colonizers of bare ground, their propagules can often spread with livestock as they move from infested areas to non-infested locations. Therefore, grazing management should be implemented in a manner to maintain native plant communities, by not repeatedly defoliating these species beyond recovery. Such repeated overgrazing, would provide a window for establishment and infestation of these more undesirable species, lowering the overall value of the rangeland as a source of forage as well for its other resource values (such as for wildlife habitat).
3.5.10.2 Environmental Consequences of Noxious and Invasive, Non-native Species 3.5.10.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Impacts from Grazing Management Under this alternative, it is expected that most noxious and invasive species will remain static or decrease. Grazing native, preferred forage species when dormant, and allowing them to recover during the growing season, will ensure these species reach full maturity and replenish carbohydrate root reserves. Implementing periodic total rest, along with the management of grazing within defined pastures will further accelerate this pattern of recovery. This cycle of grazing disturbance and growing season recovery will allow for a more resilient plant community that is less vulnerable to invasive and noxious species invasion. By repeating this grazing prescription, it should allow for more slowly adapted species to proliferate and reclaim suitable areas. Invasive species should become less frequent.
An exception to this pattern is the response from Cheatgrass, an annual grass (Bromus tectorum). For short periods during the active growing season in late fall and early spring, Cheatgrass is a palatable forage species that may be grazed by livestock, especially when more highly desirable forage species are not present. When dormant, the awn (sharp vegetative structure) characteristics and low nutritional value of this species inhibit livestock utilization. Cheatgrass is generally dormant when other more favorable perennial grasses and desirable browse species are actively growing. Under alternative, livestock would be able to graze during both the fall and spring periods of palatability for Cheatgrass, which would help reduce stands in both density and area.
81
3.5.10.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under this alternative, livestock grazing disturbances are expected to be more impactful to desirable perennial grasses and other preferred native browse species. This impact could increase the spread and establishment of noxious and invasive species when compared to the preferred alternative. Repeated defoliation events, without adequate periods of recovery, ultimately result in plant mortality, leaving in their vacancies, increased bare ground and thereby opportunities for noxious and invasive species to colonize new areas. While the implementation of pasture rotations should alleviate some of this grazing pressure, this grazing prescription poses a more significant risk than the preferred alternative, which allows for complete recovery during the growing season. Implementation of year-round grazing, in a manner that would not increase invasive and noxious species, requires increased grazing management and is still less likely to be successful than a grazing system that includes a mandated rest and recovery period.
Under this alternative, the response from Cheatgrass is expected to increase. By reducing grazing pressure during periods of palatability and distributing it more evenly throughout the year, livestock will be afforded with a higher degree of grazing selectivity, reducing consumption of Cheatgrass and allowing it to increase in both density and area.
3.5.10.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Impacts from Grazing Management Under this alternative, livestock grazing disturbances are expected to be more impactful to desirable perennial grasses and other preferred native browse species. This impact could increase the spread and establishment of noxious and invasive species when compared to the preferred alternative. Repeated defoliation events, without adequate periods of recovery, ultimately result in plant mortality, leaving in their vacancies, increased bare ground and thereby opportunities for noxious and invasive species to colonize new areas.
The implementation of grazing management that seeks to improve cattle distribution could alleviate some of this grazing pressure. However, this grazing prescription poses a more significant risk than the preferred alternative, which always allows for complete recovery during the growing season. Implementation of year-round grazing, in a manner that would not increase invasive and noxious species, requires increased grazing management and is less likely to succeed than grazing system that includes a mandated rest and recovery period.
Under this alternative, the response from Cheatgrass is expected to increase. By reducing grazing pressure during periods of palatability and distributing it more evenly throughout the year, livestock will be afforded with a higher degree of grazing selectivity, reducing consumption of Cheatgrass and allowing it increase in both density and area.
3.5.10.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Impacts from Grazing Management A continuation of the current grazing management on the allotment is expected to increase invasive species and noxious weeds both in frequency and area. Livestock congregation around watering areas has denuded the vegetation increasing bare ground and thereby increasing the risk
82
of colonization by these species. Because noxious and invasive species are not selected by livestock for grazing, these species increase while other desirable species decrease. Repeated defoliation of desirable perennial grasses and preferred browse species creates vacancies in the plant community that can be exploited by the rapid colonization characteristics of noxious and invasive species.
3.5.10.2.5 Alternative 5: No grazing Impacts from Grazing Management Under this alternative, it is expected that noxious species would remain static in both frequency and area, with the exception of previously authorized vegetative treatments coming to fruition aimed at treating these species. An exception to this rule would be the response from Cheatgrass, which we would expect to become more abundant in frequency and area. Dense stands of cheatgrass, which can occur in the absence of grazing create persistent infestations which become harder to control. An exception to this trend could occur with the expansion of a wild horse population, which can graze Cheatgrass in the absence of more desirable forage species, similar to the foraging characteristics of domestic cattle.
3.5.10.2.6 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements Disturbances in areas with a known infestation can allow noxious weeds and invasive species to increase. The bare ground created through disturbances is more likely to be colonized by noxious and invasive species when propagules and nearby infestations are present in the area. It is expected that these impact would be minimal with proposed range improvements, as the BLM will implement the best management practices required under the CCDO’s Land Use Plan and programmatic EA for Integrated Pest Management and set forth in Appendix I of this document.
Mitigation and best management measures include washing equipment to rid the machinery of propagules to limit the introduction of other noxious and invasive species. Another practice includes using material that is certified weed free by the Nevada Department of Agriculture when required for construction. Finally, the BLM’s ongoing weed management actions which implement monitoring of treatments, inventory non-surveyed areas and treat existing infestations meets the BLM’s requirements by law for controlling these species and would mitigate the impacts caused by new disturbances associated with range improvements and would reduce the potential for the spread of noxious and invasive species.
3.5.11 Socioeconomics 3.5.11.1 Affected Environment This analysis is based on the following assumptions: Current active management on the allotment is minimal. Under each of the alternatives evaluated, it is assumed that standard ranch management practices would be implemented, including active herd movement for forage optimization, regular veterinary care, and so on. These assumptions mean that both costs of operation and gross revenues would be higher than they currently are. Based on regional economic impact analysis, each $100,000 in new sales of cattle in Churchill and Mineral counties would generate approximately $30,000 in additional economic activity and would support 0.5 full or part-time jobs in the cattle industry and 0.2 additional jobs within the two- county area. Available data imply that cattle ranching in the region depends on income from outside of the region to be economically viable. 83
3.5.11.2 Environmental Consequences of Socioeconomics 3.5.11.2.1 Combined Alternative Analysis An evaluation of the ranch-level economic impacts from the proposed alternatives—using returns under current minimal allotment management as the basis for comparison—found that with the exception of phases 1 and 2 of Alternative 2 (which would each result in moderate decreases in net revenue) as well as the no grazing alternative, under each of the proposed alternatives the expected annual net revenue to the ranch would increase. The alternative with the highest expected increase in net revenue is Alternative 1, which would result in more than a doubling of net revenue when fully implemented in phase 3.
3.5.11.2.2 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative- Graduated AUM Increase Under Alternative 3, expected annual net revenue would increase by slightly more than 50%.
3.5.11.2.3 Alternative 5: No Grazing Under the no grazing alternative, annual net revenue would drop by approximately 50%. Although gross revenue under the no grazing alternative would drop substantially, a one-time lump-sum of income would be realized through the sale of existing livestock and could generate a ten-year revenue stream if invested in a low-risk financial asset.
3.5.11.2.4 Impacts of Constructing Range Improvements When a grazing plan includes range improvements, it is common for the BLM to provide materials and for the permittee to provide labor for installing those improvements. While there is true economic value to the rancher of the time committed to range improvement projects, ranches normally do not count those hours as a cost of operation. The costs associated with installing range improvements are not included in the ranch-level economic analysis in this document.
3.5.12 Wilderness Study Area 3.5.12.1 Affected Environment The Gabbs WSA (NV-030-407) is located in Mineral County, 30 miles east of Hawthorne, NV and consists of 79,600 acres of public lands. There is one 40 acre private inholding and three additional private parcels that are not part of, but partially located within the WSA boundary. The WSA is bounded on the northwest by roads and mining disturbance around Poinsettia Spring Mine, and on the northeast side by a combination of the main Finger Rock Wash Road, lesser roads, mining disturbance near roads, and by a private property boundary. The remaining boundary around the southern end of the unit is comprised of a combination of State Highway 23, the main road in Petrified Wash, lesser roads, mining disturbances and private property boundaries. The WSA is approximately 16 miles in length from north to south and varies in width from 3 to 15 miles east to west. The WSA is located entirely within the northern half of the PTMA. At the time of designation as a WSA in 1980, the BLM recommended that all 79,600 acres be released from wilderness consideration due to other potential resource uses such as mineral exploration and extraction.
84
3.5.12.2 Environmental Consequences of Wilderness Study Area Section 603(c) of FLPMA requires the BLM to manage WSAs so as not to impair the suitability of these areas for preservation as wilderness. More specifically, the BLM’s policy is to continue resource uses on lands designated as WSAs as long as they are done in a manner that maintains the area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness. Livestock grazing is considered a grandfathered and acceptable resource use within WSAs and can therefore be allowed if it was authorized during the 1976 grazing fee year.
Section 603(c) also provides for the continuation of grazing on lands under wilderness review, provided that in managing the public lands, the BLM shall by “regulation or otherwise” take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their resources, or to afford environmental protection. If existing grazing management practices are found to be a significant factor in the failure to achieve rangeland health standards, new grazing management practices may be established as needed if they meet the non-impairment standard or one of the exceptions as established in BLM Manual 6330 however, the new practices would not be considered a grandfathered use once authorized.
Improper grazing and grazing management can have a negative impact on the wilderness character and values through alteration of the native vegetation shape, form and composition, the development of multiple trails leading to water sources, the degradation of riparian areas and springs, and the development of denuded areas associated with livestock loafing areas. It is important to note that grazing management practices (e.g. number of AUMs, season of use etc.) authorized during the 1976 grazing fee year may not be changed solely because the use may impair a WSA’s suitability for preservation as wilderness so it must also be addressed under the attainment of rangeland health standards.
3.5.12.2.1 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Under the Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only Alternative, the reduction in the number of cattle from the existing year round grazing to a seven and one-half month period would reduce the amount of time cattle would utilize key forage plant species with the Gabbs WSA and allow for a longer growing season. This action would reduce the impact to native vegetation as well as spring and riparian sources in areas within the Gabbs WSA where cattle tend to congregate due to limited water sources. The reduced foraging in the upland areas and especially the water sources in turn would reduce the negative impacts to the visual quality of the wilderness character where grazing occurs. The reduced grazing season would also decrease the chance of recreationist sighting cattle, which many wilderness enthusiasts perceive as a degradation of wilderness values.
The Proposed Action grazing management system would move towards meeting the established Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health which would serve to improve and maintain the wilderness character of the Gabbs WSA in areas that have previously been negatively impacted by overgrazing, loafing and excessive trailing to water sources. Maintenance of existing range improvements and construction of the exclosure fencing around the Corral Spring complex would be conducted under the authority of FLPMA and BLM Manual 6330.
85
3.5.12.2.2 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Under Alternative 2, Success of this alternative will depend upon the construction of pasture fencing that would allow management of the cattle as proposed. The GWSA falls within the Deadhorse-Poinsettia pasture and grazing would be limited to four months of the year, which would be a reduction from the current year round schedule. It can be anticipated grazing impacts to wilderness character would be reduced, providing a resting period for vegetation and riparian areas to recover though impacts from wild horses would still be present. The number of cattle authorized on the allotment would be implemented in three phases starting out with 150 head of cattle. Additional cattle would be authorized under the second and third phase only if rangeland health standards are being met. This approach should provide additional management of cattle within the GWSA to ensure areas are not overgrazed. There would also be reduced chances of recreationists encountering cattle or cattle operations when they are exploring the GWSA.
3.5.12.2.3 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative- Graduated AUM Increase Under alternative 3, grazing would be authorized on a year round basis but there would be an initial reduction in the number of permitted cattle to 300 head. Additional cattle would be added as water sources were developed. Under this proposal, cattle would be able to access and utilize the GWSA year round and there would be no resting period for vegetation or riparian area recovery. Impacts to the GWSA could be anticipated to remain the same as under the existing permit. Since RHA standards are not currently being met and impacts to the GWSA is evident in the upland and riparian areas, it can be assumed that negative impacts to the wilderness character would continue. The chance of recreationists encountering cattle or cattle operations when they are exploring the GWSA would be high on a year round basis and the ability to have a quality wilderness experience would be low.
3.5.12.2.4 Alternative 4: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, grazing would continue to be authorized on a year round basis. As the RHA documented, rangeland health would continue to decline, contributing to negative impacts on wilderness characteristics and values. The lack of active management would continue to occur and cattle would congregate around water sources which would further impact the native vegetation and visual quality of the area. Lack of maintenance on range improvements and providing for the redesign of Corral Spring would result in the continued decline of the natural process in the spring and riparian areas, further impacting the quality of wilderness character and values. Recreationists would continue to be exposed to areas of overgrazing, non-functioning water sources and areas of concentrated manure.
3.5.12.2.5 Alternative 5: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, the removal of cattle from the Gabbs WSA would have the greatest positive impacts to wilderness character and values. Foraging would be limited to wild horses, mule deer, pronghorn and big horn sheep, thereby reducing impacts to native vegetation and key forage species over time. Due to the impacts of wild horses, maintenance of existing range improvements and modification of the Corral Spring exclosure fence may still occur. Overall, recreational values would improve since both upland and riparian habitat should improve. Due to the reduced chance of sighting cattle or cattle operations, the wilderness visitor experience would greatly improve.
86
3.5.12.2.6 Impacts of Construction Range Improvements Maintenance of range improvement projects are authorized under BLM Manual 6330 Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas, Section 1.6.D.3.a.i, which allows pre-FLPMA livestock developments to continue to be used and maintained in the same manner and to the same degree as such use was being conducted when FLPMA was authorized in 1976. Maintenance actions on existing range improvements within a WSA also meet the exception to non-impairment criteria in BLM Manual 6330-, Section 1.6.C.2.f, protection or enhancement of wilderness characteristics or values and Section 1.6.D.10.c.i and ii, water development and fences.
Range improvements that are located within the Gabbs WSA would continue to be maintained under the authorities cited in the above paragraph for the Proposed Alternative and Alternatives 2 and 3. Maintenance would be limited to improvements that follow the criteria listed in BLM Manual 6330. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, maintenance of the range improvements may still be completed by the BLM due to the action of wild horses that continue to impact spring and riparian areas. The goal of the maintenance would be to reduce impairment to the springs and improve the natural ecological functioning condition, as well as restoration of native vegetation, which would serve to enhance and restore the wilderness character in areas that have been negatively impacted by cattle and wild horses. These range improvements will continue to benefit the natural functioning of the ecosystem, which outweigh the presence of human developments and any loss of naturalness or outstanding recreational opportunities caused by the improvements.
The wilderness characteristics of the Corral Spring area have been severely impacted by drought and intensive and concentrated use by cattle and wild horses. Impacts include the denuding of vegetation and compaction of soil to the extent that water flow through the spring has been greatly reduced. Section 1.6.A.2 of the WSA manual and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 outline the characteristics required of every wilderness. Actions that clearly benefit a WSA by protecting or enhancing these characteristics are allowable even if they are impairing, though they must still be carried out in a manner that is least disturbing to the site. While fencing in general can be considered an intrusion or impact to wilderness values based on the guidelines for the management of wilderness character, the benefits to the natural functioning of the ecosystem outweigh the visual impacts caused by the new development.
At Corral Spring, the BLM would be remove the old spring box and replace it with a corrugated metal spring box, which would be buried and covered with gravel using a small backhoe. A 2” black polypro irrigation pipe up to 300 feet in length running from the spring box to the trough would be visually concealed by being buried in a small trench excavated by backhoe or hand. A water trough approximately 3ft X 6ft X 3ft deep and painted with an acceptable color from the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart to blend in to the surroundings would be installed above ground outside of the exclosure fencing for use by cattle and horses. Overflow water from the trough would be routed to flow back into the riparian area. The two holding corrals would be repaired as a maintenance action using the original specifications as can best be determined, in accordance with the Grandfathered Uses exceptions to non-impairment under authority of Section 1.6.C.2.e.
87
In addition to the maintenance, the BLM is proposing to remove the derelict exclosure fence from the upper spring and construct a new exclosure fence around the perimeter of the spring complex. This action will allow for protection of the riparian area and vegetation from further degradation. The perimeter of the fence would encompass an area of approximately 1.7 acres and require approximately 1,400 feet of black carbon steel post and rail material that would rust to a natural brown color. This action would be accomplished under authority of BLM Manual 6330, Section 1.6.D.3.a.ii that allows for new livestock developments that would enhance or protect wilderness characteristics. The new fence design and removal of the non-functional, visually impairing exclosure would actually reduce the visual impacts by providing for a more functional and visually pleasing exclosure that would better blend in with the environment and contribute to the enhancement of the native vegetation that has been lost or degraded.
Broadcast seeding with native seed mix at the end of all construction activities would be completed to assist in restoration of the area, reduce significant soil loss, and restore the wilderness character of the site. The restoration activity would also reduce the potential for infestation of invasive weeds and help restore the natural functioning condition of the spring and riparian areas in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Section D.7.c, Watershed Rehabilitation With the exception of the spring box replacement, soil disturbance during installation of the fence would be minimal since construction would be completed manually using hand tools such as augers, post pounders and fencing tools (Appendix L, Map 7).
Access to Corral Spring is along a minimally-maintained, cherry-stemmed route from Rawhide Road to a private parcel located at the mouth of Paint Rock Canyon and then a one-mile section of designated primitive route (Way 407.18 or W18) that runs from the private parcel and ends at Corral Spring. No new motorized access would be required due to the existing cherry-stemmed route and designated way. The 1980 Initial Inventory Report for WSAs recorded that the Corral Spring development and holding corrals were in place prior to designation of the Gabbs WSA in 1980. Based on photographs and reported condition of the developments, it appears that the range improvements existed prior to 1976. Range Improvement file (RIPs No. 546468) show that the BLM maintained the improvements in 1988 under the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review.
3.5.13 Cumulative Impacts 3.5.13.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Past actions considered are those whose impacts to one or more of the affected resources have persisted to present day. Present actions are those occurring at the time of this evaluation and during implementation of the Proposed Action. RFFAs constitute those actions that are known or could reasonably be anticipated to occur within the analysis area for each resource, within a time frame appropriate to the expected impacts from the Proposed Action.
Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions: On the basis of aerial photographic data, current GIS records and analysis, the following past and present actions have been identified within the cumulative assessment area: maintaining and using roads and trails (transportation and access); mining and energy development (solar and geothermal); dispersed recreational activities; impacts to vegetation communities, wild horses and livestock grazing management. 88
Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing has had a long history in the region and on the PTMA dating back to the late 1800’s. Today, it is one of the dominant uses in the cumulative impact assessment area. Throughout its history, ranching has remained a dispersed activity characterized by localized areas of more intensive use. In order to support grazing of the PTMA, a variety of range improvement projects have been implemented through the years. These include fences, cattle guards, wells, vegetative treatments, spring developments, reservoirs, and water pipelines. However, many of these range improvement projects within the PTMA have not been maintained and are no longer functional.
Transportation Access On the PTMA past and present actions within the assessment area are supported by a transportation system which include county, paved, graded roads and two-track routes. These transportation routes are used for public access and federal, state, and local government managing agencies.
Dispersed Recreational Activities Dispersed recreation occurs within the assessment area and includes: wildlife viewing, rock hounding, hunting, off-highway vehicle use and camping. There are also Special Recreation Permit events such as off-highway vehicle races that have occurred on roads throughout the allotment. All of these actions could continue throughout the allotment in future years.
Mining and Energy Development There has been historical mining scattered throughout the region and on the Pilot-Table Mountain Allotment. Today, there is one operating gold mine and one mine in closure, with current prospecting throughout the allotment, primarily in the mountains within the allotment. There is also one solar energy project and one geothermal energy project currently operating, as well as geothermal exploration surveys throughout the lower elevation valleys in the PTMA. There is one current and one expired mineral material site within the allotment which are typically project based. With current exploration there could be potential for future mining and geothermal development.
Wild Horse Management In 1971 the Wild Horse and Burro Act was signed to law. The BLM’s goal is to manage healthy WH&B populations on healthy rangelands. The BLM prescribes management for the horse herds in the Pilot Mountain HMA to assure WH&B populations are in balance with other uses of the public lands and that a thriving natural ecological balance is achieved and maintained. Currently, the AML for the Pilot Mountain HMA is 249 - 415 wild horses, as established by the 1993 FMUD. In the RFFA horse populations would continue to grow and wild horse gathers and controls on populations are likely to be implemented.
Land Use Authorization There is potential to have future lands and realty authorizations in the area. Currently, there are communications sites and rights-of-way for power lines, roads, solar and geothermal energy sites within the boundaries of the allotment.
89
3.5.13.2 Cumulative Impacts to Affected Resources Impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are generally created by ground or vegetation-disturbing activities that affect natural and cultural resources in various ways. Of particular concern is the accumulation of these impacts over time. This section of the EA considers the nature of the cumulative effects and analyzes the degree to which the proposed action and alternatives contribute to the collective impact. Inter-related resources with similar impacts have been grouped together for the cumulative impact analysis.
3.5.13.2.1 Threatened or Endangered Species Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only: Within the PTMA, some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could have beneficial impacts to T&ES species habitats (e.g. installing and repairing range improvements), while other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could have detrimental impacts to T&ES habitats (e.g. energy development, mining, realty actions, and sand and gravel operations). Furthermore, the Proposed Action Cool-Season Only Grazing, including range improvements, should allow key habitats to progress towards achieving RAC Standards within the PTMA based on reaching monitoring objectives. Therefore, the Proposed Action, along with range improvements, would likely have beneficial or at least minimal negative impacts to T&ES habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action; however, the Year-Round Grazing Alternative would most likely see slower progress on key habitats achieving or maintaining RAC Standards for T&ES habitat within the allotment based on reaching monitoring short term and long term objectives. Therefore, the Year-round Grazing Alternative, along with improvements, would likely have beneficial or at least minimal negative impacts to T&ES habitats over time when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Year-Round Grazing Alternative however, the Graduated AUM Alternative would most likely not progress all the key habitats (primarily the springs and meadows) towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards for T&ES habitats within the allotment since this Alternative would increase AUMs within the PTMA. Blue Link Spring range improvement would not be proposed to protect habitat and pasture fencing would not be installed to distribute cattle. Therefore, this Alternative would likely have adverse cumulative impacts to T&ES habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 4: No Action Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Year-round Grazing Alternative however within the PTMA, some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would most likely not progress all the key habitats (primarily the springs and meadows) towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards for T&ES habitats within the allotment since these habitats are not 90
currently meeting RAC Standards. Blue Link Spring range improvement would not be implemented to protect riparian habitat and pasture fencing would not be installed to distribute cattle. The No Action would likely have adverse cumulative impacts to T&ES habitats when combined with the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 5: No Grazing Cumulative impacts from the No Grazing Alternative would generally be beneficial to T&ES habitats, and it is likely that key habitats within the PTMA would make significant progress towards or would achieve RAC Standards. Therefore, the No Grazing Alternative would have beneficial cumulative impacts to T&ES habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
3.5.13.2.2 Water Quality, Surface/Ground and Wetlands/Riparian Areas Cumulative Impacts Since launching the Riparian - Wetland Initiative, the BLM has provided management focus on achieving the goal and mandate that 75 percent or more riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition. Livestock and wild horse use are two of the primary factors that can negatively impact wetlands and riparian areas; although localized P-J encroachment and energy development may also impact water resources as well. As riparian areas decline, riparian vegetation is less capable of dissipating energy and filtering sediment, which can also lead to declines in water quality. Typically erosion increases and water storage capacity is reduced as well. In the PTMA, the majority of wetlands and riparian areas assessed are not properly functioning. Current and past grazing and wild horse use in the allotment has contributed to impacts seen at springs and streams throughout the allotment and continues to impede improvements in wetland-riparian conditions. Past mining has potentially altered stream and spring morphology; and present energy and mining development could have some potential impacts to water quantity or quality during water consumption for project construction or operation. Past and present recreational activities and transportation have had some impact, mainly where roads either cross, or are adjacent to, water sources causing increased sedimentation and in some cases affecting flow of surface waters.
RFFAs from livestock grazing and wild horse management, dispersed recreation and transportation, and mining and energy projects would continue to impact wetlands and riparian areas within the assessment area. Impacts from livestock grazing and wild horse management would be expected to be reduced under some of the alternatives. Dispersed recreation, transportation, mining, and energy exploration and development could be expected to continue throughout the allotment in the future which could potentially impact nearby water quantity or quality of riparian-wetland areas.
Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only: The cumulative impacts of this alternative on water quality and wetland-riparian areas would be expected to be beneficial as a result of the proposed construction of protective fences, implementation of range improvements, reduction in authorized number of livestock and pasture rest and rotation. Some sites could experience temporary, short term impacts if water developments malfunction. However flow conditions at sites may be improved as troughs are 91
relocated and range improvements are installed, which leaves more water at the source. In addition, flow conditions may improve as juniper is removed and protective fencing is installed, allowing for more water availability to the springs and reduced grazing impacts at water sources. Under this circumstance, riparian vegetation could increase in vigor or expand in coverage. In addition, the phased AUM increase approach, paired with a shorter grazing season, would reduce congregated grazing in the riparian areas, further contributing to improved riparian conditions.
Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing The cumulative impacts to water quality and wetland-riparian areas under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. However improved conditions to riparian- wetland areas, and water quality as a result, could be slightly less than under the Proposed Action as grazing would be authorized year-round. Overall, grazing pressure would be reduced compared to current grazing management, as cattle numbers would be less than currently permitted during the majority of the grazing year. The rotational grazing schedule would also allowing for congregated areas to have periods of rest. This would further reduce grazing pressure and allow for recovery of riparian vegetation, likely increasing water availability at spring and stream sources and improving standards for rangeland health.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative-Graduated AUM Increase The cumulative impacts under this alternative would be similar to the No Action Alternative. Cumulative impacts would be increased during the summer growing season as there would be more cattle than currently permitted. This could cause increased grazing pressure at riparian- wetland areas, reducing riparian vegetation and bank stability, increasing erosion and soil loss as vegetation is removed, and reducing flow. Maintenance and improvement of some water sources could help distribute cattle, however numbers would increase over time throughout the year and likely increase cumulative impacts across the allotment.
Alternative 4: No Action The cumulative impacts under this alternative would be a continuation of current negative impacts. Under current livestock grazing management, standards for rangeland health are in non- attainment, and the riparian and water quality standards would likely continue to not be met as described by current conditions and impacts in the RHA (Appendix B). Range improvements would also not be implemented and therefore protective fencing and structures necessary to protect important riparian and water resources, and provide periodic rest for vegetative resources would not be constructed.
Alternative 5: No Grazing The cumulative impacts at riparian-wetland areas under this alternative would be beneficial for recovery of range resources as livestock grazing would not be permitted. Standards for rangeland health would likely improve over time, however there would still be some impacts to water sources from wild horse and wildlife use.
92
3.5.13.2.3 BLM Sensitive Species (animals and plants) Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only: Sensitive Animals: Within the PTMA, some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could have beneficial impacts to sensitive animal species habitats (e.g. installing and repairing range improvements), while other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions may have detrimental impacts to sensitive animal species habitats (e.g. energy development, mining, realty actions, and sand and gravel operations). Furthermore, the Proposed Action Cool-Season Only Grazing Alternative should allow key habitats to progress towards achieving RAC Standards within the PTMA as monitoring objectives are reached. Therefore, the Proposed Action, along with range improvements, would have beneficial or at least minimal negative cumulative impacts to sensitive animal species habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Sensitive Plants: Under the Proposed Action cattle would graze outside of the growing season with fewer cattle on the allotment in Phase 1. Sensitive plant species would continue to be impacted by grazing but those impacts would be reduced as plants could complete their lifecycle and set seed during the growing season prior to the start of the cool-season grazing period. Considering grazing impacts from the past, present and foreseeable future, it will take time for sensitive plants to recover but this outside of the no grazing alternative, this alternative provides the best opportunity to manage towards achieving RAC standards for healthy sensitive species while allowing sustainable livestock grazing within the allotment.
Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Sensitive Animals: Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action however, the Year-round Grazing Alternative would most likely result in slower progress on key habitats towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards within the allotment based on short term and long term monitoring objectives. Therefore, the Year-round Grazing Alternative, along with range improvements, could have some beneficial or at least fewer negative impacts to sensitive animal habitats over time when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Sensitive Plants: Under Alternative 2, year-round grazing pressures would have a greater cumulative effect on sensitive plant species as there would be no season of rest for plants to repair damages resulting from herbivory and trampling. When considering additional cumulative impacts from wildlife and wild horse herbivory and trampling and drought, this Alternative would likely prevent progress toward achieving RAC standards within the allotment.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative: Graduated AUM Increase Sensitive Animals: Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Year-round Grazing Alternative however, the Graduated AUM Alternative would most likely not progress all the key habitats (primarily the springs and meadows) towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards for sensitive animal habitats within the allotment since this Alternative would increase AUMs within the PTMA. Therefore, this Alternative would likely have adverse cumulative impacts to sensitive animal habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
93
Sensitive Plants: Under this alternative sensitive plant species would likely maintain current conditions or even decline, given the past, present and foreseeable impacts associated with increasing numbers of cattle that are allowed to graze throughout the year. When considering additional cumulative impacts from wildlife and wild horse herbivory and trampling and drought, this Alternative would likely prevent progress toward achieving RAC standards within the allotment.
Alternative 4: No Action Sensitive Animals: Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Year-round Grazing Alternative however within the PTMA, some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would most likely not progress all the key habitats (primarily the springs and meadows) towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards for sensitive animal habitats within the allotment since these habitats are not currently meeting RAC Standards. The No Action would likely have adverse cumulative impacts to sensitive animal habitats when combined with the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Sensitive Plants: The no action alternative would continue grazing under current management. Many of the range improvements as specified under the Proposed Action would not take place. Considering the past, present and foreseeable impacts to sensitive plant species, due to livestock grazing, current conditions or potential declines in sensitive plant species are expected under this alternative.
Alternative 5: No Grazing Sensitive Animals: Cumulative impacts from the No Grazing Alternative would generally be beneficial to sensitive animal habitats, and it is likely that key habitats within the PTMA would make significant progress towards or would achieve RAC Standards. , Therefore, the No Grazing Alternative would have beneficial cumulative impacts to sensitive animal habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Sensitive Plants: The No Grazing Alternative would allow sensitive plant communities the opportunity to recover from past and current impacts due to livestock grazing. There would be no range improvements consequently plant communities would still be subject to grazing impacts from wildlife and wild horses. Sensitive plant communities would be expected to achieve RAC standards for healthy, vibrant communities at a faster rate when compared with the other alternatives under consideration.
3.5.13.2.4 General Wildlife and Migratory Birds Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Cool Season Only: Within the PTMA, some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could have beneficial impacts to wildlife and migratory bird habitats (e.g. installing and repairing range improvements), while other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions may have detrimental impacts to wildlife species habitats (e.g. energy development, mining, realty actions, and sand and gravel operations). Furthermore, the Proposed Action Cool-Season Only Grazing Alternative should allow key habitats to progress towards achieving RAC Standards within the PTMA as monitoring objectives are reached. Therefore, the Proposed Action, along with range 94
improvements, would have beneficial or at least minimal negative cumulative impacts to wildlife and migratory bird habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action however, the Year-Round Grazing Alternative would most likely allow slower progress on key habitats towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards within the allotment based on short term and long term monitoring objectives. Therefore, the Year-round Grazing Alternative, along with improvements, would likely have beneficial or at least minimal negative impacts to wildlife and migratory bird habitats over time when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative: Graduated AUM Increase Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Year-Round Grazing Alternative however, the Graduated AUM Alternative would most likely not progress all the key habitats (primarily the springs and meadows) towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards for wildlife and migratory bird habitats within the allotment since this Alternative would increase AUMs within the PTMA. Therefore, this Alternative would likely have adverse cumulative impacts to wildlife and migratory bird habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 4: No Action Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Year-Round Grazing Alternative however within the PTMA, some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would most likely not progress all the key habitats (primarily the springs and meadows) towards achieving or maintaining RAC Standards for wildlife and migratory bird habitats within the allotment since these habitats are not currently meeting RAC Standards. The No Action would likely have adverse cumulative impacts to wildlife and migratory bird habitats when combined with the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
Alternative 5: No Grazing Cumulative impacts from the No Grazing Alternative would generally be beneficial to wildlife and migratory habitats, and it is likely that key habitats within the PTMA would make significant progress towards or would achieve RAC Standards. Therefore, the No Grazing Alternative would have beneficial cumulative impacts to wildlife and migratory bird habitats when combined with the impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the PTMA.
3.5.13.2.5 Soils and Vegetation The soils and vegetation conditions that existed in the PTMA prior to livestock grazing can be reconstructed in a general sense based upon historic descriptions, relict areas and responses of individual species to grazing use. The ecological sites described in the RHA are a representation of what soils and vegetation were present prior to livestock grazing. Over time grazing, mining, and transportation began to impact reference sites. Currently, livestock and wild horse use are two of the primary actions described above which have negatively impacted soils and vegetation. 95
However other actions such as energy development, transportation and recreation have increased localized disturbances of soils and vegetation during site clearing for construction. Grazing has removed native vegetation over time and resulted in some deviation of vegetation from reference state. Soil loss has also increased in areas where protective vegetation has been removed.
RFFAs from livestock grazing and wild horse management, dispersed recreation and transportation, and mining and energy projects would continue to impact soils and vegetation within the assessment area. Impacts from livestock grazing would be expected to reduce under some of the alternatives. Dispersed recreation, transportation, and energy development could be expected to continue throughout the allotment in the future which could potentially impact local soils and vegetation through removal.
Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only: The cumulative impacts of this alternative on soils and vegetation would be expected to reduce as a result of: the reduction of number of livestock permitted; implementation of a phased grazing program that includes a combination of no grazing during some of the spring and summer months; and pasture rotation. Congregation areas would receive reduced grazing throughout the year during pasture rotation, and a shorter grazing season would allow for vegetative recovery and re-stabilization of soils. Overall, cumulative impacts would be reduced under this alternative and further contribute to improved soil function and vegetative recovery.
Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing The cumulative impacts to soils and vegetation under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. However improved conditions to soils and vegetation, could be slightly less than the Proposed Action as grazing would be authorized year-round. Overall, grazing pressure would be reduced compared to current grazing management, as cattle numbers would be less than currently permitted during the majority of the grazing year. The rotational grazing schedule would also allow heavy use and congregated areas to have periods of rest during different time of the year. This would further reduce grazing impacts and allow for recovery of vegetation, which would likely increase water infiltration, reduce soil compaction and erosion, and improve standards for rangeland health.
The cumulative impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action, however soil and vegetative conditions would likely improve at a slower rate. Cumulative impacts may be less than the Proposed Action as year-round grazing would lead to a lower recovery rate of vegetation.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative- Graduated AUM Increase The cumulative impacts under this alternative would be similar to the No Action Alternative. Cumulative impacts would likely increase over time as there would be more cattle permitted during the summer months and growing season. Grazing pressure would likely increase as cattle numbers would be more than what has been reported in recent years, leading to increased vegetation removal, soil disturbance and localized compaction.
96
Alternative 4: No Action The cumulative impacts under this alternative would be a continuation of current negative impacts and trends. Under current livestock grazing managements, standards for rangeland health are not being met, and in this case soil loss and vegetation removal would continue, especially in and around congregation areas and water sources. Impacts to soils and vegetation would likely continue as described in the RHA (Appendix B).
Alternative 5: No Grazing The cumulative impacts under this alternative would be beneficial as there would be no livestock grazing. Vegetation would recover and soil stability would increase. Standards for rangeland health would likely improve over time, however there would still be some impacts seen from wild horse use, especially to soils and vegetation in and around water sources that would remain unprotected.
3.5.13.2.6 Wild Horse and Burros Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only: The Proposed Action Alternative would not have a significant effect on wild horses in the PTMA. Horses would continue to use the allotment with little to no change to current behavior and would continue to reproduce at approximately 15 percent annually.
Alternative 2: Year-round Grazing Under the Year-round Grazing Alternative, cumulative effects would be similar to those discussed in the Proposed Action.
Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative: Graduated AUM Increase Under the Permittee Alternative, cumulative effects would be similar to those discussed in the Proposed Action.
Alternative 4: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, cumulative effects would be similar to those discussed in the Proposed Action.
Alternative 5: No Grazing Livestock, wildlife, and wild horses compete for the same forage and resources therefore eliminating livestock grazing may cumulatively benefit the wild horses.
3.5.13.2.7 Socioeconomics Cumulative and compounding social and economic impacts to the region could occur should the number of allotments experiencing reduced AUMs due to any of multiple possible causes (drought, rangeland fire, large-scale mining, or construction projects affecting vegetation, or other reasons for reduced land health or reduced availability of forage) cross a critical threshold. What that threshold might be depends on how widespread compromised range conditions are during a specific period. If a critical number of ranch operations begin competing for alternate sources of feed, including private rangeland or pastures, hay, and feedlot capacity, the compounding demands could cause ripple effects within the region. Prices for alternate feed 97
could increase while the market for excess livestock could be depressed, leading to reduced market prices for cull cows, bulls, steers, heifers, and feeder calves. Social structures could be stressed and the well-being of community members compromised if economic effects were to reach families and businesses in wider circles within the region. These impacts would be similar across all alternatives.
4.0 PERSONS, GROUPS OR AGENCIES CONSULTED Table 14: Persons, Groups, or Agencies Consulted
Agency/Group Person(s) Contacted
NDOW Kris Urquhart
USFWS James Harter
Walker River Paiute Tribe Chairman Amber Torres
Yomba Shoshone Tribe Chairman James Birchim, Sr.
4.1 List of Preparers Table 15: Stillwater Field Office Resource Specialists
Name Title Project Expertise
Kenneth R. Collum Stillwater Field Manager Authorized Officer
Valerie Baxter Realty Specialist Land Use Authorization; Access
Cultural Resources; Native Christine McCollum Archaeologist American Religious Concerns; Paleontology
Jason Wright Archaeologist Visual Resources
Kenneth Depaoli Geologist Geology; Mineral Materials
Environmental Protection Wastes, Hazardous or Solid; Dave Schroeder Specialist Geothermal Resources
Air Quality; Water Quality, Michelle Stropky Hydrologist Surface/Ground; Soils
Rangeland Management Noxious and Invasive, Non- Mark Mazza Specialist/Weed Coordinator native Species
Recreation; Travel Paul Amar Outdoor Recreation Planner Management; Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
98
Name Title Project Expertise
Dan Westermeyer Assistant Field Manager Wilderness
Environmental Justice; Planning and Environmental Melanie Hornsby Socioeconomics; NEPA Coordinator / Military Liaison Compliance
Rangeland Management Stacy Sylvester Livestock Grazing, Vegetation Specialist
Rangeland Management Linda Appel Wild Horse and Burros Specialist
Ecological Monitoring and Cassandra Rivas Range Technician Analysis; Biology
Threatened or Endangered Plant Dean Tonenna Botanist Species; Special Status Species (BLM Sensitive Plant Species)
Migratory Birds; Threatened or Endangered Species; Special Melanie Cota Wildlife Biologist Status Species (BLM Sensitive Animal Species); General Wildlife
Keith Barker Fire Ecologist Fire Management
Great Basin Socioeconomic Environmental and Julie A. Suhr Pierce, Ph.D. Specialist Socioeconomics
5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 4100.
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C.
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1994. Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 1994.
BLM 1993. Final Multiple Use Decision Pilot-Table Mountain Allotment. 1993.
99
_____. 2001. Carson City Field Office Consolidation Resource Management Plan. Carson City: Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, 2001.
_____. 2006. Conservation Plan Sand Mountain Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes pallescens arenamontana). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office, Washington D.C. June 6, 2006
_____. 2007a. Appendix C. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office, Washington D.C.
_____. 2007b. Record of Decision for the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office, Washington D.C.
_____. 2008a. H-1790-1 National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Washington D.C.; US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.
_____. 2012. BLM Manual 6330- Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Washington D.C.; US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.
_____. 2015. Carson City District Office. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Interior. Carson City, NV.
Belsky et al. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54:419 -431.
Bradley, P. V., M. J. O'Farrell, J. A. Williams, and J. E. Newmark. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Reno, Nevada: Nevada Bat Working Group.
Cassirer, Frances E., Kezia R. Manlove, Emily S. Almberg, Pauline Kamath, Mike Cox, Peregrine L. Wolff, Annette Roug, et al. 2018. "Pneumonia in bighorn sheep: Risk and resilience." Journal of Wildlife Management (Journal) 32-45; http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192395. Retrieved June 20, 2019.
Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 1994.
Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO). 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. Available online at: https://www.gbbo.org/bird-conservation-plan. Retrieved July 16, 2019.
Green and Kauffman 1995. Succession and livestock grazing in a northeast Oregon riparian ecosystem. Journal of Range Management 48:307–313.
100
Holechek, Jerry L., et al. 2004. Range Management: Principles and Practices. 5th ed., Prentice Hall.
Holecheck J.L, T.J Berry, and M. Vavra. 1987. Grazing System Influences on cattle diet and performance on mountain range. J Range Management. 40:55-60
Hormay, A.L., and M.W. Talbot. 1961. Rest-rotation grazing-a new management system for perennial bunchgrass ranges. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Prod. Res. Rep. 51. 43 p.
Kie and Boroski 1996. Cattle Distribution, Habitats and Diets in the Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Range Management 49:482-488.
Laycock, W.A., and P.W.Conrad. 1981. Responses of vegetation and livestock to various systems of grazing on seeded and native rangelands in eastern Utah. Journal of Range Management. 34:52-58.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Web Soil Survey. Online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
Neel, L.A. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan https://www.partnersinflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Nevada-State-Plan-v-1- 1999-1.pdf. Retrieved May 24, 2019.
Wildlife Action Plan Team (WAPT). 2013. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno.
NDOW. 2011-2018. Field Trip Report, July 22, 2011, Blue Link Spring, Mineral County, Nevada, Determine the Status of White River Springfish Population. Prepared by K. Urquhart. Fallon, Nevada.
Ohmart, Robert. 1996. "Historical and Present Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Fish and Wildlife Resources in Western Riparian Habitats." In Rangeland Wildlife Society for Range Management In P.R. Krausman (ed.), 245-279. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/labs/awae_flagstaff/Hot_Topics/ripthreatbib/ohm art_histpresimplivestock.pdf. Retrieved July 12, 2019.
Parsons et al. 2003. Cattle distribution patterns and vegetation use in mountain riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 56:334–341.
Ratliff, R.D. and J.N Reppert, and R.J. McConnon. 1972. Rest-Rotaion at Harvey Valley: Range health, cattle gains, costs. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Res. Pap. PSW- 77
Schulz and Leininger 1990. Difference in riparian vegetation structure between grazed and ungrazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43(4):295–299.
101
Swanson, S., Wyman, S., Evans, C., 2015. Practical Grazing Management to Maintain or Restore Riparian Functions and Values on Rangelands. Journal of Rangeland Applications. 2:1- 8.
SWReGAP. (2005). Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. https://swregap.org/. Retrieved July 12, 2019.
USFWS. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to determine endangered status and critical habitat for the White River springfish and the Hiko White River springfish. Federal Register 50: 39123-39127.
USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for the aquatic and riparian species of Pahranagat Valley. Endangered Species Program, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
USFWS. 2012. Hiko White River Springfish (Crenichthys baileyi grandis) and White River Springfish (Crenichthys baileyi baileyi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.
Wasley, T. 2004. Nevada’s Mule Deer: Population Dynamics Issues and Influences. NDOW, Reno, NV.
Wildlife Action Plan Team (WAPT). 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno.
102
6.0 APPENDICES
103