Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments Landscape Project

Stillwater Field Office, Nevada FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

(Grazing permit renewals; range improvements; community gravel pit establishment; invasive, nonnative and noxious weed treatments,

interim visual resource management class establishment and adaptive management practices)

DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2015-0004-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

March 2017

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and

enjoyment of present and future generations.

DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2015-0004-EA

Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...... IV LIST OF TABLES ...... IV LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 2 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 7 1.4 LAND USE PLAN CONFORMANCE STATEMENT ...... 9 1.5 RELATIONSHIPS TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, PLANS OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 11 1.6 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ...... 12 1.7 SCOPING AND ISSUES ...... 13 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 14 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: PROPOSED ACTION ...... 14 2.1.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 16 2.1.2 Proposed Range Improvements ...... 22 2.1.3 Existing Range Improvements ...... 25 2.1.4 Minerals ...... 29 2.1.5 Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds ...... 30 2.1.6 Visual Resource Management ...... 37 2.1.7 Adaptive Management ...... 37 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: DIXIE VALLEY REDUCTION IN LIVESTOCK AND CHANGE IN SEASON OF USE ...... 38 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: CHERRY VALLEY CLOSURE TO HOT SEASON GRAZING ...... 40 2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: COW CANYON CHANGE IN SEASON OF USE AND CLAN ALPINE REDUCTION OF AUMS ...... 41 2.5 ALTERNATIVE 5: NO DOMESTIC SHEEP GRAZING ...... 43 2.6 ALTERNATIVE 6: NO GRAZING ...... 43 2.7 ALTERNATIVE 7: NO ACTION ...... 44 2.7.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 44 2.7.2 Minerals ...... 45 2.7.3 Invasive, Nonnative and Noxious Weeds ...... 45 2.7.4 Visual Resource Management ...... 45 2.7.5 Adaptive Management ...... 46 2.8 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS46 2.8.1 Remove or Reduce Livestock within the HMA ...... 46 2.8.2 Designate the Clan Alpine HMA as a “Wild Horse Range” ...... 46

2.8.3 Raising the Appropriate Management Levels for Wild Horses. 47 2.8.4 Zeroing out the HMA ...... 47 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..... 48 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 48 GENERAL SETTING ...... 48 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES ...... 49 RESOURCES OR USES OTHER THAN SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES ...... 50 RESOURCES PRESENT AND BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS ...... 52 3.1 LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS...... 52 3.2 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ...... 53 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 53 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 55 3.3 WILD HORSES ...... 60 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 60 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 61 3.4 MINERALS ...... 64 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 64 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 65 3.5 WATER QUALITY ...... 65 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 65 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 66 3.6 WETLANDS/RIPARIAN ZONES ...... 69 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 69 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 72 3.7 VEGETATION ...... 75 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 75 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 77 3.8 INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE AND NOXIOUS SPECIES ...... 81 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 81 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 83 3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 86 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 86 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 88 3.10 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS ...... 90 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 90 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 91 3.11 GENERAL WILDLIFE ...... 92 3.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 92 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 99 3.12 NEO-TROPICAL MIGRATORY/SONG BIRDS ...... 105

3.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 105 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 107 3.13 NEVADA BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 111 3.13.1 Affected Environment ...... 111 3.13.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 117 3.14 VISUAL RESOURCES ...... 125 3.14.1 Affected Environment ...... 125 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 126 3.15 WILDERNESS/WSAS ...... 130 3.15.1 Affected Environment ...... 130 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 136 3.16 MONITORING AND MITIGATION ...... 139 4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 141 4.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OVERVIEW ...... 141 4.2 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ...... 141 4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING ...... 142 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WILD HORSES ...... 144 4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON MINERALS ...... 145 4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY ...... 146 4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES ...... 148 4.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON VEGETATION ...... 149 4.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE AND NOXIOUS SPECIES ...... 151 4.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 152 4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS ...... 153 4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE ...... 153 4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON NEO-TROPICAL MIGRATORY/SONG BIRDS ...... 154 4.14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON NEVADA BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 156 4.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES ...... 157 4.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WILDERNESS/WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS ...... 159 5.0 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION161 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 161 5.2 INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBES OR AGENCIES CONSULTED161 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 162 7.0 APPENDICES ...... 171 APPENDIX A – MAPS ...... 172 APPENDIX B - COW CANYON, CLAN ALPINE, AND DIXIE VALLEY SOILS INFORMATION ...... 194 APPENDIX C - STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR HERBICIDE TREATMENTS ...... 210 APPENDIX D – STANDARDS DETERMINATION DOCUMENTS ...... 211

iii

APPENDIX E – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...... 212

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PHOTO OF PIPELINE, FENCE AND TROUGH IN DISREPAIR AT UNNAMED SPRING IN CHERRY VALLEY...... 24 FIGURE 2: PHOTO ROCK CREEK SPRING ...... 25 FIGURE 3: THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF MALES OBSERVED DURING LEKS SURVEYS AT THE CAMP CREEK LEK WITHIN THE CLAN ALPINE PMU FROM 2003-2014...... 116 FIGURE 4: THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF MALES OBSERVED DURING LEKS SURVEYS AT THE ROCK CREEK LEK WITHIN THE DESATOYA PMU FROM 2002-2014...... 117

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 1 TABLE 2: COW CANYON – CLAN ALPINE – DIXIE VALLEY ALLOTMENTS DECISION DOCUMENTS.. 4 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF THE SDD ...... 7 TABLE 4: LEGAL DESCRIPTION* OF COW CANYON LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENT ...... 14 TABLE 5: LEGAL DESCRIPTION* OF CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENT ...... 14 TABLE 6: LEGAL DESCRIPTION* OF DIXIE VALLEY LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENT ...... 15 TABLE 7: COW CANYON LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 16 TABLE 8: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 16 TABLE 9: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 17 TABLE 10: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE WITH REINSTATED AUMS ...... 17 TABLE 11: DIXIE VALLEY LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 18 TABLE 12: DIXIE VALLEY PROPOSED LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 18 TABLE 13: PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF RANGE IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 25 TABLE 14: EXISTING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS ...... 26 TABLE 15: OTHER HERBICIDES USED FOR SALTCEDAR CONTROL ...... 32 TABLE 16: OTHER HERBICIDES USED FOR HOARY CRESS CONTROL ...... 33 TABLE 17: OTHER HERBICIDES USED FOR RUSSIAN KNAPWEED CONTROL ...... 33 TABLE 18: HERBICIDES WITH APPROVED PUPS ...... 34 TABLE 19: DIXIE VALLEY LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 39 TABLE 20: DIXIE VALLEY LIVESTOCK PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 39 TABLE 21: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 40 TABLE 22: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 40 TABLE 23: COW CANYON LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 41 TABLE 24: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 42 TABLE 25: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE ...... 42 TABLE 26: CLAN ALPINE LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULE IF PROPOSED IS NOT MEETING STANDARDS ...... 43 TABLE 27: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE LIVESTOCK GRAZING SCHEDULES FOR COW CANYON, CLAN ALPINE, AND DIXIE VALLEY ALLOTMENTS ...... 45 TABLE 28: SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES* ...... 49 TABLE 29: RESOURCES OR USES OTHER THAN SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES ...... 50 TABLE 30: REMOVALS, RELEASES AND TREATMENT – CLAN ALPINE HMA ...... 60 TABLE 31: COUNTY IN WHICH THE HMA IS LOCATED ...... 61

TABLE 32: PFC ASSESSMENT DATA FOR THE COW CANYON ALLOTMENT ...... 69 TABLE 33: PFC ASSESSMENT DATA FOR CLAN ALPINE ALLOTMENT ...... 70 TABLE 34: PFC ASSESSMENT DATA FOR THE DIXIE VALLEY ALLOTMENT...... 71 TABLE 35: EXAMPLES OF NOXIOUS WEEDS ...... 81 TABLE 36: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF MULE DEER CRUCIAL SUMMER RANGE, CRUCIAL WINTER RANGE, AND, YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE COW CANYON ALLOTMENT ...... 96 TABLE 37: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF MULE DEER CRUCIAL SUMMER RANGE, CRUCIAL WINTER RANGE, AND, YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE DIXIE VALLEY ALLOTMENT ...... 96 TABLE 38: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF MULE DEER CRUCIAL SUMMER RANGE, CRUCIAL WINTER RANGE, AND, YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE CLAN ALPINE ALLOTMENT ...... 96 TABLE 39: PRONGHORN HABITAT RATING IN REGARDS TO VEGETATIVE COVER (YOAKUM 1980) ...... 97 TABLE 40: PERCENT VOLUME OF FORAGE CONSUMED BY SEASON FOR PRONGHORN IN CALIFORNIA, OREGON, IDAHO, AND NEVADA (YOAKUM 1980) ...... 97 TABLE 41: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE COW CANYON ALLOTMENT...... 97 TABLE 42: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE DIXIE VALLEY ALLOTMENT ...... 97 TABLE 43: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE AGRICULTURAL HABITAT, CRUCIAL SUMMER RANGE, AND YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE CLAN ALPINE ALLOTMENT ...... 98 TABLE 44: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE COW CANYON ALLOTMENT...... 98 TABLE 45: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP CRUCIAL SUMMER, LAMBING, AND, YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE CLAN ALPINE ALLOTMENT ...... 98 TABLE 46: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF DESERT BIGHORN LAMBING AND YEAR-ROUND HABITAT WITHIN THE DIXIE VALLEY ALLOTMENT ...... 99 TABLE 47: THE NEVADA COMPREHENSIVE BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN (2010) AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN (BCC) (2008) PRIORITY SPECIES THAT OCCUR, OR COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR, WITHIN THE COW CANYON, DIXIE VALLEY, OR CLAN ALPINE ALLOTMENT...... 105 TABLE 48: BLM NEVADA SENSITIVE SPECIES THAT OCCUR, OR COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR, WITHIN THE DIXIE VALLEY, COW CANYON, AND CLAN ALPINE ALLOTMENTS ...... 111 TABLE 49: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT WITHIN THE COW CANYON ALLOTMENT ...... 115 TABLE 50: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT WITHIN THE DIXIE VALLEY ALLOTMENT ...... 115 TABLE 51: APPROXIMATE ACRES OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT WITHIN THE CLAN ALPINE ALLOTMENT ...... 115 TABLE 52: VRI CLASS ACREAGE (BLM LANDS ONLY) ...... 125 TABLE 53: WILDERNESS STUDY ACREAGES WITH THE PLANNING AREA ...... 130 TABLE 54: WILDERNESS STUDY AREA RANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ...... 133 TABLE 55: PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AREA SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WILD HORSES...... 142

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AML Appropriate Management Level AMP Allotment Management Plan APHIS Animal and Plant Inspection Service ATV All-terrain Vehicle AUM Animal Unit Month BCS Body Condition Score BLM Bureau of Land Management BMDO Battle Mountain District Office CCD Carson City District CCGA Cow Canyon Grazing Agreement CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CESA Cumulative Effect Study Area CFR Code of Federal Regulations COR Contracting Officers Representative CRMP Consolidated Resource Management Plan DO Dissolved Oxygen DR Decision Record E Easting EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order FAR Functional at Risk FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FMUD Final Multiple Use Decision FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPST Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe FUP Free Use Permit GHG Greenhouse Gas Emission GHMA General Habitat Management Area GRSG Greater sage-grouse HAF Habitat Assessment Framework HMA Herd Management Area HSUS Humane Society of the United States IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals ID Interdisciplinary Team IM Instructional Memorandum LWC Lands with Wilderness Characteristics MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MFP Management Framework Plan MLWA Military Lands Withdrawal Act MUD Multiple Use Decision MOU Memorandum of Understanding N Northing NAC Nevada Administrative Code

NASF Naval Air Station Fallon, NV NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPO National Program Office NRHP National Register of Historic Places NV Nevada OHMA Other Habitat Management Area OHV Off-Highway Vehicle PI Project Inspector PFC Proper Functioning Condition PMU Population Management Unit PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area PMUD Proposed Mulitiple Use Decision PRIA Public Rangelands Improvement Act Project Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments Landscape Project PUP Pesticide Use Proposal PZP-22 Porcine Zone Pellucida RAC Resource Advisory Councils RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Action RMP Resource Management Plan RPS Rangeland Program Summary S&G Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines SDD Standards Determination Document SFO Stillwater Field Office SHPO State Historic Preservation Office, Nevada SOP Standard Operating Procedures TGA Taylor Grazing Act TNR Temporary Non-Renewable USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Service UTM Universal Transverse Mercator UTV Utility Terrain Vehicle VHF/FM Very High Frequency/Frequency Modulation VRI Visual Resource Inventory VRM Visual Resource Management WA Wilderness Area WFRHBA Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act WSA Wilderness Study Area

vii

Changes that were made to the EA as a result of the comments submitted during the public comment period are noted in the response tables in Appendix E.

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Introduction The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Carson City District Office (CCD), Stillwater Field Office (SFO) is proposing the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments Landscape Project (Project) located in Churchill County and a small portion of Mineral County, Nevada.

The proposed Project would consist of:  Issuing new 10-year term livestock grazing permits to the current permit holders;  Range improvement maintenance and construction;  Designating a mineral material community pit in Edwards Creek Valley;  Treating invasive, nonnative and noxious weeds;  Integrating Adaptive Management measures for various disciplines within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments (see Appendix A); and  Establishing interim Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class Objectives.

The Project is located in the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments within Churchill and Mineral Counties, Nevada. These allotments cover approximately 790,187 acres of land, of which 754,850 acres are public lands.

Table 1: Livestock Grazing Allotments within the Project Area Project Area Number of BLM Total Allotment Allotment Season of Use AUMs Livestock Acreage Total Acreage Cow Canyon 365 cattle 05/01 – 01/15 2,388 146,228 149,174 Clan Alpine 927 cattle 05/01 – 03/31 10,210 358,377 365,228 Clan Alpine 1737sheep 12/01 – 03/15 1,200 358,377 365,228 Dixie Valley 528 cattle 03/01 – 02/28 6,341 250,245 275,785

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the impacts of the proposed Project. The EA considers the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action or alternatives to the Proposed Action. It has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulating implementing NEPA, and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The EA assists the BLM in project planning and ensuring compliance with NEPA and in making a determination as to whether any “significant” impacts could result from the analyzed actions. “Significance is defined by NEPA and is found in Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1508.27. An EA provides analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a statement of “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). Should a determination be made that implementation of the Proposed Actions would not result in “significant environmental impacts”, a FONSI will be prepared to document that

1 determination, and a Decision Record (DR) issued providing the rationale for approving the chosen alternative.

1.2 Background Cow Canyon Livestock Grazing The Cow Canyon Allotment was established on February 20, 1964 and allocated 2,200 Animal Unit Months (AUM’s) for domestic livestock grazing. In June 1992, a rangeline agreement was signed that transferred the northwest portion of the Clan Alpine allotment over to the Cow Canyon Allotment. This reassignment of approximately 20,695 public acres added 190 AUMs onto the active preference. The Cow Canyon has historically been grazed by cattle during the summer and fall months.

The Cow Canyon Allotment is managed under the Cow Canyon Grazing Agreement (CCGA) that was approved in January of 1989. The agreement documents changes made to existing livestock grazing practices to achieve the management objectives for the public lands identified in the Lahontan EIS and Rangeland Program Summary (RPS), which are specifically related to authorized livestock grazing use on the Cow Canyon Allotment. The RPS was later superseded in 2001 by the Consolidated Resource Management Plan (CRMP). The CCGA divided the area into two pastures, the Lower and the Upper. Livestock graze the first six weeks of the season in the Lower Pasture and then are required to use the Upper Pasture through the end of the grazing season. The pastures are not completely fenced. The livestock operator relies on water control, natural barriers and herding to accomplish management control. Short sections of drift fence are placed strategically in critical areas to aid in control.

Clan Alpine Livestock Grazing The Clan Alpine Allotment historically has been grazed by cattle and sheep. In 1964, the New Pass Allotment, which bordered the Clan Alpine Allotment on the northeast, was assimilated into the Clan Alpine Allotment.

In January 1979, a District Manager’s Decision changed the boundary line between the Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments per “an attached map” which, unfortunately, has been lost and is no longer attached. The Decision also stated that “certain sheep trail privileges no longer exist in the Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments, since they have been converted to cattle AUMs”. This reference does not include the New Pass mountains area of the Clan Alpine allotment which still has permitted domestic sheep grazing.

In June 1992, a rangeline agreement was signed that transferred the northwest portion of the Clan Alpine allotment over to the Cow Canyon Allotment. The reassignment of approximately 20,695 public acres deducted 190 AUM’s from the active preference.

Also in June 1992, a rangeline agreement was signed that incorporated the Bell Flat Allotment into the Clan Alpine Allotment as a winter pasture. This pasture added approximately 91,855 public acres to the allotment along with 3600 AUMs.

The allotment is operated under the Clan Alpine Allotment Management Plan (AMP) that was approved in July of 1992. The AMP documents changes to the livestock grazing practices in order to achieve the management objectives for the public lands identified in the Lahontan EIS and RPS, which are specifically related to the authorized livestock grazing use. The RPS was later superseded in 2001 by the CRMP. Cattle’s grazing is managed under a pasture rotation system. Livestock are in the allotment from May to March annually. The pastures are not completely fenced. The livestock operator(s) rely on water control, natural barriers and herding to accomplish management control. Short sections of drift fence are placed strategically in critical areas to aid in control.

Domestic sheep trail through the eastern most portion of the Clan Alpine Allotment in the winter months. They are approved to graze across the New Pass Mountains, remaining on the east side of Antelope Valley Road, while moving from the Gilbert Allotment to the Cottonwood Allotment, both of which are located within the Battle Mountain District Office (BMDO) boundaries. Bedding grounds are expected to be moved daily and to be placed a minimum of ¼ mile from any riparian area, water facility or aspen stand. Sheepherder camps are moved at least every five days. The permittee, Ellison Ranching Co., is required to remove sheep from an area when utilization reaches 50% on key upland perennial species.

Two permittees are currently licensed to graze livestock within the allotment. Cattle are authorized to graze from 5/1 to 3/31 for a total of 10,210 AUMs. Ellison Ranching is permitted to graze 1737 sheep from 12/1 to 3/15 for a total of 1200 AUMs in the New Pass Mountains area of the allotment and is administered by the BMDO.

Dixie Valley Livestock Grazing The Dixie Valley Allotment is composed of two former individual allotments – Dixie Valley and Hare Canyon.

The Dixie Valley Allotment historically has been grazed by livestock yearlong. It is operated under a 1989 AMP. The AMP documents changes made to the livestock grazing practices in order to achieve the management objectives for the public lands identified in the Lahontan EIS and RPS, which are specifically related to authorized livestock grazing use on the Dixie Valley Allotment. The RPS was later superseded in 2001 by the CRMP. Grazing is done under a pasture rotation system. Livestock are in the allotment yearlong. The area is divided into four pastures, North Dixie, South Dixie, Mid-Slope, and High Country, and is not completely fenced. The livestock operator relies on water control, natural barriers and herding to accomplish management control. Short sections of drift fence are placed in critical areas to aid in control.

Background Common to all Allotments Evaluations of all three allotments, based on field inspections from 2009 through 2015, as well as other available information, were completed in October 2015 to determine whether rangeland health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards were being met. These evaluations are available at the SFO.

It is BLM policy (BLM 2003b) that grazing permits shall be fully processed using the information from the land health standards evaluations, with fully processed identified as completing adequate environmental impact analysis and appropriate consultation in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. According to IM-2003-071, by the end of fiscal year 2009, all permits should be fully processed in the year they expire. The condition of natural resources on the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments were evaluated and grazing management needs to be updated at this time through a fully processed grazing permit.

The lands managed by BLM within these allotments were identified as available for livestock grazing in the Carson City District (CCD) CRMP and continued livestock grazing is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines identified in the CRMP.

Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, there is a congressional intent to allow grazing on BLM managed lands. Administration of livestock grazing on public land falls under 43 CFR subpart D, Group 4100. Livestock grazing is also provided for in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (as amended), the FLPMA of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978, and the approved Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) of 2003, as well as various other federal laws and regulations.

Table 2: Cow Canyon – Clan Alpine – Dixie Valley Allotments Decision Documents

PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Name Decision AUMs (livestock) AML (wild horses)

Lahontan Environmental 9/3/85 Impact Statement Rangeland Program 1989 Summary Update Consolidated Resource Clan Alpine HMA: 619- 2001 N/A Management Plan 979 Cow Canyon Grazing FD 1/10/89 2197 cattle N/A Agreement Multiple Use Decision Proposed MUD 2200 cattle 112-179 Cow Canyon Allotment (PMUD) 6/11/92 Clan Alpine HMA: 405 Clan Alpine Allotment 10,210 cattle AMP 7/20/92 Desatoya HMA: 43 in the Management Plan 1200 sheep Clan Alpine portion Clan Alpine HMA: 253- Multiple Use Decision 10,210 cattle PMUD 6/15/92 405 Clan Alpine Allotment 1200 sheep Desatoya HMA: 32 - 43 Dixie Valley Allotment Clan Alpine HMA: 274 AMP 11/8/89 6492 cattle Management Plan in the Dixie Valley portion Multiple Use Decision Clan Alpine HMA: 247- PMUD 6/2/92 6495 cattle Dixie Valley Allotment 395 in the Dixie Valley

PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Name Decision AUMs (livestock) AML (wild horses)

portion MUDs Grazing Allotment Decision AML Cow Canyon PMUD 6/11/92 112 - 179 Clan Alpine PMUD 6/15/92 253 - 405 Dixie Valley PMUD 6/02/92 247 - 395 Clan Alpine HMA Total AML: 612 - 979 Clan Alpine (5% of PMUD 6/15/92 32 - 43 Desatoya HMA) GATHER PLAN DECISIONS Clan Alpine, Pilot Mountain and Pine Nut Herd NV-C010-2010-0019-EA Management Areas Gather Plan Decision Record 2010 Desatoya Herd Management Area Gather Portion of NV-C010-2011-0513-EA the Desatoya Mountains Habitat Resiliency, Health, Decision Record 2012 and Restoration Project

Minerals The public and other interested parties have a need for mineral material sites for various purposes. The BLM allows for the public to purchase mineral materials from the location at fair market value under 43 CFR 3600 regulations utilizing a standard mineral materials contract. BLM, other government entities and non-profit organizations may request Free Use Permits (FUP) for mineral materials under these regulations.

In order to facilitate the public’s need of materials from this location, the BLM is proposing to designate one mineral material site as a new community pit. This site would comprise approximately 70 acres and encompass two existing mineral material pits. The pit is located in T21N R39E Sec 2 (SWSWSE) and Sec 11 (NENWNE) (E2NENE) (SENENE), Mount Diablo Meridian which is located outside of any Greater sage-grouse (GRSG) habitat management areas. By establishing this community pit it would facilitate processing for future mineral material sales in the area.

Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds There are documented observations of numerous noxious weed infestations across the project area. Some have been treated with herbicides, but there are no current records within the SFO to verify that these treatments have been successful at eradicating the weeds. There are other noxious weed infestations that have recently been recorded, and these have not been treated. It is probable that there are numerous areas of noxious weeds and other invasive plant species that are unknown and scattered across the landscape. This Project would target the two noxious weed species that are known to occur within the project area; however, if other noxious weed species are observed, they would also be treated.

Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), a federally and state listed noxious weed, is infesting the project area and is found growing up numerous canyons. These exotic and invasive plants draw excessive amounts of water from the soil, displace native plants, and are practically unusable for wildlife habitat.

Hoary cress (Cardaria draba), a federally and state listed noxious weed, has been observed in a few areas within the project area. These aggressive invaders reproduce by both seeds and their roots, making eradication difficult. An infestation of hoary cress can form a dense stand that replaces native plants, replaces forage for livestock and wildlife, and reduces available soil moisture and nutrients early in the growing season.

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is not a federally nor state listed noxious weed, but is nonnative and considered invasive. Cheatgrass has become a serious weed in rangeland systems throughout North America. It is now estimated to infest more than 101 million acres in western states (Mack 1981). It is an aggressive invader of sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, mountain brush and other shrub communities often out-competing native grasses and forbs.

Livestock: Although cheatgrass provides good quality forage early in the season, the plants mature quickly; initially turning reddish before completely curing. The best forage quality is in late winter to mid spring and it must be grazed early in its growing season. Moreover, under drought situations the presence of cheatgrass causes rapid depletion of early season soil moisture, thus serving to out-compete, retard or prevent the establishment of perennial grasses (Welsh 1987).

Military Withdrawn Lands Under the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (MLWA), P.L. 106-65, Enacted 5 October 1999, Section 3011, Withdrawals (a) Naval Air Station Fallon (NASF), Nevada, Ranges, approximately 18,982 acres of public lands were withdrawn from the Dixie Valley and Cow Canyon Allotments (See Appendix A, Maps). In the late 1980’s approximately 8,753 acres were acquired by the Navy in the Dixie Valley Settlement Area on the Dixie Valley and Cow Canyon Allotments. There is a 2007 MOU between BLM and NASF and a 2002 plan to manage the natural resources in the Dixie Valley Settlement Area. This plan is titled Grazing, Vegetation and Water Resource Management Plan for the Dixie Valley Settlement Area, Churchill County Nevada, and was signed by NASF, BLM and Churchill County. Dixie Valley is a supersonic operating area and used by the Navy for training in aircraft electronic warfare operations, tactical ground mobility, ground maneuver tactics by troops, ground laser targeting and there are convoy operations on the 79,444 acre Dixie Valley Training Range (Navy acquired and withdrawn lands). Blank ammunition and inert grenades are used in this area. See Navy Final EIS for Military Readiness Activities at Fallon Range Training Complex, Nevada December 2015.

Visual Resource Management The assignment of VRM objectives for the CCD in previous land use plans was not complete and did not extend to the more remote eastern and southern areas of the District. Because of this, the VRM objectives for the planning area have not been assigned and are currently considered to be unclassified.

1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed Project is to address multiple disciplines across a landscape level within the boundaries of the Project area. This would provide for a cooperative approach to resolving resource conflicts and issues and address projects that would fulfill the needs of several resources at once.

Livestock Grazing The purpose of the Proposed Action as it relates to livestock grazing management is to maintain and/or improve the quality of the rangelands while meeting the regulatory requirements for livestock grazing. The need for the Proposed Action is to provide for appropriate livestock grazing on public lands in accordance with all applicable laws (such as but not limited to the TGA, FLPMA, and PRIA), regulations, including but not limited to 43 CFR 4130.1(a) (2005) which states, “Grazing permits or leases authorize use on the public lands and other BLM-administered lands that are designated in land use plans as available for livestock grazing,” while achieving or making progress towards achieving applicable land health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards and conforming with the applicable guidelines for livestock management (S&G’s)1.

Monitoring data was reviewed and assessments of the rangeland health of the allotments were completed between 2009 and 2015 during the term permit renewal process through the Standards Determination Documents (SDD) (refer to Appendix F). The following table presents a summary of the SDD by allotment.

Table 3: Summary of the SDD Standard 5 Standard 4 Standard 2 Standard 3 Special Standard 1 Plant & Allotment Riparian/ Water Status Soils Animal Wetlands Quality Species Habitat Habitat Not meeting in Not meeting in Not meeting in some areas, some areas, some areas, Meeting Meeting Cow Canyon livestock livestock livestock standard standard grazing not a grazing a grazing a causal factor factor factor Not meeting in Not meeting in Not meeting in some areas, some areas, some areas, Meeting Meeting Clan Alpine livestock livestock livestock standard standard grazing a grazing a grazing a factor factor factor

1 The applicable land health S&Gs for livestock grazing on these allotments are those that apply to the Sierra Front- Northwestern Great Basin Area of Nevada BLM-managed lands, which were developed pursuant to 43 CFR 4180.2(b) (2005), and approved by the Secretary of the Interior on February 12, 1997. AIM data was collected during land health evaluations and used to evaluate Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) requirements. A copy of these S&G’s may be obtained from the CCD.

Standard 5 Standard 4 Standard 2 Standard 3 Special Standard 1 Plant & Allotment Riparian/ Water Status Soils Animal Wetlands Quality Species Habitat Habitat Not meeting in Not meeting in Not meeting in some areas, some areas, some areas, Meeting Meeting Dixie Valley livestock livestock livestock standard standard grazing a grazing a grazing a factor factor factor

Minerals The purpose of the Proposed Action as it relates to mineral resources is to designate a mineral material community pit in Edwards Creek Valley to meet current and future mineral material needs in the Valley. The community pit designation would allow the BLM to sell federally owned mineral materials to operators for their current and future projects. The need for the Proposed Action is established by the regulations found at 43 CFR 3600 and the Minerals Act of 1947.

Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds The purpose of the Proposed Action as it relates to invasive, nonnative and noxious weeds is to facilitate control and possible eradication of invasive, nonnative, and noxious weeds on a landscape scale within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments. The need for the Proposed Action is to restore and improve ecosystem health by controlling weeds and invasive species, improve rangeland and riparian areas, and improve water quality on the landscape.

Visual Resource Management The purpose of the Proposed Action in relation to Visual Resource Management is to establish interim visual management objectives for the project area until such time that permanent objectives are designated in the revised CRMP. The need for this action is established by the CCD CRMP (2001), Section VRM-1,1.C and Visual Resource Management Manual 8400 Section .06.3 for establishing interim visual management objectives.

Wilderness Study Area Range Improvements The purpose of the Proposed Action in relation to two range improvements within the Clan Alpine Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is to analyze the potential impacts or impairment to wilderness characteristics from the Proposed Action. The need for this action is established under Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and Section 1.6.C.2.f. of BLM Manual 6330, Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas.

In this case, the range improvements would have minimal short term impacts to wilderness character, but would result in long term benefits by providing for restoration of springs, native vegetation, and enhancement of water sources for wild horses and wildlife. The Proposed Action meets the exception to non-impairment criteria Section 1.6.C.2.f, protection or

8 enhancement of wilderness characteristics or values and Section 1.6.D.10.c.i and ii, water development and fences.

1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement The Proposed Action and alternatives are in conformance with the CCD CRMP (2001). The AML for the Clan Alpine HMA was established through the allotment evaluation and Final MUD (FMUD) process (see Table 2).

CRMP 2001 The Proposed Action and alternatives are in conformance with the following decisions and objectives from the CRMP:

Grazing and Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds The Proposed Action and Current Management Alternatives described below are in conformance with the CRMP, pages LSG-1 & LSG-2:

 “Maintain or improve the condition of the public rangelands to enhance productivity for all rangeland and watershed values.”  “Provide adequate, high quality forage for livestock by improving rangeland condition.”  “Improve overall range administration.”  “Maintain a sufficient quality and diversity of habitat and forage for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses through natural regeneration and or vegetation manipulation methods.”  “Improve the vegetation resource and range condition by providing for the physiological needs of key plant species.”  “Reduce soil erosion and enhance watershed values by increasing ground cover and litter.”  “Improve riparian-wetland ecosystems to achieve a healthy proper functioning condition that assures biological diversity, productivity and sustainability.”

As the No Grazing Alternative would be inconsistent with the current CRMP, (the CRMP identified the lands within the allotments as available for livestock grazing), selection of the No Grazing Alternative would require concurrent amendment of the CRMP which is not within the scope of this EA, however it is analyzed in this EA as a baseline comparison to the alternatives. Under 43 CFR 1610.5-3, all actions approved or authorized by the BLM must conform to the existing land use plan.

Minerals This action is in conformance with the CCD CRMP (2001) page MIN-1:

 “Encourage development of energy and mineral resources in a timely manner to meet national, regional and local needs consistent with the objectives for other public land uses.”

Visual Resource Management The Proposed Action and Alternatives described below are in conformance with the CCD CRMP (2001) pages VRM-1 through 4:

 1.C. “Interim Visual Management Objectives are established where a project is proposed and there are not RMP (or MFP2) approved VRM objectives. These objectives are developed using the guidelines in Manual Section 8410 and must conform to the land use allocations set forth in the RMP which covers the project area. The establishments of interim VRM objectives will not reqire a plan amendment unless the project itself requires one.”

Wilderness Study Areas The Proposed Action and Current Management Alternatives described below are in conformance with the CCD CRMP, page WSA-4:

 5.1 Wilderness study Areas will be managed in accordance with Section 603(c) of FLPMA and the Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (superseded by M-6330 Management of Wilderness Study Areas, 2012) so as not to impair their suitability for preservation of wilderness.

APPROVED GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLAN AMENDMENT 2015 The CRMP has been amended by the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (USDI, BLM 2015b). The Record of Decision (ROD) (USDI, BLM 2015a) and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region of Nevada and Northeastern California, were signed on September 21, 2015 by the Director of the BLM and the Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management (henceforth referred to as the Decision). This Decision in conjunction with the approved resource management plans and approved resource management plan amendments constitutes BLM land use planning decisions to conserve the GRSG and its habitats throughout its remaining range that is located on public lands administered by the BLM. The efforts of the BLM, in coordination with the Forest Service on National Forest System lands within the remaining range of the species, constitute a coordinated strategy for conserving the GRSG and the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem on most Federal lands on which the species depends. Appendix C of this Decision states that Required Design Features (RDFs) are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitats. RDFs establish the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts.

The Project Area has been mapped as containing all three types of Habitat Management Areas as defined in the ROD, Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA), General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) and Other Habitat Management Area (OHMA). The Project components are in conformance with the amended RMP, and are compliant with the applicable RDFs, lek buffer distances, and specifically the goals, objectives and management decisions identified in Section 2.2 for Special Status Species, Vegetation, Livestock Grazing, and Cultural Resources.

2 MFP – Management Framework Plan, a land use planning document like the Resource Management Plan.

Special Status Species The Proposed Action and Current Management Alternatives are in conformance with the Approved Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment of 2015 pages 2-3 through 2-13, Management Decisions MD SSS 1 through MD SSS 24.

Vegetation The Proposed Action and Current Management Alternatives are in conformance with the Approved Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment of 2015 pages 2-13 through 2-18, Management Decisions MD VEG 1 through MD VEG 27.

Livestock Grazing The Proposed Action and Current Management Alternatives are in conformance with the Approved Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment of 2015 pages 2-23 through 2-27, Management Decisions MD LG 1 through MD LG 23.

Cultural Resources The Proposed Action and Current Management Alternatives are in conformance with the Approved Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment of 2015 page 2-37, Management Decisions MD CUL 1 through MD CUL 3.

1.5 Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, Policies, Plans or Other Environmental Analysis The Proposed Action and Alternatives are consistent with the following:

 Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 as amended;  Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976;  Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978;  Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart 4100 – Grazing Administration;  Noxious Weed Act of 1974;  Endangered Species Act of 1973;  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;  Standards and Guidelines for Nevada's Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Area (2003);  Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918;  Migratory Bird Treaty Act – Interim Guidance – BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2008-050;  Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds – BLM 2010-110.  Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation – Executive Order (EO) 13443 – inclusion of game animals/key habitats;  National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code (USC) 470f);

 Archeological Resources Protection Act;  Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act;  Indian Sacred Sites – EO 13007; and  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments – EO 13175;  The Materials Act of July 31, 1947; and  Title 43 CFR 3600 - Mineral Materials Disposal.

Other Environmental Analysis  Clan Alpine, Pilot Mountain and Pine Nut Herd Management Areas Gather Plan (DOI- BLM-NV-C010-2010-0019-EA)  Desatoya Mountains Habitat Resiliency, Health, and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2011-0513-EA).  Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States FES 07-21, 2007.  Carson City District Drought Management Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-NV- C000-2013-0001-EA), 2015.  Bureau of Land Management Final Programmatic EIS and ROD for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypr, and Rimsulfuron on BLM Lands in 17 Western States, 2016.

1.6 Decisions to be Made The Authorized Officer would make separate decisions, as described below, to implement the different components of the Landscape Project.

Livestock Grazing The Authorized Officer would decide whether or not to issue a new term livestock grazing permit for the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, and if so, the terms and conditions for each permit.

The Authorized Officer would also decide whether or not to authorize the maintenance and creation of range improvements throughout the Project area.

Minerals The Authorized Officer would determine whether or not to designate the mineral material site in Edwards Creek Valley as a community pit.

Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds The Authorized Officer would determine whether or not to implement the proposed six year treatment plan for Invasive, Nonnative and Noxious Weeds.

Visual Resource Management

The Authorized Officer would decide the interim visual management class objectives that would be applied to this area for lands within the project area, located outside of designated WSAs.

Wilderness Study Areas The Authorized Officer would decide whether or not to authorize two spring developments with exclusionary fencing in the Clan Alpine Allotment along the boundary of the Clan Alpine WSA.

1.7 Scoping and Issues During the preliminary internal scoping in November 2011 and during the project initiation process in February 2013, BLM resource specialists identified the following resources as being present and potentially impacted by the Proposed Action:

 Livestock Grazing  Wild Horses and Burros  Vegetation  Invasive, Nonnative and Noxious Species  Cultural Resources  Native American Religious Concerns  Wetlands/Riparian Zones  General Wildlife  BLM Sensitive Species (animals)  Migratory Birds  Visual Resources  Wilderness/WSA  Lands with Wilderness Characteristics  Water Quality  Minerals

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes seven alternatives, the Proposed Action, the Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Alternative, the Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Alternative, the Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Alternative, the No Domestic Sheep Grazing Alternative, the No Grazing Alternative and the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action was developed in response to resource conditions on the allotments and with input from the grazing permittees. The No Action alternative is considered and analyzed to provide a baseline for comparison of the impacts of the Proposed Action. This chapter also provides a brief description of other alternatives that were considered but were eliminated from further analysis in this EA.

2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action The Proposed Action would occur within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments in Churchill and Mineral Counties, NV. The legal description of these allotments is found in the following tables.

Table 4: Legal Description* of Cow Canyon Livestock Grazing Allotment Township Range Sections 20N 37E 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; NW corner 16; NE corner 17 20N 36E 1-12; NW corner 13; 14; 15; 16; NE corner 17 20N 35E 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; NE corner 12 21N 37E All except 13; 24; 25; 36 21N 36E All 21N 35E All except 5; 6; 7; 8; 17; 18; 19; 20; 30; 31 22N 38E 19; 20; 29; 30; 31; 32 22N 37E All except 1; 2; 3; 12; NE corner 13 22N 36E All except NW corner Section 5; north half Section 6 22N 35E 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 33; 34; 35; 36 23N 37E 19; 29; 30; 31; 32 23N 36E 25; 26; 33; 34; 35; 36 *Mount Diablo Meridian, Churchill County, Nevada

Table 5: Legal Description* of Clan Alpine Livestock Grazing Allotment Township Range Sections 18N 37E 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 16; 17 20; 21; 29; 31 19N 38E NW corner 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 17; 18; NE corner 19 19N 37E All except SE corner 24; 25; SE corner 26; 35; 36 19N 36E 1; 2; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 22; 23; 24; 25; NE corner 36 20N 40E 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 17; 18; 19 20N 39E 1-24; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31 20N 38E All except SE corner of Section 36 20N 37E All except Sections 4; 5; 6 21N 40E 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33 21N 39E All 21N 38E All

Township Range Sections 21N 37E 12; 13; 14; 23; 24; 25; 26; 35; 36 22N 40E 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 17; 18; 19; 20; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33 22N 39E All 22N 38E All except Sections 19; 29; 30 31 22N 37E 1; 2; 3; 4; 10; 11; 12; 13 23N 40E 17; 18; 19; 20; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33 23N 39E 13-36 23N 38E 13-36 23N 37E 1; 2; 9; 10; 11; 13-29; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36 Bell Flat Pasture of Clan Alpine Allotment 13N 35E NW corner Section 5; north half Section 6 13N 34E 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 8; 9; 10; 11 14N 35E 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 16-21; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; NW corner 34 14N 34E All except Section 31 15N 35E All except 1; 2; 11; 12; 13; 14; 25; 26; 35; 36 15N 34E All except 6; 7; 18 16N 35E All except 1; 2; 11;12; 13; 14; 23; 24; 25; 26; 35; 36 16N 34E 1; 2; 3; 7-16; 21- 28; 33; 34; 35; 36 *Mount Diablo Meridian, Churchill and Mineral Counties, Nevada

Table 6: Legal Description* of Dixie Valley Livestock Grazing Allotment Township Range Sections 17N 36E All except SE corner 1; 13; 14; 15; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 33; 34; 35; 36 17N 35E All 17N 34E 1; 2; 3; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 33; 34; 35; 36 18N 37E NW corner 6; 7; 18; 19; 30; 31 18N 36E All 18N 35E All 18N 34E 1; 2; 3; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 34; 35; 36 All except 1; 2; SE corner 10-14; east ½ 15; north ¼ 23; 24; east ¼ 19N 36E 24 19N 35E All 19N 34E All except 19; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33 19N 33½E East ¼ of 1; east ½ of 12; NE corner 13 20N 36E South ½ of 7; 8; 9; 17; 18; 19; 20; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33 20N 35E All except ¾ of 1; north ½ of 2 20N 34E All except 6; 18; 19; west ½ 30 21N 35E 5; 6; 7; 8; 17; 18; 19; 20; 29; 30; 31; 32 21N 34E All 21N 33E 1; 2; 11; 12; 13; 14; 23; 24; 25; 26; 35; 36 22N 35E NW corner 5; 6; 7; west ½ 18; 19; 20; 29; 30; 31; 32 22N 34E All except west ½ 6; NW corner 7 22N 33E 13; 24; 25; 26; 35; 36 23N 35E 5; 6; 7; 8; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34 23N 34E 1; 2; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; SE corner 16; 21-29; 31-36

Township Range Sections 24N 35E 31; west quarter 32 24N 34E SE corner 36 *Mount Diablo Meridian, Churchill County, Nevada

2.1.1 Livestock Grazing Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would issue the applicants 10-year term livestock grazing permits with the following changes to grazing schedules:

Cow Canyon In order to help facilitate the removal of livestock from the allotment in a judicious manner the BLM proposes to extend the gathering period in the Upper pasture from 15 days to 30 days. Cattle would begin being herded down to the Lower pasture on Nov 1 and be off the allotment by Dec 1. This would extend the current grazing season previously ending on November 15 to November 30. The number of permitted livestock would be decreased from 365 to 340 in order to keep the AUMs at relatively the same level as currently authorized.

Table 7: Cow Canyon Livestock Grazing Schedule CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE Lower 05/01 – 06/15 365 cattle 552 AUMs Cow Canyon Upper 06/16 – 11/15 365 cattle 1836 AUMs Total 2388 AUMs PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE Lower 05/01 – 06/15 340 cattle 514 AUMs Cow Canyon Upper 06/16 – 11/30 340 cattle 1878 AUMs Total 2392 AUMs

Clan Alpine The permittee would be approved to begin moving cattle from one pasture to another two weeks prior to the end/beginning time of the authorized pasture use. All cattle would need to be removed from the pasture by the time off date. The Cold Springs pasture would be used in November to hold cattle as they are gathered and then trailed to the Bell Flat pasture for the winter grazing season and again in April when heading back to the Clan Alpine Allotment in the spring. The proposed renewal includes use in the month of April which is not permitted currently, however the number of permitted livestock would be decreased from 927 to 848 keeping the AUMs the same.

Table 8: Clan Alpine Livestock Grazing Schedule CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE Shoshone* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Alpine* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Clan Alpine Desatoya/Cherry Valley 07/01 – 08/31 927 cattle 1890 AUMs *Use is Edwards 09/01 – 10/31 927 cattle 1859 AUMs rotated Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 927 cattle 914 AUMs annually Bell Flat 12/01 – 03/31 927 cattle 3688 AUMs Total 10210 AUMs

Table 9: Clan Alpine Livestock Proposed Grazing Schedule PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE Shoshone* 04/15 – 05/31 848 cattle 1310 AUMs Alpine* 06/01 – 07/15 848 cattle 1255 AUMs Clan Alpine Desatoya/Cherry Valley 07/16 – 08/31 848 cattle 1310 AUMs *Use is Edwards 09/01 – 10/31 848 cattle 1701 AUMs rotated Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 414 cattle 408 AUMs annually Bell Flat 12/01 – 04/15 848 cattle 3819 AUMs Cold Springs 04/01 – 04/30 413 cattle 407 AUMs Total 10210 AUMs

Reinstated AUMs The Clan Alpine permittee has requested a reinstatement of 1600 AUMs lost to previous punitive actions. These 1600 AUMs would be allocated towards winter grazing in the Shoshone Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment where snow would help distribute livestock to areas previously unused due to lack of available water.

BLM would consider the reinstatement of the lost AUMs only after five consecutive years of compliance by the permittee with all grazing permit conditions. If compliance is met, the BLM would issue a temporary non-renewable permit (TNR) for 1600 AUMs of winter grazing in the Shoshone Pasture for the duration of the permit. This additional grazing would be monitored annually and prior to approval of the reinstatement of the 1600 AUMs to ensure the additional use would not impact the ability of the area to maintain, achieve or make significant progress toward achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

The additional livestock grazing utilization is recommended at 50% or less of the current year’s growth on key perennial species in the uplands and at a 4” to 6” stubble height on or near any riparian areas to provide effective stream bank protection, prevent sedimentation, and maintain or improve the plant communities. Additionally within areas of GRSG habitat, Table 2-2 Habitat Objectives for GRSG shall be met (BLM 2015). If during an annual evaluation(s) it is ascertained that the area is not meeting one or both conditions, or maintaining, achieving or making significant progress toward achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards, the TNR would be revoked and/or not renewed. The 1600 AUMs shall not be reinstated and shall be considered permanently dropped.

Table 10: Clan Alpine Livestock Grazing Schedule with Reinstated AUMs PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE WITH REINSTATED AUMs Shoshone* 04/15 – 05/31 848 cattle 1310 AUMs Alpine* 06/01 – 07/15 848 cattle 1255 AUMs Desatoya/Cherry Valley 07/16 – 08/31 848 cattle 1310 AUMs Clan Alpine Edwards 09/01 – 10/31 848 cattle 1701 AUMs *Use is Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 414 cattle 408 AUMs rotated Bell Flat 12/01 – 04/15 848 cattle 3819 AUMs annually Shoshone 12/01 – 04/15 355 cattle 1600 AUMs Cold Springs 04/01 – 04/30 413 cattle 407 AUMs Total 11810 AUMs

Dixie Valley Fifteen days flexibility would be allowed for cattle movement between pastures. All cattle would need to be removed from the pasture by the time off date. Grazing use between the High Country pasture and Mid-Slope pasture would be rotated annually. There would be no change in the grazing rotation between the Dixie Valley North and South pastures.

Table 11: Dixie Valley Livestock Grazing Schedule CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE – ODD YEARS High Country Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley North Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Dixie Valley South Pasture 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle 1600 AUMs Total 6341 AUMs CURRENT SCHEDULE – EVEN YEARS High Country Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley North Pasture 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Dixie Valley South Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 1600 AUMs Total 6341 AUMs

Table 12: Dixie Valley Proposed Livestock Grazing Schedule PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE – ODD YEARS High Country Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley North Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Dixie Valley South Pasture 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle 1600 AUMs Total 6341 AUMs PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE – EVEN YEARS High Country Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley North Pasture 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Dixie Valley South Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 1600 AUMs Total 6341 AUMs

Terms and Conditions Common to all Allotments:  Grazing management shall be authorized in a manner that would make progress towards meeting the standards as set forth by the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC, 1997.

 Within Greater sage-grouse habitat management areas the permittee shall abide by the terms and conditions as stated in the September 2015 Record of Decision for the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region of Nevada and Northeastern California.

 The permittee is responsible for informing all persons who are associated with the allotment that they would be subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing archaeological sites or for collecting artifacts. If archaeological materials are discovered as a result of operations under this authorization, the permittee must immediately contact the authorized officer.

 Pursuant to 43 CFR §10.4(G), the permittee must notify the authorized officer, 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), the permittee must stop activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery and protect it from the permittees activities for 30 days or until notified to proceed by the authorized officer.

 The permittee is responsible for informing all persons who are associated with the allotment that they would be subject to prosecution for disturbing or collecting vertebrate fossils, collecting large amounts of petrified wood (over 25lbs./day, up to 250lbs./year), or collecting fossils for commercial purposes on public lands. If any paleontological resources are discovered as a result of operations under this authorization, the permittee must immediately contact the authorized officer.

 An accurate actual use report must be submitted within 15 days of the end of the grazing season.

 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 turnout. 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.

 Within WSAs, new range improvements can only be authorized if they meet the non- impairment standards as defined in Manual 6330. Range improvements existing or under construction on October 21, 1976 may continue to be used and maintained in the same manner and to the same degree as such use was being conducted on that date. Exclosure fencing or vegetation manipulation is not permitted under the “non- impairment” criteria except to allow for wildlife related projects that would clearly protect or enhance wilderness values.

 Salt and/or supplements must be placed at least 1 mile from live waters (springs, streams), and outside of associated riparian areas, permanent livestock watering facilities, wet or dry meadows and aspen stands. Salt would not be placed in known historic properties.

 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.

 Camping on public lands in any location longer than 14 days by permittee or hired hands must be approved through a Letter of Agreement from the Authorizing Officer. A notice must be posted in camp or in the case of trailers or camping units, in a window by entry door indicating name and contact information of owner and permittee along with a copy of the Letter of Agreement. Camps must be located a minimum of 200’ from water sources. Occupant must avoid any unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

 Once utilization on key forage plant species has reached the recommended level of 50% or less of current year’s growth, livestock would be actively removed from a pasture or certain areas within a pasture. A moderate utilization level would be an indicator to turn off or close (if possible) the riparian area and remove livestock to other water sources. A stubble height of 4-6 inches may be applied where appropriate in riparian areas. Generally, stubble heights of 4 to 6 inches provide effective stream bank protection, prevent sedimentation, and maintain or improve plant communities (USDI 1999).

Cow Canyon Allotment: Grazing use in the Cow Canyon Allotment would be in accordance with the 1989 CCGA and Final Decision as well as the decision for EA# DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2015-0004-EA.

Clan Alpine Allotment: Grazing use in the Clan Alpine Allotment would be in accordance with the 1992 Clan Alpine AMP and Final Decision as well as the decision for EA# DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2015-0004-EA.

 Trailing is included in this authorization with the following requirements: 1. Cattle would be trailed a minimum of ten miles per day. 2. Cattle would be trailed from one pasture to the next with overnight stops allowed only in the Clan Alpine Allotment.

 All exclosures are closed to livestock grazing unless authorized by the BLM.

 To avoid impacts to Greater sage-grouse, livestock utilizing the Cold Springs Pasture during April would not be allowed to congregate in the southern portion of the pasture where there is sensitive habitat.

As in the Ellison Ranching Co. sheep permit with Battle Mountain this condition would apply to Ellison Ranch Co. on the Clan Alpine Allotment:

 Use in the Clan Alpine shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Clan Alpine AMP approved 7/20/92.

As in the additional Ellison Ranching Co. sheep permits with Battle Mountain these conditions would be added to the permit and shall apply to Ellison Ranching Co. on the Clan Alpine Allotment:

 Actual Use information would be submitted within 15 days of completing grazing use as specified on the grazing permit and grazing licenses. Actual Use reports assist with

interpretation of data, and it is critical to obtain an accurate and detailed record of Actual Use for each grazing year. Therefore, permittees shall not be licensed for the upcoming grazing season until Actual Use Reports for the previous grazing season are accepted by this office. These reports are to be detailed (describe how livestock are managed, i.e. rotation schedule or pasture used, when and where), readable, accurate and completed on the appropriate Actual Use Form.

 Utilization of winterfat would not exceed 30% during the growing season and 50% by the end of winter dormancy. Utilization of other key species would not exceed 40% by seed dissemination, and 50% by the end of the grazing season.

 Ellison Ranching Co. would be required to remove livestock from the area if utilization of key perennial upland species reaches 50%.

 Prior to any future decisions (which could include the need for additional environmental analysis), monitoring data would be evaluated to determine if adjustments are necessary and/or if any additional modifications in existing management would be necessary.

 Ellison Ranching Co. would be required to move their sheep on a regular basis so that over-utilization of the vegetation and other resource damage does not occur.

 Ellison Ranching Co. would be required to notify the Stillwater Field Office, along with the Mount Lewis Field Office, at least 14 days prior to turnout in order to determine if any temporary changes in permitted use are required either at the request of the permittee or at the discretion of the BLM based upon current monitoring data and/or monitoring data collected during the previous grazing year.

 No bed grounds shall be within ¼ mile of riparian areas, watering facilities, aspen stands or known weed infestations and shall be moved every day.

 Sheep herder camps are to move at least every 5 days.

Dixie Valley Allotment: Grazing use in the Dixie Valley Allotment would be in accordance with the 1989 Dixie Valley AMP and Final Decision as well as described in the decision for EA# DOI-BLM-NV-C010- 2015-0004-EA.

 The Horse Creek and Bench Creek watersheds are closed to grazing. The gap fences at the mouth of the canyons would be in workable condition and would remain closed.

 Bureau personnel have the right of ingress and egress over any lands privately owned or controlled in order to access areas of the allotment.

2.1.2 Proposed Range Improvements These range improvements are proposed to help address management concerns in areas that are not currently achieving standards and guidelines within the project area. Fencing the spring areas would help in protecting the water sources from further degradation and allow natural rehabilitation. Water would either be available downstream or piped to a trough outside of the fenced area. The well and troughs would help with the distribution of cattle allowing livestock into areas previously used very little due to lack of water and reduce grazing pressure on the surrounding areas. Range Improvement construction is a short term, temporary surface disturbing process that requires a small number of motorized vehicles and equipment.

Spring/Wet Meadow Exclosure Fencing and Range Improvements Monitoring for baseline conditions would be assessed prior to treatment to gauge trend, evaluate outcome of treatments, and to form an adaptive management strategy for all range improvements. A standard BLM 4-wire fence built to meet specifications regarding cattle, horses and/or wildlife would be constructed (BLM Handbook 1741-1) as described below. A standard 4-wire fence consists of a smooth bottom wire and two strands of barbed wire and a smooth top wire or a combination. The wire spacing is 16", 22", 30" and 42" with 16 1/2' spacing between T-posts. Fence construction would involve the use of pick-up trucks, post- hole diggers attached to tractors or backhoes and other equipment as necessary. New road construction would not be included for the proposed fencelines, but a two-track road could be created and remain visible until vegetation is naturally restored along any fence. Existing roads would be utilized to the extent possible. Management decisions for livestock grazing and special status species, Appendix B, and the Required Design Features in Appendix C of the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region of Nevada and Northeastern California would be adhered to in areas of GRSG habitat.

Four range improvements are proposed (see Appendix A, Maps) and consist of the following:

Dirt Spring – Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 438126.383 Easting (E) 4409807.208 Northing (N) (see Appendix A, Maps) This spring improvement and exclosure fence would be located in the Clan Alpine Allotment approximately 1,000 feet south and inside of the Clan Alpine WSA boundary. Access to the site is along the designated primitive route W33 so no new roads or cross country travel would be required to complete the project. The wilderness characteristic of this site have been severely impacted due to drought and intensive use by cattle and wild horses and includes the denuding of vegetation and compaction of soil to the extent that water flow through the spring has been greatly reduced. There are wood scraps and a partially broken down fence that exists around the spring from an old range improvement that would be removed and hauled off site. Fence replacement dimensions would be approximately 100 ft X 100 ft (0.3 acres), and constructed using the pipe and cable method to maximize durability and minimize visibility.

Construction would consist of 2 inch by 9 foot Schedule 40 galvanized pipe driven 3’-3” into the ground at 10 foot intervals. Two equally spaced rows of 3/8” steel cable would run horizontally through eye bolts that have been installed on the pipe posts. Cable would be attached at the cables begin/end with a heavy duty spring expansion/contraction device. Optional 1-7/8” steel

22 pipe rail may be installed if it is determined that wild horses may damage the fence without the additional support. To install the spring box, a pit would be excavated to accommodate a 3ft deep corrugated metal spring box which would be buried and covered with gravel using a small tracked backhoe. A 2” black polypro irrigation pipe up to 800 ft in length would be buried in a trench excavated by the backhoe. A trough 3ft X 6ft X 2ft deep and painted with an acceptable color from the Standard Environmental Color Chart to blend in to the surroundings would be installed on the ground.

Although the construction phase for the installation of the trough, pipeline and spring box would create unavoidable temporary surface disturbance, all activities would be constrained to the maximum area required to dig the pit for placement of the spring box and run the trench from the spring box to the trough. This disturbance would be minimized through the judicious use of the small tracked backhoe and manual labor. Since the construction area for the fence, spring box and pipeline is currently denuded of vegetation and the soil has been compacted from cattle and wild horses walking and loafing around the spring, new surface disturbance from use of the backhoe would be minimal. The fence would be installed primarily though manual labor, thereby limiting the amount of disturbance for this activity. Upon completion of the project, any surface disturbance would be re-contoured and reseeded with native vegetation. No date for the installation of this range improvement has been determined yet. Actual implementation of the project would depend on identifying and successfully obtaining the required funds for operations and labor.

Unnamed spring in Cherry Valley– UTM 418854.243 E 4381687406 N (see Appendix A, Maps). This spring improvement and exclosure fence would be located in the Dixie Valley Allotment approximately 125 ft. southwest and inside the Clan Alpine WSA boundary and 300 ft from an existing road located outside of the WSA. No new roads and minimal cross country travel would be required to complete the project. The wilderness characteristic of this site has been severely impacted due to drought and intensive use by cattle and wild horses and includes the denuding of vegetation and compaction of soil to the extent that water flow through the spring has been greatly reduced. There is a dilapidated range improvement that would be removed as part of the project. Fence dimensions would be approximately 300ft X 100ft (0.5 acres). The fence would be constructed similar to the description for the fencing proposed around Dirt Springs described above. A 3ft deep corrugated metal spring box would be buried and covered with gravel. The pipeline (up to 150 ft.) would be dug and buried using a small tracked backhoe. A trough 3ft X 6ft X 2ft deep and painted with an acceptable color from the Standard Environmental Color Chart in order to blend in with the surroundings as much as possible would be connected to the pipeline. This trough and half the pipeline would be located outside of the WSA.

Figure 1: Photo of pipeline, fence and trough in disrepair at Unnamed Spring in Cherry Valley.

Although the construction phase for the installation of the trough, pipeline and spring box would create unavoidable temporary surface disturbance, all activities would be constrained to the maximum area required to dig the pit for placement of the spring box and run the trench from the spring box to the trough. This disturbance would be minimized through the judicious use of the small tracked backhoe and manual labor. Since the construction area for the fence, spring box and pipeline is currently located in an area mostly denuded of vegetation and the soil has been compacted from cattle and wild horses walking and loafing around the spring, new surface disturbance from use of the backhoe would be minimal. The fence would be installed primarily though manual labor, thereby limiting the amount of disturbance for this activity. Upon completion of the project, any surface disturbance would be re-contoured and reseeded with native vegetation. No date for the installation of this range improvement has been determined yet. Actual implementation of the project would depend on identifying and successfully obtaining the required funds for operations and labor.

Rock Creek Spring – UTM 0429940 E 4357940 N (see Appendix A, Maps). This fence would serve as a spring exclosure fence and is located in the Clan Alpine Allotment adjacent to but outside the western Desatoya Mountains WSA boundary. Fence dimensions would be approximately 450ft X 130ft (1.2 acres). Individual trees that have encroached into the wet meadow would be lopped and scattered. The fence line would remain on the north side of the dirt road and not bisect the road which provides access to the WSA.

Figure 2: Photo Rock Creek Spring

Well in Camp Creek area – UTM 0424385 E 4360784 N (see Appendix A, Maps). If water is judged to be in the area, a new well would be constructed in a wash that bisects a dirt road at this location within the Dixie Valley Allotment. It would be drilled to an approximate depth of 350 feet with a maximum casing of 8 inches. A submersible pump would be lowered into the casing and powered by a portable generator. Above ground facilities would include, at a minimum, a 10,000 gallon storage tank and up to three troughs 3ft X 6ft X 2ft deep, painted with an acceptable color from the Standard Environmental Color Chart to blend in with the surroundings as much as possible. A section of pipeline, no more than 100 feet, would be installed from the well head to the storage tank. Total ground disturbance would be approximately ½ acre including the cattle loafing area. Water rights would be applied for by the permittee.

Table 13: Proposed Locations of Range Improvements Identified Under the Proposed Action Location of Proposed Range Improvements Under the Proposed Action Range Improvement Township Range Section Principal Meridian Dirt Spring Development & Exclosure 23N 38E 29 Mount Diablo Meridian Unnamed Spring in Cherry Valley 20N 36E 28 Mount Diablo Meridian Rock Creek Spring Exclosure 17N 37E 4 Mount Diablo Meridian Camp Creek Well 18N 36E 26 Mount Diablo Meridian

2.1.3 Existing Range Improvements The following table contains a list of existing range improvements on the three allotments. The success of the rest rotation grazing schedules to maintain/attain Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards depends, in part, on fully operational range improvements which are necessary to control livestock movements in accordance with the grazing schedules. Maintenance of all range improvements under a Range Improvement Permit or Cooperative

Agreement are the responsibility of the grazing permittees. Grazing privileges may be suspended by the Authorized Officer if Range Improvement(s) are found to be not in good working order and/or in an aesthetic state prior to turnout.

Table 14: Existing Range Improvements Township, Mitigation Completion Project Name Range, Condition Description Date Section / Pasture Cow Canyon Allotment T21N, R36E Sec Cow Canyon Drift Minor maintenance on Within 1 year 23 Good Fence north & south of fence of signed DR Upper Pasture Dixie Sand Hill T21N R35E Sec 31 Within 2 years Good Well needs a cap Well Lower Pasture of signed DR Dixie Meadows T22N R35E Sec 29 Good None needed N/A Fence Lower Pasture Artesian Well T21N R35E Sec 16 Complete reconstruction; Within 1 year Poor Holding Corral Lower Pasture scrap cleanup of signed DR Tighten corners; T20N R36E Sec 21 Within 1 year Kaiser Peak Fence Fair straighten or replace T- Upper Pasture of signed DR posts Normal maint; restring T20N R35E Sec 2 Within 2 years Sand Hills Fence Poor north end; rebuild near Lower Pasture of signed DR corner & east side Rock jacks incomplete; Bernice Canyon T22N R37E Sec 14 Within 1 year Fair deadmans needed at Drift Fence Upper Pasture of signed DR creek; washout in creek Clan Alpine Drift T20N R36E Sec 23 Complete reconstruction Within 2 years Fence & Poor Upper Pasture of fence; close gates of signed DR Cattleguard Deer Lodge Drift T22N R37E Sec 33 Needs reposting & Within 1 year Poor Fence Upper Pasture restringing of signed DR Kissing Rock T21N R35E Sec 35 Within 2 years Poor Needs reconstruction Pipeline Upper Pasture of signed DR T21N R35E Sec 24 Permittee says in Grover Point Well Fair N/A Lower Pasture working order T22N R36E Sec 14 Permittee says in Dyer Flat Well Fair N/A Lower Pasture working order Clan Alpine Allotment T21N R37E Sec Within 1 year Byers Drift Fence 15, 21,22 Poor Needs full reconstruction of signed DR Clan Alpine Pasture Lower Cherry T19N R37E Sec 5 Within 1 year Fair Needs repair in creekbed Canyon Fence Clan Alpine Pasture of signed DR T20N R39E Sec 2 New Pass Well Fair Repair fence around well TBD Edwards Pasture T22N R39E Sec 36 Horse Shoe Well Good Cleanup of area TBD Edwards Pasture Edwards Valley T21N R39E Sec 3 Good Cleanup of area Within 1 year

Township, Mitigation Completion Project Name Range, Condition Description Date Section / Pasture Well #1 Edwards Pasture of signed DR T21N R39E Sec 19 Ormanchea Well Good None needed N/A Edwards Pasture T18N R37E Sec 31 Cold Spring Needs repair in various Within 2 years Cold Springs Fair Summit Fence areas along fenceline of signed DR Pasture T22N R39E Sec 32 Repair fence around Within 2 years Shoshone Well Fair Edwards Pasture trough of signed DR Byer Canyon T21N R37E Sec 25 Within 1 year Poor Complete reconstruction Fence Clan Alpine Pasture of signed DR T17N R36E Sec 1 Maintenance at gates Within 2 years Rock Creek Fence Good Desatoya Pasture and wood H-braces of signed DR Clan Alpine Drift T20N R36E Sec 23 Within 1 year Fence & Poor Complete reconstruction Clan Alpine Pasture of signed DR Cattleguard Cherry Meadow T20N R36E Sec 27 ------TBD ------Fence Clan Alpine Pasture Byer Canyon T21N R37E Sec 22 Reconstruct spring Within 1 year Poor Spring #1 Clan Alpine Pasture exclosure of signed DR Rebuild exclosure; fix North War Canyon T20N R37E Sec 18 Within 1 year Fair pipeline, clean veg from Spring Clan Alpine Pasture of signed DR spring Edwards Well One T20N R39E Sec 18 Remove windmill; Within 2 years Good (Hidden Well) Edwards Pasture cleanup of area of signed DR Cold Springs Drift T18N R37E Sec 27 Good None needed N/A Fence Alpine Pasture Bell Flat Water T16N R35E Sec 17 Good None needed N/A Haul Bell Flat Pasture T18N R37E Sec 25 Reinforce ends; tighten Within 1 year Topia Fence Fair Desatoya Pasture wire; brush removal of signed DR Tighten corners; Within 1 year T20N R36E Sec 16 Kaiser Peak Fence Fair straighten or replace T- of signed DR High Pasture posts (east half) T15N R34E Sec 33 Bell Flat Well ------TBD ------Bell Flat Pasture Normal maintenance; T16N R35E Sec 3 Within 2 years Highway 23 Fence Fair rebuild H-braces & gates Bell Flat Pasture of signed DR replace with metal T15N R35E Sec 9 Divide Corral ------TBD ------Bell Flat Pasture Gabbs Valley T14N R35E Sec 34 Maintenance on all gates Within 1 year Fair Fence Bell Flat Pasture & H-braces of signed DR Broken Hills T14N R35E Sec 34 ------TBD ------Cattleguard Bell Flat Pasture Slate Mtn Drift T14N R34E Sec 18 Excellent None needed N/A Fence Bell Flat Pasture

Township, Mitigation Completion Project Name Range, Condition Description Date Section / Pasture South Bell Flat T14N R35E Sec 32 ------TBD ------Fence Bell Flat Pasture Bell Canyon Drift T15N R34E Sec 19 ------TBD ------Fence Bell Flat Pasture Broken Hills Well T14N R35E Sec 21 ------TBD ------Storage Bell Flat Pasture T13N R34E Sec 9 Repairs needed in wash; Within 2 years SW Bell Flat Fence Good Bell Flat Pasture improve gate of signed DR SE Bell Flat T14N R34E Sec 25 ------TBD ------Storage Bell Flat Pasture Dixie Valley Allotment Deep Creek- T20N R34E Sec 8 Needs reconstruction or Freeman Drift Poor Abandon North Pasture removal Fence T20N R34E Sec 5 Can’t find – no remnants Ridge Fence ------N/A North Pasture – Abandon T17N R35E Sec 12 Within 2 years Bench Creek Well Good Cleanup of area South Pasture of signed DR Reconstruct east & west Bench Creek T17N R35E Sec 24 end of fence; Within 1 year Poor Fence South Pasture maintenance on washout of signed DR areas Cold Springs T18N R37E Sec 31 Needs repair in various Within 1 year Fair Summit Fence Mid-Slope Pasture areas along fenceline of signed DR East Lee Canyon T19N R33E Sec 13 Minor tightening; remount Within 1 year Good Fence North Pasture 2 gate posts of signed DR Dixie Meadows T22N R35E Sec 20 Replace bent t-posts; Within 1 year Good Fence North Pasture minor tightening of signed DR Camp Creek T17N R36E Sec 1 Storage Tank & Good None needed N/A Mid-Slope Pasture Trough Tighten corners; Within 1 year T20N R36E Sec 16 Kaiser Peak Fence Fair straighten or replace T- of signed DR High Pasture posts (west half) Rebuild north corner & T20N R35E Sec 2 Within 2 years Sand Hills Fence Fair east edge; fence cut at North Pasture of signed DR north end Chalk Mountain T17N R34E Sec 36 None needed per Good N/A Pipeline South Pasture permittee T17N R35E Sec 33 Westgate Well Good None needed N/A South Pasture T17N R35E Sec 36 Tighten wires; straighten Within 1 year Middlegate Corral Good South Pasture posts on west side of signed DR Bench Creek T17N R35E Sec 12 Within 2 years Good Cleanup area Corral Mid-Slope Pasture of signed DR Dixie Wash Well T20N R26E Sec 26 Poor Not in working condition Abandon

Township, Mitigation Completion Project Name Range, Condition Description Date Section / Pasture on Navy withdrawn – abandon lands Coyote Canyon T19N R33E Sec 1 Normal maint; brush Within 1 year Good Fence North Pasture removal of signed DR East Lee T19N R33E Sec 13 Within 1 year Cattleguard & Good Brush removal North Pasture of signed DR fence T19N R34E Sec 9 Dixie Corral Poor Complete rebuild Abandon North Pasture Cherry Valley T20N R36E Sec 28 Proposed in West Spring Poor Complete rebuild High Pasture this EA Development T19N R34E Sec 21 Within 2 years Hot Water Well Good Cleanup area North Pasture of signed DR Cherry Valley T20N R36E Sec 28 Poor Complete rebuild Abandon Corrals High Pasture T22N R35E Sec 8 Rewire between posts; Dixie Hot Springs Within 1 year On Navy withdrawn Fair repair H-braces; Fence of signed DR lands straighten posts Chalk Mountain T17N R34E Sec 36 Good None needed N/A Well South Pasture Chalk Mountain T17N R34E Sec 9 Works to the north Fair N/A Pipeline South Pasture storage tank Camp Creek Water T18N R36E Sec 15 Within 1 year Good Needs new tank cover Development Mid-Slope Pasture of signed DR Horse Creek Gap T19N R35E Sec 12 Reconnect south side to Within 1 year Poor Fence High Pasture rock; rebuild gate of signed DR Bench Creek Gap T19N R36E Sec 30 Good None needed N/A fence Mid-Slope Pasture Dixie Valley South T17N R35E Sec 1 Good None needed N/A Water Hauls Mid-Slope Pasture

2.1.4 Minerals The BLM is proposing to designate a mineral material community pit in Edwards Creek Valley, Nevada located in the Edwards Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment. The mineral material pit would strategically be placed in the valley to reduce transportation lengths while still meeting current and future material needs in the valley. The proposed location can be seen in Appendix D. The current public needs for material are for geothermal exploration, local rancher use, and road maintenance by the Churchill County Road Department. BLM plans on designating a 70 acre community pit in the northeast part of Edwards Creek Valley, Nevada (see Appendix A; Maps). The location of the pit is in T21N, R39E, Section 2 (SESWSE) (SWSESE) and section 11 (NENWNE) (E2NENE) (SENENE), Mount Diablo Meridian. The proposed pit would join an authorized mineral material pit in the north end to a pre-existing pit in the southern end of the project area near the county road.

Currently, there is one company that has an authorized contract for removal of material, from the north end of the proposed community pit, for use on the existing roads for a geothermal exploration project. The operator has a contract to supply needed granular material for capping the fine grain soils on the current roads northeast of the valley. As the project develops and required permitting is finalized the material would be used for capping geothermal drilling pads and access roads. If a geothermal energy source is found, there would be a larger need for mineral material.

Excavation of material from the community pits would be completed by standard construction equipment. Possible equipment used on the site could include a screen, or a crushing plant, loaders, conveyors, a water truck and haul trucks. Equipment would occasionally occupy the pit during the duration of the material contracts. All processing of the mineral material would remain within the boundaries of the community pit area. There would be no permanent equipment stored onsite after the expiration of the authorized material contracts.

Excavated material could be stockpiled onsite before being transported to its authorized use area. Materials would be hauled from the site by existing roads or short access roads from the existing main roads. Roads would have to be maintained to keep a flat surface and prevent dust. Maintenance would include maintaining a durable surface and use of water to suppress dust.

After the need for the community pits have expired, reclamation would commence. Reclamation would include recontouring of the disturbed surface for visual and safety purposes, ripping of any compacted areas, elimination of any stockpiled materials, use of any fine material or available topsoil as a growth medium, seeding with a native seed mixture, and replanting any salvaged plants.

2.1.5 Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds The Proposed Action for the Invasive, Nonnative and Noxious Species program would be to implement a 6-year plan after the signing of the DR, consisting of the following:

 Inventory to identify weed species, locations, and infestation size;  Treatment of the plants identified in the inventory; and  Monitoring to identify those areas successfully treated and those that would require follow-up treatment.

Note: This plan is subject to available funds. In this 6-year plan, the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments would be divided into 5 areas for inventory, treatment, and monitoring. An outline of the proposed schedule and maps of each area (refer to Appendix A; Maps 6-10) are provided in this document.

Saltcedar: Saltcedar infestations would be treated either by using the cut-stump method or low volume foliar application method.

Low Volume Foliar Application  Trees would be sprayed from the crown to the bottom, covering two sides of the plant, with thorough coverage to the crown. The formulation of imazapyr has been approved for use on BLM lands; also, a Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) for this herbicide has been completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on lands managed by the SFO for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. PUPs would be reissued for additional years of treatments as necessary. Imazapyr controls undesirable wetland, riparian and terrestrial vegetation growing in or around surface water.  Backpack sprayers may be used for transportation of herbicides.  Non-toxic marking dye would be added to the solution to insure proper coverage.  Chemical applications would not occur within 24 hours of forecasted rain.  There are no restrictions on livestock consumption of water from the treatment area.  Application can be made at any time of the year except during periods of heavy sap flow in the spring.  All instructions on the herbicide’s label would be reviewed and followed.  All SOPs, mitigation measures, and conservation measures listed in the Record of Decision for the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS, which was signed in September of 2007, would be followed.  Plants may also be treated by the herbicides shown in Table 15 as these have been approved for use on BLM lands; also, a PUP for each of these herbicides has been completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on lands managed by the SFO.

Cut-stump Method  Trees would be initially downed using either hand, crosscut, or chainsaws.  Wood slash would be scattered.  The recently cut surface of the tree stumps (cambium area) would be painted with an herbicide mixture of imazapyr and methylated seed oil. The oil moves the herbicide through the developing callus layer to the vascular tissues for translocation throughout the plants. The formulation of imazapyr, called Habitat®, has been approved for use on BLM lands; also, a PUP for this herbicide has been completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on lands managed by the SFO. Habitat® controls undesirable wetland, riparian and terrestrial vegetation growing in or around surface water.  Backpack sprayers may be used for transportation of herbicides.  Non-toxic marking dye would be added to the solution to insure proper coverage.  Resprouts and new growth would be treated with a ground foliar application of the formulation of imazapyr.  Chemical applications would not occur within 24 hours of forecasted rain.

 Application can be made at any time of the year except during periods of heavy sap flow in the spring.  All instructions on the herbicide’s label would be reviewed and followed.  All SOPs, mitigation measures, and conservation measures listed in the Record of Decision for the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS, which was signed in September of 2007, would be followed.  Plants may also be treated by the herbicides shown in Table 15 as these have been approved for use on BLM lands; also, a PUP for each of these herbicides has been completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on lands managed by the SFO.

Table 15: Other Herbicides Used For Saltcedar Control Trade Name Common Name Aquamaster glyphosate Garlon 4 triclopyr Gly Star Pro glyphosate

Hoary Cress: Hoary cress infestations would be treated by spraying herbicides on postemergent foliage. Treatment details are as follows:

 Herbicide application would be done by a backpack, handheld, or Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) mounted sprayer.  The time of spraying would be when the plants are young and actively growing for best results. The formulation of metsulfuron methyl, Escort XP®, has been approved for use on BLM lands; also, a PUP for this herbicide has been completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on the SFO for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Escort XP® controls annual and perennial weeds and unwanted woody plants. It is absorbed primarily through the foliage and by the roots to a lesser degree.  The herbicide would not be applied directly to water or to areas where surface water is present.  Nontarget plants would be avoided.  There are no grazing restrictions for Escort XP®.  All instructions on the herbicide’s label would be reviewed and followed.  All SOPs, mitigation measures, and conservation measures listed in the Record of Decision for the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS, which was signed in September of 2007, would be followed.  Plants may also be treated by the herbicides shown in Table 16 as these have been approved for use on BLM lands; also, a PUP for each of these herbicides has been

completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on lands managed by the SFO.

Table 16: Other Herbicides Used For Hoary Cress Control Trade Name Common Name Telar DF chlorsulfuron Plateau imazapic Weedar 64 2,4-D

Russian knapweed: Russian knapweed infestations would be treated by spraying herbicides on post emergent foliage. Treatment details are as follows:

 Herbicide application would be done by a backpack, handheld, or UTV-mounted sprayer.  The time of spraying would be when the plants are young and actively growing for best results. The formulation of metsulfuron methyl, Escort XP®, has been approved for use on BLM lands. Escort XP® controls annual and perennial weeds and unwanted woody plants. It is absorbed primarily through the foliage and by the roots to a lesser degree.  The formulation of chlorsulfuron, Telar® XP, could also be used early in the spring when the plants are young and actively growing. This herbicide is absorbed by both the roots and foliage of plants, rapidly inhibiting growth.  A PUP for each of these herbicides has been completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on lands managed by the SFO.  The herbicides would not be applied directly to water or to areas where surface water is present.  Nontarget plants would be avoided.  There are no grazing restrictions for Escort XP® with use rates of 1 2/3 ounces per acre.  There are no grazing restrictions for Telar® XP with use rates of 1 1/3 ounces per acre.  All instructions on the herbicide’s label would be reviewed and followed.  All SOPs, mitigation measures, and conservation measures listed in the Record of Decision for the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS, which was signed in September of 2007, would be followed.  Plants may also be treated by the herbicides shown in Table 17 as these have been approved for use on BLM lands; also, a PUP for each of these herbicides has been completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on lands managed by the SFO.

Table 17: Other Herbicides Used For Russian Knapweed Control Trade Name Common Name Banvel dicamba Plateau imazapic Weedar 64 2,4-D Curtail clopyralid + 2, 4-D Tordon 22K picloram

Other noxious and invasive weed species may be discovered in the process of conducting the inventory. These infestations would be incorporated into the following year’s treatment schedule. Table 18 provides the trade names, common names, and potential weed species that could be treated. The herbicides shown are those that have a PUP completed and approved by the Deputy State Director, Natural Resources, Nevada, for use on the SFO for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. All have been approved for use on BLM lands. In the event that an infestation is discovered that would be better controlled using an herbicide not in the table below, the SFO Weed Coordinator would write an additional PUP and have it approved by the Deputy State Director. Any additional proposed herbicides would also be approved for use on BLM lands.

Table 18: Herbicides with Approved PUPs Invasive, Nonnative and Trade Name Common Name Noxious Species knapweeds (Russian, squarrose, spotted & diffuse); perennial Telar DF chlorsulfuron pepperweed; thistles (Canada, Scotch, bull & musk); yellow starthistle; hoary cress medusahead; poison hemlock; knapweeds (Russian, squarrose, spotted & diffuse); perennial Aquamaster glyphosate pepperweed; Canada thistle; yellow starthistle; saltcedar; cheatgrass; big sagebrush; grey rabbitbrush knapweeds (Russian, spotted & diffuse); thistles (Canada, bull & Banvel dicamba musk); yellow starthistle; cheatgrass; grey rabbitbrush knapweeds (Russian, squarrose, spotted & diffuse); thistles Curtail clopyralid + 2,4-D (Canada, bull & musk); yellow starthistle poison hemlock; Russian knapweed; perennial Escort XP metsulfuron methyl pepperweed; thistles (Canada, Scotch, bull & musk); halogeton; purple loosestrife; hoary cress Garlon 4 triclopyr saltcedar; Canada thistle knapweeds (Russian, squarrose, spotted & diffuse); perennial Gly Star Pro glyphosate pepperweed; Canada thistle; cheatgrass; big sagebrush; grey rabbitbrush; saltcedar spotted & diffuse knapweed; Krovar I DF bromacil + diuron kochia; cheatgrass knapweeds (Russian, squarrose, Habitat imazapyr spotted & diffuse); perennial

Invasive, Nonnative and Trade Name Common Name Noxious Species pepperweed; yellow starthistle; saltcedar; cheatgrass medusahead; poison hemlock; Russian knapweed; perennial Plateau imazapic pepperweed; thistles (Canada, Scotch, bull & musk); halogeton; cheatgrass; hoary cress knapweeds (Russian, squarrose, spotted & diffuse); thistles Tordon 22K picloram (Canada, Scotch, & musk); yellow starthistle knapweeds (Russian, squarrose, spotted & diffuse); thistles Transline clopyralid (Canada, bull & musk); yellow starthistle Canada & musk thistle; big Weedar 64 2,4-D sagebrush; grey rabbitbrush; hoary cress

The Six Year Plan is as follows:

Year 1 (refer to Map 6 in Appendix A) Identify areas infested with noxious weeds in the 1st fifth  Bell Flat Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment  South half of the Dixie Valley Allotment  240,517 acres

All passable roads would be driven either by a 4-wheel drive truck or an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Major canyons would be hiked or accessed by ATV’s if jeep trails are present and trails are not blocked by heavy saltcedar infestations. All sites previously recorded and/or treated would be checked for live plants.

Year 2 (refer to Map 7 in Appendix A): Treat infestations identified in year 1  Bell Flat Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment  South half of the Dixie Valley Allotment  240,517 acres

Identify areas infested with noxious weeds in the 2nd fifth.  North half of the Dixie Valley Allotment  170,586 acres

All passable roads would be driven either by a 4-wheel drive truck or an ATV. Major canyons would be hiked or accessed by ATV’s if jeep trails are present and trails are not blocked by

35 heavy saltcedar infestations. All sites previously recorded and/or treated would be checked for live plants. Previously identified infestations would be treated as described previously.

Year 3 (refer to Map 8 in Appendix A): Treat infestations identified in year 2  North half of the Dixie Valley Allotment  170,586 acres

Identify areas infested with noxious weeds in the 3rd fifth  Cow Canyon Allotment  132,136 acres

All passable roads would be driven either by a 4-wheel drive truck or an ATV. Major canyons would be hiked or accessed by ATV’s if jeep trails are present and trails are not blocked by heavy saltcedar infestations. All sites previously recorded and/or treated would be checked for live plants. Previously identified infestations would be treated as described previously.

Year 4 (refer to Map 9 in Appendix A): Treat infestations identified in year 3  Cow Canyon Allotment  132,136 acres

Identify areas infested with noxious weeds in the 4th fifth  North half of the Clan Alpine Allotment  177,433 acres

Year 5 (refer to Map 10 in Appendix A): Treat infestations identified in year 4  North half of the Clan Alpine Allotment  177,433 acres

Identify areas infested with noxious weeds in the 5th fifth  South half of the Clan Alpine Allotment  102,080 acres

Year 6 (refer to Map 10 in Appendix A): Treat infestations identified in year 5  South half of the Clan Alpine Allotment  102,080 acres

All passable roads would be driven either by a 4-wheel drive truck or an ATV. Major canyons would be hiked or accessed by ATV’s if jeep trails are present and trails are not blocked by heavy saltcedar infestations. Previously identified infestations would be treated as described above.

Check the spray areas for effect.

Year 7 Repeat years 1- 6 as necessary

2.1.6 Visual Resource Management The Proposed Action for VRM is to establish interim VRM Class III management objectives for the planning area with the exception of the WSAs. The VRM Class I management objective is assigned to all four WSAs in accordance with BLM policy IM No. 2000-096, Use of VRM Class I Designation in Wilderness Study Areas.

2.1.7 Adaptive Management Adaptive management promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of varying resource conditions. Circumstances that may require adaptive management within the various resources in any one year may include, but are not limited to, drought, fire, and weed infestations or above average cheatgrass production. Analyzing a set of actions allows for a response and implementation in a timely manner. The following are options to help respond to changing conditions within the project area.

Temporary Non-Renewable Use (TNR) Grazing The use of a TNR permit may be authorized on an annual basis when conditions set forth in 43 CFR 4110.3-1(a) and 43 CFR 4130.6-2 are met. 43 CFR 4110.3 subparts (1) and (a) of the grazing regulations state: (1) “Additional forage may be apportioned to qualified applicants for livestock grazing use consistent with multiple use management objectives. Additional forage temporarily available for livestock grazing use may be apportioned on a non-renewable basis. 43 CFR 4130.6-2 subpart (2) of the grazing regulations state that: “Nonrenewable grazing permits or leases may be issued on an annual basis to qualified applicants when forage is temporarily available, provided this use is consistent with multiple use objectives. . .” This additional use of AUMs above/outside of active preference is considered to be temporary nonrenewable use and would not result in a permanent change to permitted use. Depending on other appropriate uses, the authorized officer may not grant TNR even if it is determined that additional forage is available.

Wildfires along with historic over grazing have helped to contribute to the establishment of cheatgrass communities in various regions of all three allotments. The issuance of a grazing TNR could help to alleviate the expansion and possibly reduce the extent of these invasive communities. Wildfire is a natural event that defines a range of variability in potential vegetation communities of sagebrush steppe vegetation types. Invasive annual grasses have been shown to alter wildfire behavior. Knapp (1996) reviewed the history, persistence, and influences to human activities of cheatgrass dominance in the Great Basin desert and noted changes in density of cheatgrass have led to corresponding changes in fire frequency. Additionally, fires have shown a tendency to occur repeatedly within cheatgrass dominated areas. Balch et al (2012) found that cheatgrass dominated lands had a shorter fire-return interval, were disproportionately represented in larger fires, were significantly more likely to have been the ignition point for fires, and showed a strong inter-annual response to wet years in comparison to other prominent land cover classes across the Great Basin.

Livestock grazing has been identified as an underutilized tool in assisting managers to achieve fuels and vegetation management objectives. Davies et al (2010), Diamond et al (2009), and Taylor, Jr. (2006) suggest that livestock grazing could minimize wildfire impacts to high priority areas. Although cheatgrass provides good quality forage early in the season, the plants mature quickly. The best forage quality is in late winter to mid spring and it should be grazed early in its growing season. Moreover, under drought situations the presence of cheatgrass causes rapid depletion of early season soil moisture, thus assisting to out-compete, retard or prevent the establishment of perennial grasses (Welsh 1987). The flexibility of a TNR would allow for grazing during optimal timeframes not just when scheduled to be in a particular pasture. Any additional use would only be granted after an interdisciplinary review of the TNR application is conducted, field visits are completed to verify the availability of additional forage, and a determination has been made that the additional use would not impact the ability of the area to achieve or make significant progress toward achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards and other multiple use/resource objectives. Allowable use levels under TNR would conform to a utilization target of 50% for native, key forage species in the uplands and/or a 4”– 6” stubble height in all riparian areas. When these triggers are met livestock would be removed from the area.

Drought Management Drought conditions periodically reoccur in Nevada. The BLM must take responsive management actions to mitigate the impacts of public land uses and activities on natural resources when they are stressed by drought conditions. Drought management responses would be in accordance with the CCD Drought Management EA and the Nevada Handbook H- 1730-1 Resource Management during Drought.

2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative the period of use on the Dixie Valley Allotment would be changed from March 1 through February 28 to June 1 through February 28. In addition, the 1600 AUMs in the Dixie Valley North Pasture would be placed into suspended non-use and the pasture would not be available to livestock for grazing. The grazing rotation schedule had not been followed in past seasons, which has caused some degradation, particularly to riparian areas in the Dixie

Valley North Pasture. Closing this pasture for a period of time should allow for vegetation regeneration and the pasture to make significant progress toward meeting S&Gs. The AUMs would be returned to Active status when the authorized officer deems conditions acceptable.

In accordance with 43 CFR 4110.3, 4130.3 and 4130.3-1, active use, season-of-use and grazing management practices would be changed as follows:

Table 19: Dixie Valley Livestock Grazing Schedule CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE – ODD YEARS High Country Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley North Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Dixie Valley South Pasture 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle 1600 AUMs Total 6341 AUMs CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE – EVEN YEARS High Country Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley North Pasture 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle 1600 AUMs Dixie Valley South Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Total 6341 AUMs

Table 20: Dixie Valley Livestock Proposed Grazing Schedule PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE – ODD YEARS High Country Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley South Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Total 4741 AUMs Total Suspended Non-Use 1600 AUMs PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE – EVEN YEARS High Country Pasture 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle 1251 AUMs Mid-Slope Pasture 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle 1406 AUMs Dixie Valley Dixie Valley South Pasture 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle 2084 AUMs Total Active 4741 AUMs Total Suspended Non-Use 1600 AUMs

Terms and Conditions All terms and conditions described under Alternative 1: Proposed Action applies to Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use.

Additonally, in accordance with 43 CFR 4130.3-2, the following term and condition would be included on the Dixie Valley Allotment Permit:

Of the total Permitted Use for cattle, 1600 AUMs would be placed in suspended non-use for conservation and protection of the public lands. Range and riparian conditions would be evaluated periodically to determine if and when conditions improve. AUMs held in non-use may be released by the authorized officer when range conditions improve in the Dixie Valley North Pasture.

Under this alternative Minerals, and Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds management and Visual Resource Management would be the same as described under the Proposed Action.

2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative the season of use for the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31 due to management concerns. In 1985, 1988, 1989 and 1991 the BLM placed exclosures in various areas of the Cherry Valley for wildlife habitat management and watershed management. In 2010 maintenance was done on all these exclosures. In 2011, when checking the area, cattle and wild horses were observed in the exclosures due to cut fencing. Closing the Cherry Valley Pasture to hot season grazing would address management concerns given that over the years keeping the fencing in good working order has not proven feasible.

Table 21: Clan Alpine Livestock Grazing Schedule CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE Shoshone* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Alpine* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Clan Alpine Desatoya/Cherry Valley 07/01 – 08/31 927 cattle 1890 AUMs *Use is Edwards 09/01 – 10/31 927 cattle 1859 AUMs rotated Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 927 cattle 914 AUMs annually Bell Flat 12/01 – 03/31 927 cattle 3688 AUMs Total 10210 AUMs

Table 22: Clan Alpine Livestock Proposed Grazing Schedule PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE Shoshone* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Alpine* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Clan Alpine Desatoya/Edwards 07/01 – 08/31 464 cattle 946 AUMs *Use is Edwards 07/01 – 10/31 463 cattle 1872 AUMs rotated Cherry Valley 09/01 – 10/31 464 cattle 931 AUMs annually Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 927 cattle 914 AUMs Bell Flat 12/01 – 03/31 927 cattle 3688 AUMs Total 10210 AUMs

Terms and Conditions All terms and conditions described under Alternative 1: Proposed Action applies to Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing.

Under this alternative Minerals and Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds management and Visual Resource Management would be the same as described under the Proposed Action.

2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Under this alternative to ensure the allotment would continue to maintain, achieve or make significant progress toward achieving rangeland health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. The season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment would be changed from May 1 through November 15 to October 1 through April 15. Restricting livestock grazing to winter months would 1) defer most livestock grazing use to a period outside the active growing season for native perennial bunchgrass species, 2) remove mid-summer grazing use of riparian areas, and 3) limit disruption and herbaceous utilization associated with livestock within sage-grouse habitats. Flexibility of ten days would be provided to complete moves between pastures as long as the pastures are meeting vegetation and sage-grouse habitat requirements.

Table 23: Cow Canyon Livestock Grazing Schedule CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE Lower 05/01 – 06/15 365 cattle 552 AUMs Cow Canyon Upper 06/16 – 11/15 365 cattle 1836 AUMs Total 2388 AUMs PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE Lower 10/01 – 10/31 366 cattle 373 AUMs Upper 11/01 – 03/15 366 cattle 1636 AUMs Cow Canyon Lower 03/16 – 04/15 366 cattle 373 AUMs Total 2382 AUMs

Clan Alpine Under this alternative the Clan Alpine Allotment permitted AUMs would be reduced from 10,210 to 5115 AUMs and grazing would be permitted yearlong. The Bell Flat Pasture, along with its 3688 AUMs, would no longer be attached to the allotment. Prior to July 1992 Bell Flat was a stand-alone allotment with a permitted use of 3600 AUMs. Through a rangeline agreement the allotment became a winter pasture for the Clan Alpine Allotment. Under this alternative the Bell Flat area would be returned to a separate allotment retaining its current permitted 3688 AUMs and the 12/1 through 3/31 grazing season until further evaluation can be completed through a new environmental analysis. The current Clan Alpine permittee will retain the grazing use of Bell Flat.

Changes to the remaining pastures would involve incorporating the smaller Alpine and Shoshone pastures into the Edwards pasture and extending the grazing season within the new pasture. This would combine the low and mid-elevation regions of the allotment. Merging these areas and extending the season of use would allow for increased flexibility with livestock during grazing use. The permittee would adjust the placement/timing of grazing based on previous year's monitoring and current year's climatic conditions. Livestock would be moved to other areas of the pasture when utilization of native perennial bunchgrass reaches the recommended 50% of current year’s growth and/or a stubble height of 4-6” inches in riparian areas. During the winter cattle, assisted by snow and snowmelt, can scatter through the lower and mid-elevation country to previously unused expanses (due to lack of water).

This flexibility in grazing management would be authorized within the permit dates and within active permitted AUMs as long as:

 The permittee continues to demonstrate stewardship and cooperation with the BLM.  Pastures would continue to meet or make significant progress towards meeting Rangeland Health Standards. o Rangeland monitoring is a key component of flexibility in grazing management. Monitoring by BLM staff, in coordination with the livestock operator, for the success in meeting allotment-specific resource objectives would take place following implementation. Monitoring could include, but is not limited to, annual key forage utilization, permanent photo points, 100’ quadratic frequency, and 100’ line-point intercept. Upland trend data would be collected and analyzed by BLM staff on 5 to 10-year intervals. During each allotment visit, monitoring for noxious weed establishment would occur, as well as observations of overall rangeland condition.

Table 24: Clan Alpine Livestock Grazing Schedule CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE Shoshone* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Alpine* 05/01 – 06/30 927 cattle 1859 AUMs Clan Alpine Desatoya/Cherry Valley 07/01 – 08/31 927 cattle 1890 AUMs *Use is Edwards 09/01 – 10/31 927 cattle 1859 AUMs rotated Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 927 cattle 914 AUMs annually Bell Flat 12/01 – 03/31 927 cattle 3688 AUMs Total 10210 AUMs

Table 25: Clan Alpine Livestock Proposed Grazing Schedule PROPOSED GRAZING SCHEDULE Edwards 09/01 – 06/30 425 cattle 2976 AUMs Cherry Valley 07/01 – 08/31 275 cattle 561 AUMs Clan Alpine Desatoya 07/01 – 08/31 150 cattle 306 AUMs

Cold Springs 09/01 – 11/30 425 cattle 1272 AUMs Total 5115 AUMs

Within five years, if rangeland conditions are found to be regressing rather than maintaining/improving, the allotment would revert back to the current pasture setup and rotation, without Bell Flat as a winter pasture but incorporating the month of April in the grazing schedule, while retaining the reduced livestock numbers.

Table 26: Clan Alpine Livestock Grazing Schedule if Proposed is Not Meeting Standards CURRENT GRAZING SCHEDULE Shoshone* 04/1 – 06/30 425 cattle 1272 AUMs Clan Alpine Alpine* 04/1 – 06/30 425 cattle 1272 AUMs *Use is Desatoya/Cherry Valley 07/01 – 08/31 425 cattle 866 AUMs rotated Edwards 09/01 – 10/31 425 cattle 852 AUMs annually Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 425 cattle 419 AUMs Total 3409 AUMs

Terms and Conditions All terms and conditions described under Alternative 1: Proposed Action applies to Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs.

Under this alternative Minerals, Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds management and Visual Resource Management would be the same as described in the Proposed Action.

2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative the winter domestic sheep grazing portion in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment would be eliminated. Ellison Ranching Co. would no longer be permitted to graze 1737 sheep for 1200 AUMs from 12/1 – 3/15 within this allotment.

Terms and Conditions The terms and conditions described under Alternative 1: Proposed Action applies to Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing except those pertaining to the Ellison Ranching Co. sheep permits.

Under this alternative, Cattle Grazing, Minerals, Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds, and Visual Resource Management Proposed Actions would remain the same. 2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under this alternative, the existing grazing permits would be cancelled or allowed to expire without renewal and BLM would require the permittees to remove livestock from the allotments. Livestock grazing on the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be authorized by the BLM and the available forage on public lands would not be allocated for livestock use. BLM would not collect the fees associated with the grazing permits. BLM would have limited regulatory and land management authority regarding livestock grazing on these allotments if the grazing permits were not renewed. Implementation of this alternative could interefere with BLMs ability to meet its legislative mandates under the following federal laws:

 The TGA of 1934 provides the basic legislative authority for livestock grazing on public lands, with provisions for protection of the lands from degradation and for orderly use and improvement of public rangelands. The TGA established a system for the allotment of grazing privileges to livestock operators based on grazing capacity and use priority,

and for the delineation of allotment boundaries. It also established standards for rangeland improvements and implemented grazing fees.  The FLPMA of 1976 and the PRIA of 1978 mandate the management of public land for multiple use and sustained yield. Specifically, the regulations implementing these acts call for rangeland management strategies that provide forage for economic use as well as for the maintenance or restoration of watershed function, nutrient cycling, water quality, and habitat quality.  The CCD CRMP of 2001 has identified the lands within the allotments as available for livestock grazing; a decision to implement a No Grazing Alternative would not be consistent with the CRMP. Under 43 CFR 1610.5-3, all actions approved or authorized by the BLM must conform to the existing land use plan. Actions out of conformance with the CRMP would require a land use plan amendment which is outside the scope of this EA.

Under this alternative key forage species production, cover, and structure would most likely improve in the short term, however, over time the amount of old, decadent grasses or shrubs would increase which limits annual production and forage value for all animals in the area. Anderson (1993) found that after a period of time, ungrazed herbaceous, fibrous rooted plant species become decadent and stagnant. This resulted in reduced above ground growth and a reduction in essential features of vegetative cover which include the replacement of soil organic matter and the optimum capture of precipitation. A study done by Courtois et al. (2004) found that 65 years of protection from grazing on 16 exclosures at different locations across Nevada resulted in relatively few differences between vegetation inside the exclosures and those exposed to moderate grazing outside the exclosures. Where differences did occur, total vegetative cover was greater inside the exclosures while density was greater outside the exclosures. Protection from grazing failed to prevent the expansion of cheatgrass and it was found to be generally more dense inside the exclosures than outside (Courtois et al. 2004) (West et al. 1984).

Under this alternative Minerals and Invasive, Nonnative, and Noxious Weeds management and Visual Resource Management would be the same as described under the Proposed Action.

2.7 Alternative 7: No Action

2.7.1 Livestock Grazing Under the No Action Alternative current management of the three allotments (refer to Maps in Appendix A) would be continued under new permits. The BLM would issue new grazing permits for the Cow Canyon Allotment at 2,390 animal unit months (AUMs), the Clan Alpine Allotment at 10,210 AUMs, and the Dixie Valley Allotment at 6,341 AUMs, all with the same terms and conditions as the expiring permits. The grazing schedule under Alternative 1 is shown in Table 27. There would be no new range improvements. Maintenance would continue on the existing improvements as currently authorized/conducted.

Table 27: No Action Alternative Livestock Grazing Schedules for Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments No Action Alternative Grazing Schedule Allotment Pasture Grazing Use Livestock Numbers Lower 05/01 – 06/15 365 cattle Cow Canyon Upper 06/15 – 11/15 365 cattle

Shoshone* 05/01 – 06/31 927 cattle Alpine* 05/01 – 06/31 927 cattle Clan Alpine Desatoya/Cherry Valley 07/01 – 08/31 927 cattle *Use is rotated annually Edwards 09/01 – 10/31 927 cattle Cold Springs 11/01 – 11/30 927 cattle Bell Flat 12/01 – 03/31 927 cattle

High Country 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle Dixie Valley Mid-Slope 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle

Dixie Valley North 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle ODD YEAR Dixie Valley South 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle High Country 06/01 – 08/20 528 cattle Dixie Valley Mid-Slope 08/21 – 10/31 528 cattle

Dixie Valley North 03/01 – 05/31 528 cattle EVEN YEAR Dixie Valley South 11/01 – 02/28 528 cattle

2.7.2 Minerals Under the No Action Alternative no new mineral pits would be designated at this time within the proposed project area.

2.7.3 Invasive, Nonnative and Noxious Weeds Under the no action alternative, the Dixie Valley, Clan Alpine and Cow Canyon Allotments would continue to be routinely surveyed along roadways and other disturbed areas for new weed infestations. The SFO weed coordinator would be notified of any weeds found and provided with the species, size of the infestation, cover class, distribution of plants (linear or irregular), and location. Treatment methods could include biological, cultural/mechanical, and chemical control. When applicable, several of these methods would be combined into an integrated pest management program in order to reduce the costs and risks to humans and the environment. Areas previously treated with herbicides would continue to be monitored.

2.7.4 Visual Resource Management VRM Class objectives would not be designated under this alternative since no project would be undertaken to trigger this action.

2.7.5 Adaptive Management The TNR adaptive management actions described under the Proposed Action would not take place under the No Action Alternative. However, drought management actions could still occur in accordance with the CCD Drought Management EA and the Nevada Handbook H-1730-1 Resource Management during Drought on these allotments.

2.8 Alternative Actions Considered and Dismissed From Detailed Analysis

2.8.1 Remove or Reduce Livestock within the HMA Permanently eliminating all livestock grazing within the Clan Alpine HMA would not be in conformance with the existing land use plan and is contrary to the BLM’s multiple-use mission as outlined in the 1976 FLPMA. Also livestock grazing cannot be reduced without complying with applicable statutes and regulations, including amendment of land-use plan under 43 CFR Part 1600 and public decision-making process prior to any reductions in livestock grazing as required under 43 CFR Part 4100. The CRMP has identified the lands within the project area as available for livestock grazing. Any action to eliminate livestock grazing would be inconsistent with the CRMP, absent a land-use plan amendment. Under the 43 CFR 1610.5-3, all actions approved or authorized by the BLM must conform to the existing land use plan. A plan amendment – which would be subject to separate regulatory requirements for a public decision-making process -- is outside the scope of this EA.

The allocation of forage for wildlife, livestock and wild horses was determined previously through various public decision-making processes (refer to Section 1.2, Table 2). Reallocation of forage available for livestock to wild horses would not necessarily maintain a thriving natural ecological balance since wild horses tend to use rangelands differently than livestock. Livestock grazing can be confined to specific pastures, limited periods of use, and specific seasons of use, so as to minimize impacts to vegetation during the critical plant growing season. In contrast, wild horses are present on the range year-round, may use the range differentially, and their impacts cannot be controlled through the establishment of a grazing system but rather by controlling the wild horse population at a level that does not adversely impact range resources and conflict with other multiple uses of the land.

This would only be effective for a very short term as the horse population would continue to increase. Wild horses are a year-round presence on the public lands, in contrast to livestock for which grazing use is regulated by an authorized grazing permit and in response to forage and water availability and resource concerns. Eventually the HMA and adjacent lands would no longer be capable of supporting the horse population.

2.8.2 Designate the Clan Alpine HMA as a “Wild Horse Range” Designating the Clan Alpine HMA as a “Wild Horse Range” under 43 CFR 4710.3-2 would require amendment of the CRMP, which is outside the scope of this EA. Only the BLM Director or Assistant Director (as per BLM Manual 1203: Delegation of Authority), may establish a Wild Horse Range after a full assessment of the impact on other resources through the land-use planning process. As this is not an “exclusive” designation, it might potentially have little to no

46 effect on the level of livestock grazing permitted to occur in the area. There are currently three designated Wild Horse Ranges in the western United States that are managed principally for wild horses, and one Wild Burro Range managed principally for wild burros, consistent with 43 CFR 4170.3-2. These are the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range in Montana; the Little Book Cliffs Wild Horse Range in Colorado; the Nevada Wild Horse Range and the Marietta Wild Burro Range in Nevada.

2.8.3 Raising the Appropriate Management Levels for Wild Horses The AMLs were established through a public decision making process and issuance of an FMUD following completion of an in-depth analysis of habitat suitability, resource monitoring, population inventory data, and public input into the final decision-making. This alternative was not brought forward for detailed analysis because it is outside of the scope of the analysis, and is inconsistent with the CRMP. Furthermore, in order to raise the AML for wild horses, monitoring data would need to indicate that sufficient forage, water and space are available to support wild horse numbers above AML. Available monitoring data and observations, however, indicate that the current population of wild horses is negatively impacting rangeland health in some areas and that animals need to remain within AML in order to achieve or progress toward achieving a thriving natural ecological balance.

2.8.4 Zeroing out the HMA This action would require an amendment of the CRMP, which is outside the scope of this EA.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 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 or Alternatives and the environmental consequences or effects of the action(s) on these elements and/or resources. The Affected Environment would be the same for all Alternatives.

Proposed Action The scope of this EA addresses approximately 754,850 acres of BLM-administered lands within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments.

General Setting The Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments are located in Churchill and Mineral Counties Nevada, and contain a total of approximately 754,850 acres of public lands. These allotments also contain the Clan Alpine Herd Management Area (HMA). Approximately 20% of the HMA acreage (62,624 acres) are within the Cow Canyon Allotment, 49% of the HMA acreage (153,430 acres) lare within the Clan Alpine Allotment and 31% of the HMA acreage (97,068 acres) are within the Dixie Valley Allotment. In the late 1980’s, 8,753 acres were acquired by the Navy in the Dixie Valley Settlement Area on the Dixie Valley and Cow Canyon Allotments. And in 1999, approximately 18,982 acres of public lands were withdrawn from the Dixie Valley and Cow Canyon Allotments for military training by the Naval Air Station, Fallon, NV. There is a 2007.

Cow Canyon The Cow Canyon Allotment is located in Churchill County, Nevada, and is approximately 90 miles northeast of Fallon, Nevada. The allotment extends north and south along the western edge of the Clan Alpine Mountains, and west from the mountains out upon the flat to Humboldt Marsh. Elevations range from 3400 to almost 9000 feet.

Clan Alpine The Clan Alpine Allotment is located approximately 60 miles east of Fallon, Nevada. The allotment is characterized by the long, broad Edwards Creek Valley and bordered by two rugged mountain ranges. The eastern boundary of the allotment is formed by the summit of the New Pass Range and Desatoya mountains. The Clan Alpine mountain range creates the western boundary. Elevation ranges from 5100’ in the Edwards Creek Valley playa to over 8000’ along the ridge of the mountains. Desatoya Peak, with an elevation of 9973’, is the highest point on the allotment. The Bell Flat winter use pasture of the allotment is located approximately 40 miles east of Fallon. The pasture is long and narrow and contains two valleys, Bell Flat to the west and Gabbs Valley to the east, which are separated by rolling hills and low mountains. The northern boundary is Hwy 50 and State Route 361 is the eastern boundary. The summit of the range of low mountains, which include Fairview Peak and Slate Mountain, delineates the western border with the Nye-Mineral County line as the southern. Elevation ranges from 4400 feet along Hwy 50 in Stingaree Flat to 8803 feet on Fairview Peak.

Dixie Valley The Dixie Valley Allotment is located in Churchill County, Nevada, and is approximately 40 miles east of Fallon, Nevada. Administered by the CCD SFO, Nevada, the allotment consists

48 of 282,801 acres of land administered by the BLM. It is composed of three former individual allotments – Dixie Valley, Hare Canyon and Mississippi Canyon. The allotment extends north from T17N to T22N and east from R34E through R36E. Portions of the allotment boundaries are formed by the ridgeline of the Stillwater Mountains to the west and U.S. Highway 50 to the south. It includes Dixie Valley, the southern portion of the Clan Alpine Mountains and Edwards Creek Valley on the east boundary. The allotment topography varies from rugged mountainous terrain to low lying valleys with the elevation ranging from a high of 9966 feet to a low of 3380 feet above sea level. The allotment boundaries and pasture areas are secured with gap/drift fencing in critical areas.

Supplemental Authorities Appendix 1 of BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) identifies Supplemental Authorities that are subject to requirements specified by statute or executive order and must be considered in all BLM environmental documents. The table below lists the Supplemental Authorities and their status in the project area. Supplemental Authorities that may be affected by the Proposed Action are further described in this EA.

Table 28: Supplemental Authorities* Present Affected Resource Rationale Yes/No Yes/No The Project Area is not located within a non-attainment area. None of the anticipated impacts to Air Quality would be expected to exceed the national Ambient Air Quality Standards. The air quality in this part of the western Great Air Quality Yes No Basin is generally good but can be affected by periodic episodes of particulate drift from wind events in association with storm tracks that pass predominately west or southwest to east or northeast. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. Areas of Critical None present in the project area. This resource will not be Environmental No No further analyzed in this EA. Concern Cultural Resources Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. No minority or low income populations would be adversely Environmental No No affected by the Proposed Action. Therefore, this resource Justice will not be further analyzed in this EA. Farm Lands (prime None present in the project area. This resource will not be No No or unique) further analyzed in this EA. No proposed activities are located within mapped Floodplains Yes No floodplains. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. Invasive, Nonnative Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Species Migratory Birds Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Native American Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Religious Concerns Threatened or None present in the project area. This resource will not be No No Endangered further analyzed in this EA.

Present Affected Resource Rationale Yes/No Yes/No Species (animals) Threatened or None present in the project area. This resource will not be Endangered No No further analyzed in this EA. Species (plants) All spills, if any, would be handled in accordance with all Wastes, Hazardous Yes No applicable laws. Therefore, this resource will not be further or Solid analyzed in this EA. Water Quality Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. (Surface/Ground) Wetlands/Riparian Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Zones Wild and Scenic None present in the project area. This resource will not be No No Rivers further analyzed in this EA. Wilderness/WSA Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. March 2012 *See H-1790-1 (January 2008) Appendix 1 Supplemental Authorities to be Considered.

Supplemental Authorities determined to be Not Present or Present/Not Affected need not be carried forward or discussed further in the document.

Supplemental Authorities determined to be Present/May Be Affected may be carried forward in the document.

Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities The following resources or uses, which are not Supplemental Authorities as defined by BLM’s Handbook H-1790-1, are present in the area. BLM specialists have evaluated the potential impact of the Proposed Action on these resources and documented their findings in the table below. Resources or uses that may be affected by the Proposed Action are further described in this EA.

Table 29: Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities Present Affected Resource or Issue** Rationale Yes/No Yes/No BLM Sensitive Species Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. (animals) BLM Sensitive Species Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. (plants) The majority of the project area is in the Churchill Ranges and Churchill Basins fire management units. Aggressive initial attack would be initiated with the intent of holding all unplanned ignitions to 250 acres or less, 90% of the time in areas dominated by Fire cheatgrass or susceptible to post fire cheatgrass Yes No Management/Vegetation invasion. The southern portion of the Clan Alpine Bell Flat Pasture is in the Mineral Basin fire management unit. Under all fire intensity levels respond to fires by air or ground and evaluate the potential for fires to threaten identified values at risk from fire and/or the fire grows beyond 100 acres in

Present Affected Resource or Issue** Rationale Yes/No Yes/No size. This resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. No actions are proposed that would affect forest Forest Resources Yes No resources under any alternative. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. General Wildlife Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. No new authorizations would be implemented under any of the alternatives and no impacts would occur to Land Use Authorization Yes No existing land use authorizations in the project area. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. Lands with Wilderness Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Characteristics Livestock Grazing Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Minerals Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. None in project area. This resource will not be Paleontological No No further analyzed in this EA. Most recreation is dispersed in this area and should not be impacted by any of the actions proposed in the Recreation Yes No alternatives. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. The Proposed Action would not contribute to any population growth/reduction nor would it create any Socioeconomics Yes No new jobs or tax base to the local communities. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. Although livestock grazing would cause minor surface disturbance to soils within the Project Area, overall Soils Yes No soils would not be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternatives. See Appendix B for additional soil information. The Proposed Action or Alternatives would have no effect on Travel Management. No road closures would Travel Management Yes No occur and existing roads would be utilized. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. Vegetation Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Visual Resources Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. Wild Horses and Burros Yes Yes Analysis carried forward in document. There is a public and scientific debate about human- caused contributions to global climate change, no methodology currently exists to correlate greenhouse Global Climate Change Yes No gas emissions (GHG) and to what extent these contributions would contribute to such climate change. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. Greenhouse Gas There would be a negligible contribution of GHG- Yes No Emission methane; no methodology currently exists to correlate

Present Affected Resource or Issue** Rationale Yes/No Yes/No GHG emissions from livestock grazing to any specific resource impact within the Project Area. Therefore, this resource will not be further analyzed in this EA. March 2012 **Resources or uses determined to be Not Present or Present/Not Affected need not be carried forward or discussed further in the document.

Resources or uses determined to be Present/May Be Affected may be carried forward in the document.

Resources Present and Brought Forward For Analysis The potential impacts to the resources and uses listed in Table 28 and Table 29 were evaluated by the BLM interdisciplinary team to determine if detailed analysis of that resource or use was required in this EA. Through this process, the interdisciplinary team determined that the there are resources that are present but the impacts from them would not warrant detailed analysis. Rationale is provided in Table 28 and Table 29 above for these resources and uses explaining why additional analysis is not warranted. The following resources and uses are brought forward for detailed analysis in this EA as they are present in the area and may be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives:

 Livestock Grazing  Vegetation  Minerals  Invasive, Non-native and Noxious Weeds  Wetlands/Riparian  Water Quality  Migratory Birds  Wildlife  BLM Sensitive Status Species (animals)  Wild Horses and Burros  Cultural Resources  Native American Religious Concerns  Wilderness/WSA  Visual Resources  Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

3.1 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Wilderness characteristics are resource values that include naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. All BLM lands, including those in the project area, were inventoried for wilderness characteristics in 1979 and 1980 as directed under Section 603 of FLPMA. Lands found to have wilderness characteristics in the original 1979 and 1980 inventories were subsequently designated as either Wilderness Areas (WAs) or WSAs. The CCD wilderness inventory was conducted in 1979 and 1980 in

52 accordance with BLM’s Wilderness Study Policy: “Policies, Criteria and Guidelines for Conducting Wilderness Studies on Public Lands (47 CFR §5098-5122)”.

Section 201 of FLPMA requires the BLM to maintain an inventory of BLM-administered public lands to determine whether they possess wilderness characteristics. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs) are lands that have been inventoried and determined by the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. In order for an area to be classified as LWC, it must possess sufficient size (more than 5,000 acres), naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude and/or primitive and unconfined recreation. To comply with this directive, the CCD is currently conducting a LWC review throughout the District as part of the revision to the Resource Management Plan.

One area of approximately 6,800 acres, located between the Stillwater Range and Job Peak WSAs on the west side of the Dixie Valley Allotment has been identified as potentially qualifying as being LWC. Upon completion of the LWC review, a determination would be made in the Resource Management Plan planning process if this area in fact meets the guidelines to be designated and if so, a decision on the designation and the appropriate level of management objectives would be completed. Therefore, LWCs will not be carried forward in this EA for analysis.

3.2 Livestock Grazing 3.2.1 Affected Environment The Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments occur within the Sierra Front- Northern Great Basin Area Resource Advisory Council (RAC) area. The S&Gs reflect the stated goals of improving rangeland health while providing for the viability of the livestock industry, all wildlife species, and wild horses and burros in the Northeastern Great Basin Area. Standards are expressions of physical and biological conditions required for sustaining rangelands for multiple uses. Guidelines point to management actions related to livestock grazing for achieving the Standards. For each grazing permit renewal, BLM conducts an allotment evaluation and standards determination analysis in the form of a SDD to determine if the current livestock grazing management practices in place are achieving the Standards and conforming to the Guidelines. If the Standards assessed are not achieved, a determination is made if significant progress is being made towards Standard achievement and if current livestock grazing is a significant contributing factor to not achieving the standard. The results of these assessments are summarized in Table 3.

Generally, major plant communities across the project area show a tendency for shrub dominance with a limited herbaceous understory. This is believed to be a stable state for these plant communities. The transition into this state was due largely to heavy grazing that occurred throughout the west in the early 20th century (pre-Taylor Grazing Act). Altered natural disturbance regimes (fire cycles, etc.) and climate conditions also have played a role in this transition. Over the past 100 years, livestock grazing has been reduced to current levels. Current grazing management is focused on improving conditions to meet or make progress towards the standards for rangeland health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards while providing for multiple use, sustained yield, and watershed function and health.

The 2007 MOU between NASF and BLM states the management responsibilities of the BLM for livestock grazing on the Navy withdrawn lands, which include areas within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments (refer to Maps in Appendix A):

 Notify the Navy when grazing is to occur in the Navy’s designated retention areas in Dixie Valley.  Continue allotment management programs on BLM’s three grazing allotments in Dixie Valley and adjust AUMs as necessary to protect vegetation conditions.  Continue to manage grazing in accordance with its Grazing Allotment Management Plans and in a manner that is compatible with current and future military training requirements on Navy-acquired and withdawn lands.  Consult with the Navy before constructing or removing range improvements per amended allotment management plans.

The 2007 MOU between NASF and BLM states the management responsibilities of the BLM and NASF for livestock grazing on the Navy withdrawn lands:

 Manage vegetation and grazing in Dixie Valley per the 2002 Grazing, Vegetation, and Water Resource Management Plan for the Dixie Valley Settlement Area, Churchill County, Nevada. This plan shows the locations of water sources that would remain for livestock and the management of vegetation to be protected for wildlife habitat and Navy training purposes.  Manage the ten identified ponds in Dixie Valley (low cost methods) with the goal of maintaining the existing ecological values. These areas would be fenced to exclude livestock, but they may be opened for grazing for short periods if determined to benefit management.  Continue to prohibit domestic sheep grazing on Navy lands within nine miles of desert bighorn sheep habitat. These areas would likely include B-17, Dixie Valley, and Horse Creek.  Dempsey, Turley and Casey Ponds are prohibited from livestock grazing and are fenced to exclude livestock from accessing the waters. The Navy’s Horse Creek area allows limited livestock grazing in the spring.

Cow Canyon The current term livestock grazing permit authorizes 365 cattle from May 1 to November 15 for a total of 2390 AUMs.

The Cow Canyon Allotment consists of approximately 146,228 acres of land administered by the BLM. The majority of the allotment is unfenced except for drift fences between the two use areas and along the ridgeline between the Clan Alpine and Cow Canyon Allotments. The livestock operator relies on water control, natural barriers and herding to accomplish management control. Short sections of drift fence are placed in critical areas to aid in control. The available water includes wells, creeks, and springs, some developed and some not.

Clan Alpine The current term livestock grazing permit authorizes 927 cattle from May 1 to March 31 for a total of 10,210 AUMs. A separate winter sheep operation is located within the eastern portion of the Edwards Pasture in the New Pass Range area. The period of use runs from 12/01 to 03/15 allowing for 1737 domestic sheep to graze a total of 1200 AUMs and is administered by the BMDO.

The Clan Alpine Allotment consists of approximately 358,377 acres of land administered by the BLM. The majority of the allotment is unfenced. Short sections of drift fence are placed in critical areas and along the ridgeline between the Clan Alpine and Cow Canyon Allotments to aid in control. The livestock operator relies on water control, natural barriers and herding to accomplish management control. The available water includes wells, creeks, and springs, some developed and some not.

Dixie Valley The current term livestock grazing permit authorizes 528 cattle yearlong from March 1 to February 28 for a total of 6341 AUMs.

The Dixie Valley Allotment consists of approximately 250,245 acres of land administered by the BLM. The majority of the allotment is unfenced. Short sections of drift fence are placed in critical areas to aid in control. The livestock operator relies on water control, natural barriers and herding to accomplish management control. The available water includes wells, creeks, and springs, some developed and some not.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.2.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Cow Canyon This alternative is designed to allow for continued progress towards or achievement of Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. The Proposed Action continues the current grazing rotation system, adding two weeks at the end of the season to help facilitate livestock removal from the high country, and decreasing the number of cattle to keep the AUMs at their current level. Existing Range Improvements are noted (see Table 14) with listed mitigation measures needed for fully operational improvements and timetables for meeting these obligations. Range Improvements are an integral part of the rotational grazing systems. These actions are vital to obtaining proper grazing management and the achievement of the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

The Proposed Action for the Cow Canyon Allotment would allow native, along with any desirable non-native plant communities, to maintain or improve their health as well as protect and maintain healthy, productive soils and riparian sites. Adhering to these management practices would provide opportunity to achieve and/or make significant progress toward achieving Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards by maintaining or improving key ecological processes and native vegetative composition.

Clan Alpine This alternative is designed to allow for continued progress towards or achievement of Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. The Proposed Action continues the current grazing rotation system with some modifications. Two weeks flexibility between pasture rotations would be allowed. The Cold Springs Pasture would continue be used as a gathering/trailing pasture in November with proposed use in April also. The number of cattle would be decreased to keep the AUMs at their current level. Existing Range Improvements are noted (see Table 14) with listed mitigation measures needed for fully operational improvements and timetables for meeting these obligations. Range Improvements are an integral part of the rotational grazing systems. These actions are vital to obtaining proper grazing management and the achievement of the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

The construction of two spring developments, Dirt Spring and Rock Creek Spring, would exclude animals from the springs and guard against further hoof action. Water would be available outside the spring exclosures. These actions would be expected to promote benefits to plant physiology; there would be additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; the plant quality and volume of existing forage species would increase; the potential for the loss of desired plant species, along with the potential for loss of the spring source altogether, would decline. Overall, this would have a positive impact on the riparian and surrounding areas.

The reinstatement of 1600 AUMs would be considered only if the criteria mentioned in the Proposed Action (Section 2.0) were met. The additional grazing would be conducted during the winter season when plants are in the dormant stage. Snow would assist in the distribution of cattle over previously unused portions of the pasture. Additionally, this grazing would be monitored annually for five years prior to final approval and reinstatement of the AUMs to the permit.

The Proposed Action for the Clan Alpine Allotment would allow native, along with any desirable non-native plant communities, to maintain or improve their health as well as protect and maintain healthy, productive soils and riparian sites. Adhering to these management practices would provide opportunity to achieve and/or make significant progress toward achieving Standards for Rangeland Health and Table 2-2 Habitat Objectives (in GRSG habitat areas) by maintaining or improving key ecological processes and native vegetative composition.

Dixie Valley This alternative is designed to allow for continued progress towards or achievement of Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. The Proposed Action continues the current grazing rotation system with some modifications. Fifteen days flexibility would be allowed for movement between pastures as well as rotating the grazing use annually between the High Country and Mid-Slope Pastures. Existing Range Improvements are noted (see Table 14) with listed mitigation measures needed for fully operational improvements and timetables for meeting these obligations. Range Improvements are an integral part of the rotational grazing systems. These actions are vital to obtaining proper grazing management

56 and the achievement of the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

The construction of the Unnamed Spring development on the Dixie Valley side of Cherry Valley would exclude animals from the springs and guard against further hoof action. Water would be available outside the spring exclosure. This action would be expected to promote benefits to plant physiology; there would be additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; the plant quality and volume of existing forage species would increase; the potential for the loss of desired plant species, along with the potential for loss of the spring source altogether, would decline. Overall, this would have a positive impact on the riparian and surrounding areas.

The construction of a well in the Camp Creek area would allocate additional water which would aid in the distribution of the livestock. This would help lower utilization levels as cattle would disperse over a larger area, utilizing forage not currently accessible.

These actions would be expected to promote benefits to plant physiology; there would be additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; the plant quality and volume of existing forage species would increase; and the potential for the loss of desired plant species, would decline. Overall, this would have a positive impact on the vegetative community.

The Proposed Action for the Dixie Valley Allotment would allow native, along with any desirable non-native plant communities, to maintain or improve their health as well as protect and maintain healthy, productive soils and riparian sites. Adhering to these management practices would provide opportunity to achieve and/or make significant progress toward achieving Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards by maintaining or improving key ecological processes and native vegetative composition.

Common to All Allotments The issuance of a TNR permit would allow for an increase in flexibility for the use of specific areas on an annual, temporary basis when it is determined by the ID team that there is an overabundance of additional forage or there is a need to control cheatgrass and other invasive plant species.

Cattle could be used as a tool for decreasing the height, quantity, and distribution of areas of heavy cheatgrass, other invasive plant species, and perennial grasses, reducing the risk of wildfires. This in turn, could reduce the risk of having to close a portion of the allotment after a fire event while the burned area is rested and/or seeded.

Issuing a TNR permit would not result in a permanent increase in active preference. Utilization levels as a result of authorizing TNR are likely to be in the light use category (21 – 40 percent).

3.2.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative for the Dixie Valley Allotment the grazing season would be changed from March 1 through February 28 to June 1 through February 28 due to the closing of the Dixie

Valley North Pasture. Spring grazing would be excluded. The Dixie Valley South Pasture would receive annual winter grazing November thru February. Defoliation during winter months while plants are dormant has been shown to have little to no effect on plant vigor (Riesterer et al. 2000). The effects for this alternative would be similar as discussed in the Proposed Action. There would be benefits to plant physiology; there would be additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; the plant quality and volume of existing forage species would be promoted; riparian areas would experience less use allowing for recuperation and regeneration; and the potential for loss of desired plant species, due to repeated grazing during the critical growing period for plants would decline. Effects to the Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments would be the same as Alternative 1.

3.2.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative for the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment, the season of use would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31. The effects for this alternative would be similar as discussed in the Proposed Action. There would be benefits to plant physiology; additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; plant quality and volume of existing forage species would be promoted; riparian areas would experience less use during the hot season allowing for recuperation and regeneration; and the potential for loss of desired plant species, due to repeated grazing during the critical growing period for plants would decline. However, wild horse use would likely increase in this area due to the availability of forage and water. The Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.2.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Under this alternative the season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment would be changed from May 1 through November 15 to October 1 through April 15. Restricting livestock grazing to the winter months when plants are dormant and removing prior to the critical growing period would allow the native perennials to regenerate and produce seeds along with strengthening their root reserves. Defoliation during winter months while plants are dormant has been shown to have little to no effect on plant vigor (Riesterer et al. 2000). The effects for this alternative would be similar as discussed in the Proposed Action. There would be benefits to plant physiology; there would be additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; the plant quality and volume of existing forage species would be promoted; riparian areas would experience less use allowing for recuperation and regeneration; and the potential for loss of desired plant species, due to repeated grazing during the critical growing period for plants would decline. This livestock grazing management system would be expected to meet and/or make significant progress towards meeting Rangeland Health Standards over the life of the permit. Clan Alpine Under this alternative authorized livestock grazing within the Clan Alpine allotment would be reduced by approximately 50% resulting in a reduction of 5095 total AUMs. As a result, there would be benefits to plant physiology; additional soil protection from increased leaf and litter cover; plant quality and volume of existing forage species would be promoted; and the

58 potential for loss of desired plant species would decline. This livestock grazing management system would be expected to continue to meet and/or make significant progress towards meeting Rangeland Health Standards over the life of the permit. Dixie Valley Effects to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be the same as Alternative 1.

3.2.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative the domestic sheep grazing from December 1 through March 15 would be prohibited in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment. The effects for this alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Proposed Action. There would be benefits to plant physiology; additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; plant quality and volume of existing forage species would be promoted; and the potential for loss of desired plant species, due to both cattle and domestic sheep grazing in the same locale, would decline. The Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.2.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, no livestock would be authorized on the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments at this time. The construction of spring developments, fencing, and a well would not be authorized. In the short term there would be benefits to plant physiology; additional soil protection because of increased leaf and litter cover; plant quality and volume of existing forage species would be promoted; and the potential for loss of desired plant species, due to livestock grazing, would decline.

Under the No Grazing Alternative, wild horses would continue to utilize forage and water within these allotments. Populations of wild horses would be expected to increase due to the lack of competition for forage and water. As populations increase there would be increased pressure on forage and water within the allotments and the short-term beneficial impacts would decrease.

3.2.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the stocking rate for cattle within the Cow Canyon Allotment would remain at 365 cattle from May 1 to November 15, for a total of 2388 AUMs; 927 cattle from May 1 to March 31, for a total of 10210 AUMs on the Clan Alpine Allotment; and 528 cattle yearlong, for a total of 6341 AUMs on the Dixie Valley Allotment.

The riparian exclosures and the well would not be constructed. Development of improvements could be completed only after being analyzed in another site-specific environmental analysis at a later date. Existing improvements described in the Proposed Action Alternative as needing maintenance could be repaired at some future date under this Alternative after undergoing a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act review; however, a delay would not be desirable since the riparian areas would go unprotected for a longer period of time. Under this alternative it would be more difficult to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

3.3 Wild Horses 3.3.1 Affected Environment Portions of the Clan Alpine HMA encompass all three allotments. Twenty percent of its acreage (62,624 acres) lies within the Cow Canyon Allotment, 49% of its acreage (153,430 acres) lies within the Clan Alpine Allotment, and 31% of its acreage (97,068 acres) lies within the Dixie Valley Allotment. Detailed information about the history of the Clan Alpine HMA and the wild horse herd is provided in the Clan Alpine, Pilot Mountain and Pine Nut Herd Management Areas Gather Plan No. NV-C010-2010-0019 (October 2010).

The 2007 MOU between NASF and BLM states the management responsibilities of the BLM for livestock grazing on the Navy withdrawn lands:

 Manage wild horses and burros in all areas according to the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.  Continue to manage the Clan Alpine HMA, a portion of which includes the Dixie Valley training area, in a manner compatible with current and future military training requirements.

The Clan Alpine HMA has not been designated as “range” under 43 CFR 4710.3-2. There are currently four designated Wild Horse and Burro Ranges in the Western United States that are managed principally for wild horses and burros consistent with 43 CFR 4170.3-2. These are the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range in Montana; the Little Book Cliffs Wild Horse Range in Colorado; the Nevada Wild Horse Range and the Marietta Wild Burro Range in Nevada. Only the BLM Director or Assistant Director (as per BLM Manual 1203: Delegation of Authority), may establish a Wild Horse and Burro Range after a full assessment of the impact on other resources through the land-use planning process.

The Clan Alpine HMA was last gathered to remove excess wild horses in 2006. A total of 88 horses were gathered and removed in response to a wildfire which burned a portion of the HMA. In 2000, 233 excess wild horses were removed from the Clan Alpine HMA and 96 mares were treated with Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP-22) and released back into the HMA. This gather was also in response to a wildfire which burned a substantial portion of the HMA. The non-gathered population was estimated at 68 animals. A total of 111 mares and 114 stallions (225 animals) were released back into the Clan Alpine HMA, resulting in an estimated post-gather population of 293 horses within the HMA in 2000.

Table 30: Removals, Releases and Treatment – Clan Alpine HMA Gather Years 2000 Gather 2006 Gather Wild Horses Gathered 458 88 Wild Horses Removed 233 88 Males Released 114 0 Females Released 111 0 Not Captured 68 519 Total Released 225 0 Treated with PZP 96 0 Total Remaining Post Gather 293 519 Population

The most current population inventory completed for the Clan Alpine HMA was inOctober 2014 when 571 horses were counted. The current estimated total for the HMA places the horse population within AML at 822. The Clan Alpine HMA is difficult to inventory because of substantial tree cover and broken terrain. The ideal time to inventory this HMA is during the winter when the majority of horses move to relatively open areas at lower elevations to avoid deep snow cover facilitating detection. However, it has not been possible to inventory during the winter. The BLM observer indicated that 200 horses could easily have been missed.

The Clan Alpine HMA is within the AML range and generally the vegetative community is in good condition. There are a few areas receiving heavy use, though overall utilization is within acceptable levels. Horses within this HMA are in good health.

The AML for the Clan Alpine HMA was determined by allocating available forage between wild horses, livestock, and wildlife by allotment. The AMLs within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments for the Clan Alpine HMA were established through the approval of the 1992 FMUD for these allotments. The HMA is comprised of approximately 314,986 acres with roughly 20% of those acres being contained within the Cow Canyon Allotment, 49% within the Clan Alpine Allotment, and 31% within the Dixie Valley Allotment.

Table 31: County in Which the HMA is Located HMA Multiple Use Decision AML Distance from Nearest County Acres Name Date Range Town Clan Alpine Churchill 314,986 1992 612 - 979 45 miles E of Fallon See Map in Appendix A

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3.3.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Under this Alternative, there would be no change to the forage allocated to wild horses. As long as the use level on key grasses is 50% or less, the horse population would not be anticipated to be adversely impacted. A slow increase in the forage available for horses could be projected as there is a continued improvement in the upland vegetation. Implementation of the new range improvements would temporarily disturb or displace wild horses, if present. These localized disturbances would affect individuals in the short-term, but would not be expected to affect regional populations in the long-term.

Weed treatments would occur throughout the Allotments. The wild horses in the Clan Alpine HMA are known to range throughout the three Allotments. Because wild horses range over large areas, their amount of exposure to herbicides would be low. The greatest risk to wild horses is from the consumption of vegetation that has been treated by herbicides. Because herbicide residue is higher on grasses than it is on other plants, wild horses that consume large quantities of grasses are at a higher risk of exposure to herbicides. A reduction in the cover of noxious weeds would benefit wild horses, which tend to avoid consuming most noxious weeds species. Wild horses often prefer native species over noxious weeds, in part due to their lack of toxins, spines, and/or distasteful compounds. Eliminating or reducing the

61 presence in noxious weeds would benefit wild horses through the reestablishment of native species (BLM 2007).

The potential authorization of TNR would likely have little to no effect on the wild horses. The AML range of 612 – 979 was set in the 1992 FMUD. The amount of AUMs allotted to wild horses in the FMUD was based on vegetation use from livestock grazing, as well as wildlife. It took into account the amount of forage available in wet, dry, and average precipitation years. Temporary livestock grazing on excess vegetation produced during an above average or exceptional year would likely not cause a decrease of available forage AUMs within the HMA.

3.3.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative, the Dixie Valley Allotment livestock numbers would be reduced and the grazing season would be changed from March 1 through February 28 to June 1 through February 28. The effects to the wild horse population would be the same as described in the Proposed Action.

3.3.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative, the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment season of use would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31. The effects to the wild horse population would be the same as described in the Proposed Action.

3.3.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Allotment Under this alternative the season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment would be changed from May 1 through November 15 to October 1 through April 15. The effects to the wild horse population within the Cow Canyon Allotment would be the same as described in the Proposed Action. Clan Alpine Allotment Under this alternative authorized livestock grazing within the Clan Alpine allotment would be reduced by approximately 50% resulting in a reduction of 5095 total AUMs. Wild horse herds could see an increase in population due to additional forage availability through reduction in competition with livestock inside and outside of the HMA. Managing the herds within AML to “protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation” and “to preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship in that area” would continue to remain an important factor for healthy rangelands.

Dixie Valley Effects to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be the same as described in the Proposed Action.

3.3.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative the domestic sheep grazing from December 1 through March 15 would be prohibited in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment. The Clan Alpine HMA would not be affected by this alternative as the boundary does not extend to this area. The New

Pass Mountains on the Clan Alpine Allotment are located within the boundaries of the New Pass – Ravenswood HMA and is administered by the BMDO.

3.3.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under this alternative, the horse population could increase due to an increase in available forage leading to surplus numbers. Wild horses over AML would lead to various problems on the landscape associated with excess population amounts. This could necessitate a future gather to assist in keeping populations within AML thereby allowing the allotments to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving Standards and Guidelines.

3.3.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, authorized grazing would continue with no changes. There would be no modifications to the forage allocated to wild horses. Proposed range improvements would not be authorized thereby having no effect to the population. Since there would be no active management to maintain the wild horse population size within the established AML at this time, wild horse populations would continue to grow at an average rate of approximately 10% per year. The population would grow to the upper limit of AML in seven years’ time based on the average annual growth rate for the Clan Alpine HMA.

Wild horses are a long-lived species with documented survival rates exceeding 92% for all age classes. Predation and disease have not substantially regulated wild horse population levels within the project area. Throughout the HMA few predators exist to control wild horse populations. Some mountain lion predation occurs, but does not appear to be substantial. Coyotes are not prone to prey on wild horses unless young, or extremely weak. Other predators, such as wolves, do not inhabit the area. Being a non-self-regulating species, there would be a steady increase in wild horse numbers for the foreseeable future, which would continue to exceed the carrying capacity of the range. Individual horses would be at risk of death by starvation and lack of water as the population continues to grow. The wild horses would compete for the available water and forage resources, affecting mares and foals most severely. Social stress would increase. Fighting among stud horses would increase as they protect their position at scarce water sources, as well as injuries and death to all age classes of animals.

Significant loss of the wild horses in the HMA due to starvation or lack of water would have obvious consequences to the long-term viability of the herd. Allowing horses to die of dehydration and starvation would be inhumane treatment and would be contrary to the WFRHBA, which mandates removal of excess wild horses. The damage to rangeland resources that results from excess numbers of wild horses is also contrary to the WFRHBA, which mandates the Bureau to “protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation”, “remove excess animals from the range so as to achieve appropriate management levels”, and “to preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship in that area”. Once the vegetative and water resources are at these critically low levels due to excessive utilization by an over population of wild horses, the weaker animals, generally the older animals and the mares and foals, are the first to be impacted. It is likely that a majority of these animals would die from starvation and dehydration. The resultant population would be heavily skewed towards the stronger stallions which would

63 lead to significant social disruption in the HMA. By managing the public lands in this way, the vegetative and water resources would be impacted first and to the point that they have no potential for recovery. This degree of resource impact would lead to management of wild horses at a greatly reduced level if BLM is able to manage for wild horses at all on the HMA in the future. As a result, the No Action Alternative would not ensure healthy rangelands that would allow for the management of a healthy wild horse population, and would not promote a thriving natural ecological balance.

As populations increase beyond the capacity of the habitat, more bands of horses would also leave the boundaries of the HMA in search of forage and water, thereby increasing impacts to rangeland resources outside the HMA boundaries as well. This alternative would result in increasing numbers of wild horses in areas not designated for their use, and would not achieve the stated objectives for wild horse herd management areas, namely to “prevent the range from deterioration associated with overpopulation”, and “preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use relationship in that area”.

3.4 Minerals 3.4.1 Affected Environment Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments there are existing historical mining features in the mountains, new mining exploration, geothermal projects, and mineral material sales. The designation of one new mineral material site along Antelope Valley Road in the Edwards Creek Valley area and the continued use of this site as a community pit for sand and gravel material extraction would not have a noticeable effect on visual quality. The new pit would encompass the footprint of two existing older pits, effectively using areas that have been previously disturbed. Other pits in the planning area are located adjacent to existing roads, are relatively small, and are used infrequently for maintenance of local roads. Visual quality concerns can be adequately addressed by following established mitigation measures in the permit stipulations and conditions.

One new proposed Community Pit is located in the northeast portion of Churchill County in Edwards Creek Valley. The site is located in the Basin and Range Province. This province is characterized by north-northeast trending mountain ranges separated by down-faulted alluvial valleys. Average distance between mountain ranges is about 15 miles. The valley bottom consists entirely of younger alluvium playa deposits and young fan gravels of Quaternary age. The sand and gravel material eroded from the adjacent mountain bedrock and was reworked by wave action during a stage of the prehistoric lake creating a gravel beach geomorphologic feature. This process takes ordinary materials and improves their quality because the wave action, over time, removes deleterious fines and other softer, less competent material leaving behind a higher quality aggregate. The granular deposit is concentrated in a raised linear feature compared to the surrounding topography. The proposed community pit is within this granular geomorphologic deposit.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, mineral resources would not be affected by those actions except for the proposed Edwards Creek Valley community pit. Within the proposed pit potentially several hundred thousand cubic yards of sand and gravel material could be permanently removed from the site, depending upon the demand in the valley. Removal of sand and gravel materials would result in the removal of the raised gravel beach geomorphological feature within the project area. However, there is no substantial topography within the project area; therefore this impact would be minimal.

3.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use The effects of this Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action.

3.4.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing The effects of this Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action.

3.4.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs The effects of this alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action

3.4.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing The effects of this alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action.

3.4.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, the proposed community pit as described in the Proposed Action could still be completed.

3.4.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed community pit would remain as two separate existing gravel pits and sales would be completed with separate environmental review. There would be less efficiency in processing individual sales out of the existing pits than that under the Proposed Action.

3.5 Water Quality 3.5.1 Affected Environment No waters within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine or Dixie Valley Allotments have designated classes as per NAC 445A.123 or designated beneficial uses; therefore the state’s numeric water quality standards cannot be used. As per the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, springs are defined as a surface expression of groundwater but any flowing portion of the spring can be evaluated under the narrative water quality standards as per NAC 445A.121. The narrative standards pertaining to all surface waters in Nevada apply to these springs to determine whether water quality meets the standard for rangeland health.

Cow Canyon Seven water sources in this allotment were evaluated for PFC; three in 2009, one each in 2010, and three in 2011. All PFC water sources that contained water were reassessed in 2015.

No class waters or beneficial uses are designated within the Cow Canyon Allotment, therefore, only the descriptive water quality standards pertaining to all surface waters in Nevada (NAC 445A.121) apply to these water sources. All the springs/springbrook systems and creeks were determined to be meeting water quality standards.

Clan Alpine Seven water sources were evaluated in this allotment for PFC; five in 2010 and two in 2011. All PFC water sources that contained water were reassessed in 2015.

No class waters or beneficial uses are designated within the Clan Alpine Allotment, therefore, only the descriptive water quality standards pertaining to all surface waters in Nevada (NAC 445A.121) apply to these water sources. All the springs/springbrook systems and creeks were determined to be meeting water quality standards.

Dixie Valley Six water sources were evaluated in this allotment for PFC; four in 2009 and two in 2010, with two follow-up site visits in 2011 to Mud and Willow Springs. All PFC water sources that contained water were reassessed in 2015.

No class waters or beneficial uses are designated within the Dixie Valley Allotment, therefore, only the descriptive water quality standards pertaining to all surface waters in Nevada (NAC 445A.121) apply to these water sources. All the springs/springbrook systems and creeks were determined to be meeting water quality standards.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3.5.2.1 Alternative 1: The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would issue the applicants 10-year term livestock grazing permits with specific changes to grazing schedules pertaining to each allotment.

Cow Canyon The intent of the Proposed Action Alternative is to help facilitate the removal of livestock from the allotment by extending the gathering period from 15 to 30 days and the current grazing season by 15 days, thereby reducing the number of permitted livestock from 365 to 340 in order to keep the AUMs at relatively the same level as currently authorized. Additionally there is proposed maintenance of all existing range improvements including wells, pipelines at developed springs, and fences protecting riparian areas. This alternative would continue compliance and progress toward meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and the narrative standards as per NAC 445A.121. All springs evaluated during PFC assessments were meeting water quality standards. For springs that were not assessed, but that may have functionality or water quality issues, this alternative is likely to achieve both standards noted above. With maintenance of existing range improvements, water quality is expected to remain

66 at standard levels or improve.

Clan Alpine The intent of the Proposed Action Alternative is to grant the permittee permission to move livestock from one pasture to another two weeks prior to the end/beginning of the authorized pasture use and extend grazing into April, keeping AUMs at relatively the same level as before. In addition, there is proposed maintenance of all existing range improvements including wells, pipelines at developed springs, and fences protecting riparian areas, as well as new range improvements to address management concerns. This alternative would continue compliance and progress toward meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and the narrative standards as per NAC 445A.121. All springs evaluated during PFC assessments were meeting water quality standards. For springs that were not assessed, but that may have functionality or water quality issues, this alternative is likely to achieve both standards noted above. With new range improvements and maintenance of existing range improvements, water quality is expected to remain at standard levels or improve.

Dixie Valley The intent of the Proposed Action Alternative is to grant the permittee 15 days of flexibility for cattle movement between pastures and rotate grazing use between the high country and mid- slope pasture annually, while decreasing pressure on natural spring sources in order to continue to meet, or make significant progress towards meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and narrative standards, as per NAC 445A.121. In addition, there is proposed maintenance of all existing range improvements including wells, pipelines at developed springs, and fences protecting riparian areas, as well as new range improvements to address management concerns. Strict adherence to the grazing rotation schedule as described in the permit would contribute towards making progress to achieve standards. All springs evaluated during PFC assessments were meeting water quality standards. For springs that were not assessed, but that may have functionality or water quality issues, this alternative is likely to achieve both standards noted above. With new range improvements and maintenance of existing range improvements, water quality is expected to remain at standard levels or improve.

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative for the Dixie Valley Allotment, livestock numbers would be reduced and the grazing season would be changed from March 1 through February 28 to June 1 through February 28. The consequences for this alternative would be the same as discussed in Alternative 1 and overall water quality conditions would be even less impacted than under Alternative 1. Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.5.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative for the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment, the season of use would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31. The consequences for this alternative would be the same as discussed in Alternative 1. Overall water quality conditions would see less impact than under Alternative 1 due to decreased use during the hot season, which is the critical growing season for riparian vegetation (Bureau of

Land Management, 2006). The Dixie Valley and Cow Canyon Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.5.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Allotment Under this alternative the season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment would be changed from May 1 through November 15 to October 1 through April 15. The impacts to water quality would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1. Removal of livestock grazing during summer months would result in fewer impacts to the waterways as the need for cattle to loiter in and around water sources would be reduced. Water quality in this allotment would be expected to continue to meet Rangeland Health Standards.

Clan Alpine Allotment Under this alternative the Clan Alpine Allotment AUMs/livestock numbers would be reduced. The impacts to water quality would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1. This alternative would result in an increase in the rate of improvement to fish habitat, riparian, and water quality conditions when compared to Alternative 1, as stocking levels would be reduced. Reduced stocking levels would result in less grazing related impacts to fish habitat, riparian areas, and water quality throughout the allotment. The water quality in this allotment would be expected to continue to meet Rangeland Health Standards with the reduction in livestock use.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to water quality in the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to that discussed in Alternative 1.

3.5.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative for the Clan Alpine Allotment, no domestic sheep would be allowed to graze in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment. The consequences for this alternative would be the same as discussed in the Proposed Action. Because there are no springs or natural waters in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment, overall water quality would not be affected and there would be no change in impact compared to the Proposed Action. The Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.5.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Common to all Allotments Water quality impacts would be expected to remain the same or improve over time.

3.5.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Common to all Allotments The current grazing regime and range improvement maintenance has led to acceptable water quality conditions. Therefore, the consequences regarding springs meeting the standard, as well as springs that were not assessed but that may have functionality or water quality issues, would be similar to what is described for the Proposed Action.

3.6 Wetlands/Riparian Zones 3.6.1 Affected Environment The RAC Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health for the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Area states for Standard 2, “Riparian/Wetland systems are in properly functioning condition”. Standards refer to the goal to be achieved, and indicators assist in determining whether Standards are met or Guidelines are followed. Indicators for Standard 2 relate to diversity, distribution, and abundance of appropriate plant species (for lentic and lotic systems), and adequacy of the sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient to dissipate streamflow (for lotic systems) without excessive erosion or deposition. PFC assessments are a qualitative evaluation of natural water sources conducted to help determine issues and to help guide what changes in management might be needed to effectively meet or maintain the established Standards and Guidelines. A rating of PFC does not necessarily mean that a particular water source is in perfect condition, or that it has no management concerns/needs.

Cow Canyon Five water sources were evaluated for PFC, three in 2009, one in 2010, and one in 2011 (two different reaches were assessed, see Table 32: PFC Assessment data for the Cow Canyon Allotment). Deep Canyon and Lower Bob Canyon were assessed in 1988 but in 2010 were found to be dry so no PFC assessments were completed. Deep Canyon supported no riparian vegetation so it was presumed it had been dry for quite some time. Lower Bob Canyon supported cottonwood, willows, and wild rose but the streambed showed no sign of recent water in 2010. However, in 2011 water was running so assessments at two different reaches were completed. All water sources containing water were reassessed in 2015. Overall, the allotment is not meeting the standard because not all water sources are in PFC (Table 32: PFC Assessment data for the Cow Canyon Allotment).

Table 32: PFC Assessment data for the Cow Canyon Allotment Date Name Rating Assessed Sand Dune Spring #1 08/18/2009 PFC Sand Dune Spring #2 08/18/2009 FAR – downward trend Dyer Canyon Creek 08/19/2009 FAR – trend not apparent Cow Canyon Creek 07/7/2010 PFC Lower Bob Creek Reach #1 8/19/2011 PFC Lower Bob Creek Reach #2 8/19/2011 FAR – downward trend

Sand Dune Spring #1 was rated PFC and vegetation consisted of sedges, rushes, bluegrass species, green foxtail, and alkali sacaton. Monkey flower, a non-native species, was present and occurs only when conditions are reasonably good. Several species of aquatic invertebrates, dragonflies and damselflies were also present, which indicates good habitat conditions. Sand Dune Spring #1 was reassessed in 2015 and maintained the PFC rating received in 2009. The spring continued to contain high vegetative and aquatic diversity.

Sand Dune Spring #2 was rated FAR with downward trend. However, a small earthen berm had been constructed at some point in the past to pond the water indicating that this is not a natural spring-fed pond. Riparian vegetation consisted of rushes and sedges, all of which had

69 seen heavy use. Surface soil “punching” was evident around the pond edges. Cattle manure and urine were found to be present around the water source. The presence of back water swimmers and water boatmen indicate that aquatic conditions are still somewhat favorable. A return visit in June 2011 indicated upward trend compared to the 2009 downward trend. Aquatic invertebrates, hundreds of tadpoles, dragonflies, and damselflies were present. This spring was reassessed again in 2015 and retained the FAR rating while continuing the upward trend noted in 2011.

In 2009 the mid and lower reaches of Dyer Canyon Creek rated FAR with trend not apparent. Slight entrenchment observed by the road but the system is vertically stable with very sparse riparian stabilizer species along the bank. In addition, shrubs are encroaching into the riparian zone. Minor livestock and wild horse trampling was observed in some areas. The FAR rating is due to the presence of salt cedar and hoary cress, both Category C noxious weeds in Nevada, as wewll as the encroachment of shrubs. Dyer Canyon was revisited in 2015 but not assessed due to lack of water.

The Cow Canyon and Deep Canyon watershed represents the largest and most heavily utilized drainages in this allotment. The Cow Canyon Springbrook was rated PFC, supporting willows, wild rose, sedges and rushes, which are stabilizer species. Watercress is the dominant herbaceous riparian species. Cow Canyon was revisited in 2015 but not assessed due to lack of water.

Lower Bob Canyon Creek Reach #1 was rated as PFC and was dominated by several species of willow that, along with rocks, promote stream stability and the ability to dissipate high flow energy. Lower Bob Creek Reach #2 was rated FAR with a downward trend because this section is dominated by saltcedar which has crowded out almost all other riparian vegetation.

Clan Alpine From 2010 to 2011, seven water sources were evaluated for PFC. Three water sources were rated PFC and four were rated FAR. All water sources containing water were reassessed in 2015. Overall, the allotment is not meeting the standard because not all water sources are in PFC (Table 33: PFC Assessment Data for Clan Alpine Allotment).

Table 33: PFC Assessment Data for Clan Alpine Allotment Name Date Assessed Rating Rock Creek Spring 07/28/2010 FAR-not apparent Cherry Valley wet meadow near S. fork of 09/22/2010 FAR-downward trend Cherry Creek (before exclosure fixed) Convergence of 3 unnamed springs near 09/22/2010 FAR-downward trend upper N. fork of War Creek Unnamed Spring near upper N. fork of 09/22/2010 PFC War Creek War Creek 09/22/2010 FAR-upward trend Rock Creek 06/28/2011 PFC Pony Creek 07/28/2011 PFC

The south fork of Cherry Creek was rated FAR with a downward trend. Exclosures in Cherry Valley were repaired in late fall 2010, and upon reexamination in August 2011 substantial progress towards meeting standards was noted. This area was revisited in 2015 but not assessed due to lack of water.

Rock Creek Spring was rated FAR due to down cutting of the meadow related to livestock hoof action. Juniper trees and shrubs were observed to be encroaching on the site. This spring was reassessed in 2015 and maintained the FAR rating but trend was noted as downward. Livestock trampling along with pinyon/juniper and shrub encroachment continue to be an issue.

War Creek was rated FAR with an upward trend. The creek has a robust willow canopy and supports a healthy population of brook trout along with several species of aquatic invertebrates. In 2015, War Creek was divided into three reaches for reassessment. Reach 1 and Reach 3 were rated FAR with trend not apparent while Reach 2 was rated PFC. The entire creek supports a high diversity of riparian species, all of which exhibited high vigor, and supports a healthy population of brook trout along with several species of aquatic invertebrates. Slight amounts of hoof action were observed in Reaches 1 and 3 which has contributed to minor stream bank degradation.

The convergence of three springs near the north fork of War Creek was rated FAR with a downward trend. Lateral bank erosion is occurring accompanied by upland shrub encroachment into the channel. Stabilizer riparian species such as sedges and rushes appear to be in decline from excessive livestock hoof action and are not in sufficient quantity to dissipate high stream flow. In the 2015 reassessment this area retained the FAR rating with a downward trend. Lateral bank erosion and upland shrub encroachment are still occurring. Stabilizer riparian species such as sedges and rushes have further declined. Excessive hoof action has continued along the banks. Rock Creek, Pony Creek, and the unnamed spring near the upper N. fork of War Creek were rated PFC. In 2015 Rock and Pony Creek were revisited but not assessed due to lack of water. The unnamed spring near the upper N. fork of War Creek retained its PFC rating.

Dixie Valley Six water sources were evaluated for PFC, four in 2009 and two in 2010 (Table 34: PFC Assessment Data for the Dixie Valley Allotment.). Though the allotment was not meeting standards in some locations, reevaluations/revisits in 2011 show improvement at most of these riparian sites. All water sources containing water were reassessed in 2015. Overall, the allotment is not meeting the standard because not all water sources are in PFC.

Table 34: PFC Assessment Data for the Dixie Valley Allotment. Name Date Assessed Rating Silver Hill Canyon Creek 08/19/2009 FAR – trend not apparent Horse Creek 09/21/2009 PFC East Job Canyon Creek 07/07/2010 FAR – trend not apparent Unnamed Spring near Cherry 09/22/2010 FAR – downward trend Valley Willow Spring 08/18/2009 & 8/19/2011 FAR – upward trend in 2011 Mud Spring 08/18/2009 & 8/19/2011 FAR – upward trend in 2011

Riparian areas in the Dixie Valley North Pasture (Mud Spring, Willow Spring, East Job Canyon Creek, and Silver Hill Canyon Creek) received a season of rest from livestock grazing between site visits. The Mud and Willow Springs PFC reevaluation showed sings of recovery in 2011. East Job Canyon was revisited in 2011 and although a formal PFC assessment was not conducted signs of recovery were apparent. Silver Hill Canyon was rated FAR stemming from both livestock grazing and an invasion of salt cedar (Nevada Category C noxious weed). A return visit in 2011 indicated some vegetation recovery but salt cedar was still intact in high densities.

Remaing assessed riparian areas include Horse Creek and an unnamed spring in Cherry Valley. Horse Creek received a PFC rating. The Unnamed spring in Cherry Valley was rated FAR with a downward trend due to livestock grazing and wild horse utilization.

All PFCs stated in Table 34 were reassessed in 2015. Mud and Willow Springs retained the FAR rating though the trend was slightly downward. The riparian areas have shrunk due to drought which has resulted in more impact to the saturated areas.

Silver Hill Canyon Creek maintained the FAR rating with a downward trend largely due to the infestation of salt cedar. The area contained high vegetative diversity along with good species vigor. Utilization from livestock was appropriate for the area.

Horse Creek retained its PFC rating. The vegetation exhibited good vigor with a high diversity of riparian plant species.

The unnamed spring in Cherry Valley kept the FAR with a downward trend rating. Livestock grazing and wild horse utilization continues to be heavy with detrimental impacts to the spring.

In the 2015 reassessment East Job Canyon Creek was divided into four reaches. The upper most and lowest reaches were rated FAR with trend not apparent. The upper-middle reach was FAR with an upward trend and the lower-middle was rated PFC. Wild horse and livestock use were most notable on the upper most and the lowest reach. The entire creek area contained high vegetative diversity along with good species vigor.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 3.6.2.1 Alternative 1: The Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would issue the applicants 10-year term livestock grazing permits with specific changes to grazing schedules pertaining to each allotment.

Cow Canyon The intent of the Proposed Action Alternative is to help facilitate the removal of livestock from the allotment by extending the gathering period from 15 to 30 days and extending the current grazing season by 15 days, reducing livestock numbers from 365 to 340 while keeping AUMs the same. Alternative 1 proposes maintenance of existing range improvements including wells, pipelines at developed springs, and fences protecting riparian areas that would address management concerns in areas that are not currently achieving standards and guidelines within the project area.

Decreasing pressure on natural waters and riparian areas would allow for areas to continue to meet, or make significant progress towards meeting the RAC Standards for Riparian/Wetlands. For waters not currently meeting the standard, including areas determined to have livestock grazing practices as significant factors, and areas that were not assessed but have known functionality issues, this alternative is likely to make significant progress towards meeting the standard. For waters not meeting the standard where livestock grazing practices are not significant factors, it is unlikely a change in grazing practices would decrease the presence of Class C noxious weeds, including saltcedar and hoary cress.

Decreasing pressure on natural waters and riparian areas would allow for areas to continue to meet, or make significant progress towards meeting the RAC Standards for Riparian/Wetlands. For waters not currently meeting the standard, including areas that were not assessed but have known functionality issues, this alternative is likely to make significant progress towards meeting the standard. Fencing the spring areas would help in protecting the water sources from further degradation and allow for natural rehabilitation. Grazing pressure in the area would be reduced because water would be available downstream or piped to a trough outside of the fenced area, distributing the livestock into areas that were previously used very little due to lack of available water.

Dixie Valley The intent of the Proposed Action Alternative is to grant the permittee 15 days of flexibility for cattle movement between pastures and rotate grazing use between the high country and mid- slope pasture annually. Alternative 1 also proposes maintenance of existing range improvements, including wells, pipelines at developed springs, and fences protecting riparian areas, as well as new range improvements that would address management concerns in areas that are not currently achieving standards and guidelines within the project area.

Decreasing pressure on natural waters and riparian areas would allow for significant progress towards meeting the RAC Standards for Riparian/Wetlands. Fencing the spring area would help protect the water source from further degradation and allow for natural rehabilitation. Grazing pressure in the area would be reduced because water would be piped to a trough outside of the fenced area, distributing the livestock into other areas.

The prescribed grazing system had not been strictly followed prior to 2010, which is a primary cause of degradation because cattle were able to utilize water sources year round, particularly during the hot season. Passive continuous grazing rarely improves a deteriorated riparian area, particularly in the hot season, which is the critical growing season for riparian vegetation

(Bureau of Land Management, 2006). With active management of undeveloped riparian areas, progress towards meeting standards would likely occur.

3.6.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative for the Dixie Valley Allotment, livestock numbers would be reduced and the grazing season would be changed from March 1 through February 28 to June 1 through February 28. The consequences for this alternative would be the same as discussed in Alternative 1 and overall riparian area condition would be even less impacted than under Alternative 1. Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.6.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative for the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment, the season of use would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31. The consequences for this alternative would be the same as discussed in Alternative 1. Overall riparian area conditions would be even less impacted than under Alternative 1 due to no use during the hot season, which is the critical growing season for riparian vegetation. Passive continuous grazing rarely improves a deteriorated riparian area, particularly in the hot season, which is the critical growing season for riparian vegetation (Bureau of Land Management, 2006). Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.6.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Allotment Under this alternative the season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment would be changed from May 1 through November 15 to October 1 through April 15. The impacts to wetlands and riparian zones would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1. Wetland vegetation in this allotment would be expected to maintain or improve in condition with the removal of livestock grazing during the summer months.

Clan Alpine Allotment Under this alternative the Clan Alpine Allotment AUMs/livestock numbers would be reduced. The impacts to wetlands and riparian zones would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1. Wetland vegetation in this allotment would be expected to maintain or improve in condition with the reduction in livestock use.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to these resources in the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.6.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative for the Clan Alpine Allotment, no domestic sheep would be allowed to graze in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment. The consequences for this alternative would be the same as discussed in Alternative 1. Because there are no riparian areas/wetlands in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment, riparian areas/wetlands

74 would not be affected and there would be no change in impact compared to Alternative 1. Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.6.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Common to all Allotments Over time, the No Grazing Alternative would likely result in improved water source conditions on the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments by eliminating livestock grazing impacts to riparian vegetation, in particular during the hot season (as described in Alternative 2 and 3). Under the No Grazing Alternative, no new fencing would be constructed, range improvements that are currently in disrepair would remain and, without continued maintenance, intact range improvements could become nonfunctional over time. Where wild horses are impacting water sources, improvements to riparian areas and vegetation would be highly unlikely. Wild horses would continue to utilize forage and water within these allotments. Populations of wild horses would be expected to increase due to the lack of competition for forage and water. As populations increase there would be increased pressure on forage and water within the allotments and the short-term beneficial impacts would decrease.

3.6.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Common to All Allotments The consequences regarding areas meeting the standard would be similar to what is described for Alternative 1. The consequences for riparian areas/wetlands that do not currently meet the standard, including areas determined to have livestock grazing practices as significant factors and areas that were not assessed but have known functionality issues, would continue to have poor conditions and not be expected to improve over time. For waters not meeting the standard where livestock grazing practices are not significant factors, the No Action Alternative would continue the spreading of noxious weeds and standards would continue to not be met.

3.7 Vegetation 3.7.1 Affected Environment Plants have both community and individual responses to defoliation by grazing animals. Plant growth is largely fed by carbohydrate reserves stored within the plant materials, which is resupplied by photosynthesis conducted by new growth areas. Defoliation of the plant by any means, including fire or grazing by wildlife or livestock, forces the plant to use more of its reserves to re-grow to replace the removed portions. Plants in the Great Basin ecosystem generally did not evolve, at least in recent eras, under heavy grazing pressures. Part of this evolution had to do with the general absence of large ungulate herbivores, which was in turn influenced by climate and possibly native hunting pressures. As a result of lack of adaption to heavy grazing pressure, the growing points (the parts of the plant that produce new plant growth) in the native grasses are elevated in the plant structure; if a growing point is removed, the grass must regenerate the growing point, which is extremely costly in terms of energy output and use of carbohydrate reserves. This makes the key grass species in the Great Basin susceptible to repeated grazing damage occurring during the growing season, especially when the plants have to compete with other plants for resources while trying to grow or re-grow. Plants that did evolve under grazing pressure have their growing points at or below ground level, which allows them to tolerate grazing pressures during the growing season.

Repeated defoliations during the critical growing seasons can weaken native grass plants as they devote higher percentages of their stored energies to regrowth. This can eventually lead to plant mortality. A niche opened by a grazed or recovering plant can provide openings for other species in the community to occupy, either through a decrease in shade or a sudden increase in the availability of moisture and nutrients in the soil. Native grasses tend to produce lower numbers of seeds, and the seeds produced have low viability and generally do not survive more than a season. The lack of a seed bank in the soil can mean the eventual disappearance of species from a plant community, creating openings for other species, particularly shrubs or invasive species in the Great Basin.

Most grasses and forbs start growth in early to mid-Spring (April) and complete flowering by late spring or early summer. Annual plants complete their life cycle by mid- to late summer, while perennial plants enter a period of dormancy that lasts through the summer. Some regrowth in perennial grasses may occur in the fall if sufficient moisture is present.

Cow Canyon The major grass species found on the lower elevations of the allotment are Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides). Higher elevations dominant grass component consists of Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) and Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum).

The major shrub species found on the lower elevations of the allotment are greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), Fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), Rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). The higher elevation dominate shrub component is Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata).

Riparian vegetation that occurs around the springs on the allotment consists of sedges (Carex species), rushes (Juncus species), willows (Salix species), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), bulrush (Scirpus species), watercress (Nasturtium species), and rose (Rosa species).

Clan Alpine The vegetation in the lower valley country is a variety of mixtures of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova A.), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus). The major grass species found on the lower elevations are Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), squirreltail (Elumus elymoides), needlegrass (Achnatherum), and bluegrass (Poa). In the southeast portion, between the playa and U.S. Highway 50, there is an area dominated by winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata). The dominant grasses here include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), needlegrass (Achnatherum), and bluegrass (Poa).

The mountains are dominated by pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) trees with an understory of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and perennial grasses. Also found in areas are willow (Salix), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus), cottonwood (Populus balsmaifera) and aspen (Populus

76 tremuloides). The high meadows of the Cherry Valley area contain sedges (Carex), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), needlegrass (Achnatherum), bluegrass (Poa), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), willows (Salix), aspen (Populus tremuloides) and numerous forbs.

Riparian vegetation that occurs around the springs on the allotment consists of sedges (Carex species), rushes (Juncus species), willows (Salix species), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), bulrush (Scirpus species), cattails (Typha latifolia), watercress (Nasturtium species), and rose (Rosa species).

The Bell Flat pasture vegetation includes Bailey’s greasewood (Sarcobatus baileyi), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), budsage (Picrothamnus desertorum), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova A.) and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). The western valley contains large areas of winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata). The dominant perennial grasses are Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) and needlegrass (Achnatherum).

Dixie Valley The major grass species found on the allotment are Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), Basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis).

The major forb species found on the allotment are globemallow (Sphaeralea spp.), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), and tapertip hawksbeard (Crepis acuminata).

The major shrub species found on the allotment are fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), Mormon tea (Ephedra nevadensis), bud sagebrush (Picrothamnus desertorum), and spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa).

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3.7.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Cow Canyon Under this alternative the grazing season would be extended two weeks from November 15 to November 30. The number of animals would decrease from 365 to 340 in order to keep the AUMs at the current level therefore the amount of forage removed from the allotment would not change.

Clan Alpine Under this alternative the grazing season would be extended to include the month of April. The number of animals would decrease from 927 to 848 in order to keep the AUMs at the current level therefore the amount of forage removed from the allotment would not change.

Construction of range improvements at Rock Creek Spring and Dirt Spring should help to increase vegetation diversity and vigor while promoting benefits to plant physiology.

The reinstatement of 1600 AUMs for winter dormant season grazing in the Shoshone Pasture would be monitored annually for five years prior to final approval of the AUMs onto the permit. This would help to ensure the additional use would not impact the ability of the vegetative community to maintain, achieve or make significant progress toward achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

Dixie Valley Under this alternative grazing use between the High Country and the Mid-Slope Pastures would rotate annually. This rotation proposal allows key upland plant species to be rested from continuous critical season grazing allowing for them to complete their life cycle, increasing plant vigor, cover, productivity and diversity. Vegetation conditions should improve.

Construction of the proposed well would serve to create new zones of potentially intense disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the water troughs associated with the well. However, this intense zone of grazing impacts around water sources would be relatively small (approximately 2 acres around the well). Overall impacts to vegetation would be highly beneficial, as cattle would not be forced to continuously trail back and forth to only one spot for water. Livestock would be able to spread themselves across a much larger area, thus resulting in a more even utilization distribution pattern than what is currently occurring.

Common to All Allotments The health, vigor, recruitment, and production of perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be expected to improve with the authorization of TNR to reduce cheatgrass and other invasive plant species. Grazing when the cheatgrass plants are actively growing would reduce the competition for water, sunlight, and nutrients, making these resources more available to desirable species. Also, seed production of the cheatgrass (or other invasive species) would be reduced. Permitted use would be the same; however, there would be the flexibility to authorize additional use that would target infestations of cheatgrass, other invasives, or above normal grass growth.

Cheatgrass is highly flammable, and densely growing populations provide ample, fine-textured fuels that increase fire intensity and often decrease the intervals between fires. If fire should strike cheatgrass-infested land, native plant communities can be inextricably altered. This may result in erosion and damage to water resources (CSU 2012).

Maintenance of existing range improvements is necessary to control livestock movements in accordance with the grazing schedules, exclude animals from sensitive areas, and allow for better distribution through strategic placement of waters. The vegetative community would be expected to improve with continuous maintenance of these key management components.

3.7.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative for the Dixie Valley Allotment the grazing season would be changed from March 1 through February 28 to June 1 through February 28. The consequences for this

78 alternative would be the same as discussed in the Proposed Action. The plant communities would be even less impacted than under the Proposed Action. The Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.7.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative for the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment, the season of use would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31. The consequences for this alternative would be the same as discussed in the Proposed Action. The plant communities would be even less impacted than under the Proposed Action due to the elimination of hot season grazing in the pasture. The Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.7.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Under this alternative the season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment would be changed from May 1 through November 15 to October 1 through April 15. The impacts to vegetation for this alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Proposed Action. The plant communities would be grazed when dormant which has less of an impact on the health of the plant. Overall, the vegetative community within the allotment would be anticipated to maintain or improve in condition and would also be expected to meet or make significant progress towards meeting all applicable Rangeland Health Standards over the 10-year life of the permit.

Clan Alpine Under this alternative for the Clan Alpine Allotment permitted AUMs would be reduced, the Bell Flat Pasture removed, and the season of use would be changed from May 1 through March 31 to March 1 through February 28. The impacts to vegetation for this alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Proposed Action. The plant communities would receive less defoliation as the amount of forage consumed by the reduced number of cattle would likewise decrease. Reduced utilization levels would also result in an increase in ground cover of grass species close to water with the composition and production of species maintaining or improving. Overall, the vegetative community within the allotment would be anticipated to maintain or improve in condition and would also be expected to meet or make significant progress towards meeting all applicable Rangeland Health Standards over the 10-year life of the permit.

Dixie Valley Impacts to these resources in the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.7.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative the domestic sheep grazing from December 1 through March 15 would be prohibited in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment. The effects for this alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Proposed Action. The plant communities would be even less impacted than under the Proposed Action due to the elimination of domestic sheep grazing in the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment. The Cow Canyon

79 and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

3.7.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, vegetation would not be affected by livestock. No cattle or sheep would trample or eat vegetation within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments; however, wild horses would continue to utilize the plants. Heavy to excessive utilization of the available forage would be expected over time.

The recovery of ungrazed plant communities are not expected to surpass recovery rates of moderately grazed plant communities (Courtois et al 2004). The removal of managed livestock grazing would not directly cause a change in the ecological condition of plant communities. Sites within the Allotment would continue to be dominated by shrub species in unburned areas and by fire tolerant shrubs or annual species in burned areas. Without fire, plant community trends would be expected to be static to upward under the No Grazing Alternative. However, the removal of managed livestock grazing would increase the risk of fire by increasing the amount of available fine fuels. Plant communities are at risk of transitioning to new ecological states following fire, due to the high abundance of desirable fire intolerant species and low abundance of desirable fire tolerant species. Plant community trends would be expected to be static to downward following fire without successful rehabilitation.

Under the No Grazing Alternative, domestic livestock would not disturb biological crusts. However, exclusion of domestic grazing would not prevent the risk of other animals stepping through shrubs onto soil crusts. Belnap, et al (2001) report that biological soil crusts experience vulnerability decreases and recovery rate increases whenever there is increased site stability, effective precipitation and infrequent disturbance.

Plants obtain food for their maintenance and growth from the photosynthetic process that occurs in plant leaves. By not authorizing livestock grazing the available vegetative leaf area would be increased. Available vegetative leaf area would be utilized for food production (photosynthesis), which would increase food storage (root reserves).

3.7.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, on the Cow Canyon Allotment, 365 cattle could utilize up to 2,388 AUMs from May 1 to November 15, on the Clan Alpine Allotment 927 cattle could utilize up to 10,210 AUMs from May 1 to March 31, and on the Dixie Valley Allotment 528 cattle could utilize up to 6,341 AUMs from March 1 to February 28.

Under this alternative, upland rangeland health conditions for soils would likely be maintained since the plant communities appear to be stable, albeit lacking in diversity, under the current terms and conditions; however, the continual population growth in wild horses could cause a decrease in desirable plant species.

If the new range improvements named previously were not completed, cattle and wild horse impacts would likely continue on these riparian areas. In the Camp Creek area the cattle would not disperse over a larger area due to a lack of water, causing more stress on vegetation closer to the existing water sources. Under this alternative, it may be more difficult to make

80 progress toward and/or continue to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

In 2009, four sites across the Cow Canyon Allotment were evaluated for soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity. In 2010 – 2011, fourteen sites on the Clan Alpine Allotment and 9 sites on the Dixie Valley Allotment were evaluated for soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity. The findings from these evaluations showed that the majority of the sites exhibited a slight to moderate deviation for each indicator observed.

There were slight to moderate deviations in plant community composition and functional/structural groups, with annual vegetative production low in some areas. However, overall hydrologic processes are normal, and no accelerated erosion was observed at any site. There is no evidence of soil compaction. Hydrologic nutrient cycling and plant reproduction are occurring in all areas.

In addition to upland health evaluations, trends in vegetative attributes have been monitored utilizing photo trend plot methodology, and key areas have been monitored via frequency methodology. Refer to Appendix F, Standards Determination Document for details about each site and the findings.

3.8 Invasive, Non-native and Noxious Species 3.8.1 Affected Environment Invasive species are defined by Executive Order 13112 as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health”. Alien refers to a species that did not evolve in the environment in which it is found or in other words, non-native. This includes plants, animals, and microorganisms. The definition makes a clear distinction between invasive and non-native species because many non-natives are not harmful (i.e. most U.S. crops). However, many invasive species have caused great harm (National Invasive Species Council 2005).

Noxious weeds in Nevada are classified by the Nevada Department of Agriculture and the Plant Protection Act (2000) and are administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Table 35: Examples of Noxious Weeds) gives examples and definitions of noxious weeds in Nevada.

Table 35: Examples of Noxious Weeds Type Definition Examples Weeds not found or limited in distribution throughout the state; actively excluded from the Dyer’s woad (Isatis state and actively eradicated wherever found; tinctoria) Category A actively eradicated from nursery stock dealer Spotted Knapweed premises; control required by the state in all (Centaurea masculosa) infestations. Weeds established in scattered populations in Russian Knapweed some counties of the state; actively excluded (Acroptilon repens) Category B where possible, actively eradicated from nursery Scotch Thistle stock dealer premises; control required by the state (Onopordum acanthium)

Type Definition Examples in areas where populations are not well established or previously unknown to occur. Weeds currently established and generally Hoary cress (Cardaria widespread in many counties of the state; actively draba Category C eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; Saltcedar (tamarisk) abatement at the discretion of the state quarantine (Tamarix spp)Hoary officer many For more information on noxious weeds visit: http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm.

Off-highway vehicles (OHVs), overgrazing by livestock, wild horses and wildlife can disturb native plant communities, which can bring about the establishment and proliferation of noxious weeds. Dispersal of noxious weeds occurs when motorized vehicles, livestock, wild horses and wildlife transport weed seeds from infested areas to other sites. There are three known noxious weed species on the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, and they are described below.

Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) is classified in Nevada as a Category C noxious weed. There are 54 known species of saltcedar which are native to North Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. Saltcedar is fire adapted, each plant can produce up to 500,000 wind-blown seeds, the leaves and flowers contain few nutrients for wildlife, and it tends to grow in riparian areas or where water is near the surface. Native aquatic systems are disrupted because of long tap roots that are capable of intercepting deep water tables and increased salinity of the surrounding soil after leaves drop. In turn, native species such as willow and cottonwood are displaced leaving poor habitat and forage for wildlife. After burning or cutting, saltcedar can easily resprout making it difficult to eliminate (Muzika and Swearingen 2006). The plant’s dominance in many of the riparian areas is a major factor in this Standard not being met.

Hoary cress (Cardaria draba) is also classified in Nevada as a Category C noxious weed and is a native to the Balkan Peninsula, Armenia, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. It is a deep- rooted perennial that produces from root segments and seeds. Seedlings of the plant begin to germinate and establish a root system that consists of vertical and lateral roots in the spring and fall. Both of these root systems can produce adventitious buds that develop into rhizomes and new shoots. One plant can produce between 1,200 to 4,800 seeds each year, with a single flowering stem capable of producing as many as 850 seeds. Seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to three years.

Hoary cress is an aggressive plant that can form dense monocultures, and is commonly found on disturbed, alkaline soils with moderate moisture areas. It can displace native plant species, reducing biodiversity and forage production (UNR 2007).

Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) is classified as a Category B noxious weed in Nevada. A native of Eurasia, this perennial forb produces extensive vertical and horizontal roots. These roots penetrate the soil several meters deep and produce buds that develop into new shoots. This weed is very difficult to control since it reproduces by seeds and vegetatively. Even small root pieces created by soil disturbance can generate new shoots and spread.

Russian knapweed is highly adaptable, is a strong competitor, forms dense colonies, and is resistant to drought once established. This species emerges earlier than other plants, giving it a competitive advantage over desired native species (UNR 2004).

Although not considered noxious, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is an invasive, non-native, annual grass currently scattered throughout the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments. This invasive annual grass displaces native perennial shrub, grass, and forb species because of its ability to germinate quicker and earlier than native species, thus outcompeting natives for water and nutrients. Cheatgrass is also adapted to recurring fires that are perpetuated in part by the fine dead fuels that it leaves behind. In general, native plants have a difficult time thriving in these altered fire regimes.

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3.8.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Common to All Allotments Intact healthy native plant communities are more resistant to the establishment and spread of noxious weeds. Under the Proposed Action, the slight change in the timing of cattle movement between pastures would have little or no effect on these plant communities or the establishment of invasive, non-native and noxious weeds.

Habitat Change Herbicide treatments are a disturbance to vegetation that returns all or a portion of the treated areas to an early successional stage. However, under the Proposed Action, the herbicide applications would be limited to spot treatments within the larger treatment area. This would keep the amount of bare ground to a minimum, reducing the level of habitat change. Since the noxious weeds are already displacing the native vegetation, the potential for negative effects to the native perennials that may be in close proximity to the treated plants would be negligible compared to the positive effects of reducing or eradicating the invasive, non-native and noxious species.

After treated areas recover from the initial disturbance of controlling weeds, native and beneficial vegetation is expected to increase. Because the weed species targeted for control are of little value to wildlife, livestock, or horses, habitat and rangeland conditions would be improved as areas move from weed-dominated to rangeland dominated by native and more valuable vegetation.

There have been locations identified where accessibility to the saltcedar may be extremely limited due to the density of the infestations and the lack of roads to these sites, mainly up steep and narrow canyons. For these infestations, the amount of treatment and control would be limited to locations accessible by utility terrain vehicles (UTVs), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or trucks.

Disturbance Human disturbance, such as driving UTVs, ATVs, or trucks and even walking during spray and/or tree-cutting operations has the potential to disrupt wildlife, wild horses, and livestock behavior. Disruptions during breeding seasons of wildlife have the highest potential to cause

83 harm because animals are more sensitive during this time, and any effects have the potential to decrease reproductive success. Driving motorized vehicles would be conducted in a slow and methodical manner, reducing the disturbance. No extraordinary noise would be emitted other than the running of a single vehicle (UTV, ATV, or truck) and spray pump, which would be similar to other administrative uses of vehicles on BLM land. If the cut-stump method is used to treat saltcedar, there would be a slightly higher noise level.

There may be some short-term disturbance on the soil surface from spraying activities and some additional exposure of the soil surface from eliminated individual noxious weed plants that may lead to a slight temporary increase in soil erosion and sediment in streams, degrading aquatic wildlife habitat. The removal of noxious weed species through herbicide use could help to restore a more complex and beneficial plant community, stabilizing these sites to eventually reduce sedimentation and erosion. Only herbicides approved for application around aquatic habitats would be used by springs and streams so there would be a very low potential for disturbance by chemicals to these areas.

There may be an increased threat of noxious weeds being introduced into the range improvement project areas by administrative vehicles associated with conducting the mechanical activities, but this would be negligible.

The occurrence of invasive and noxious weeds would decrease in the long term as there would be less competition between these plants and the desirable perennial plants. The invasive plants would be treated if observed, allowing more light, water, and nutrients for the desirable perennial species. In addition, more monitoring would be completed as part of this treatment, and this would prevent further spreading of weeds, resulting in a more timely eradication.

Herbicide Toxicity There is always some level of risk to the health of the public, the pesticide applicator, and to animals that are present when applying herbicides. The three herbicides described in Section 2.1, chlorsulfuron (Telar® DF), imazapyr (Habitat®), and metsulfuron (Escort®) are low in toxicity. With the low toxicity and conservative spot treatments, the potential for negative effects would be minimal. All SOPs would be adhered to, to include following all herbicide labels (Appendix D).

Adaptive Management – The Use of a TNR Permit There would be an added benefit to site conditions and native vegetation in the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments if invasive, non-native or noxious species are targeted under a TNR Permit in addition to the grazing permit. This could reduce the amount and spread of weeds, such as cheatgrass, and maintain or improve rangeland health, which would reduce the risk of crossing ecological thresholds that would increase further weed spread.

The health, vigor, recruitment, and production of perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be expected to improve with the authorization of TNR to reduce cheatgrass and other invasive plant species. Grazing when the cheatgrass plants are actively growing would reduce the

84 competition for water, sunlight, and nutrients, making them more available to desirable species. Also, seed production of invasive species would be reduced.

Authorizing TNR during a year when the native, perennial grass growth is abundant would have a negligible effect on the weed population since this additional use would only be granted after an interdisciplinary review of the application is conducted, field visits completed to verify the availability of additional forage, and a determination made that the additional use would not impact the ability of the area to achieve or make significant progress toward achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards and other multiple use/resource objectives.

3.8.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use The effects would be similar as those under the Proposed Action; however, closing the Dixie Valley North Pasture could reduce the spread of invasive, non-native, and noxious weed species by allowing the desired native species to become more established. The desired perennials would have an opportunity to develop an adequate amount of photosynthetic material for the production of carbohydrates to meet the vegetation’s growth and respiration demands. These plants would enter dormancy with more root reserves for next year’s growth and reproduction. Eventually, the competition for water, sunlight, and nutrients from invasive species would be reduced making these resources more available to desirable plants.

3.8.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing The effects of this Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action; however, the spread of invasive, non-native and noxious weeds could be reduced with the Cherry Valley closure.

3.8.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Impacts to the Cow Canyon Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

Clan Alpine The effects of this alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action; however, the spread of invasive, non-native and noxious weeds could be reduced with the reduction of cattle grazing in the Clan Alpine Allotment. Desired perennials could have more opportunity to develop and grow thereby entering dormancy with increased root reserves. Dixie Valley Impacts to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.8.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing

The effects of this Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action; however, the spread of invasive, non-native and noxious weeds could be reduced with the elimination of sheep grazing.

3.8.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, the proposed treatments as described in the Proposed Action Alternative could still be completed, but it would likely occur over a longer period of time and may not receive the commitment and funding necessary to be as beneficial to the vegetative community.

If these weed infestations go untreated, they would increase their dominance on the sites where they currently exist. They may start out as isolated or light infestations, but in time they could become monocultures and spread to adjacent lands. Not treating these weeds could result in further habitat degradation on BLM and other lands.

3.8.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the effects would be the same as for the No Grazing Alternative.

3.9 Cultural Resources 3.9.1 Affected Environment Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (see 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertaking on historic properties (36 CFR Part 800.1(a)). By definition, a historic property is a “prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places” and includes “artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties” (36 CFR 800.16 (l)(1)). An undertaking, among other things, includes a project or activity under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency requiring a Federal permit, such as a grazing allotment permit renewal (36 CFR 800.16(y)).

Per 36 CFR Part 800 and 43 CFR Part 8100 (BLM), as amended, the BLM is required to identify and evaluate cultural resources within the area of potential effect from an undertaking, which would include any proposed actions that involve ground disturbance. Any historic properties identified, documented, and evaluated as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within an area of potential effect would be avoided during the undertaking. If this cannot be accomplished, specific project undertakings would be cancelled, or the allotment use would be modified to result in no adverse effect to the historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, and in consultation with the local tribes as identified and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

During Section 106 review, a cultural resources literature review was conducted by Kristin Bowen, SWFO Archaeologist, and the following is the result of that assessment. As of 2014, 28,611 acres have been covered by prior cultural resource surveys, approximately 3.6% of the allotments 790,187 acres, however not all were done to modern inventory standards. Those previous cultural resource inventories have documented 263 cultural sites and 79 isolated finds within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments. While numerous sites

86 and artifacts are known more than half of them were recorded more than 20 years ago, and so the documentation may not be entirely reliable or meet present standards. For example, over half of the sites were documented prior to the introduction of the present site documentation form, the IMACS form, in the mid-1980s.

Within the three allotments, the documented cultural resources represent significant past human use of the landscape. These include but are not limited to the following site types: rockshelters, rock art, habitation sites including pit features, hearths, flaked stone, and ground stone, lithic procurement/quarry sites, rock cairns, a wickiup, hunting blinds, mining and mine camp sites, historical refuse scatters associated with mining and other activities, corrals, homesteads, water related (ex: ditch, water tank), transportation sites (ex: highway, stagecoach route) and communication related sites (ex: Pony Express trail, telegraph stations). At present within the three allotments there are three sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 30 sites recorded as eligible for the NRHP, 101 unevaluated sites, and 207 ineligible sites and/or isolated finds. For management purposes, the BLM treats unevaluated cultural resources as if they are NRHP eligible/ historic properties.

BLM cultural resource staff surveyed the proposed repairs to existing range improvements and new improvements as well as the proposed mineral material pit, and conducted field checks in areas of heavy use, in order to analyze effects to historic properties, both known and unknown per the State Protocol Agreement between the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office for Implementing the National Historic Preservation Act, 2012, Appendix F., K. 1., a.-g.

The heavy livestock impact areas, and the three unsurveyed proposed range improvement projects (Unnamed Spring in Cherry Valley, Rock Creek Spring Exclosure, and Camp Creek Well) were all surveyed, at the Class III level, during the summer of 2014 by SWFO Archaeologist Kristin Bowen, assisted by SWFO District Archaeological Technician (DAT) Matt Simons (Bowen 2015). One proposed range improvement, Dirt Spring, had been surveyed by a prior SWFO archaeologist in 2012, so it was not surveyed again (Bowen 2014a). The proposed mineral pit location was also surveyed by SWFO Archaeologist Kristin Bowen, assisted by DAT Matt Simons during 2014 (Bowen 2014b). No historic properties were recorded at any of the locations of proposed development. One previously recorded Eligible site, CrNV-03-3730, was documented at one of the existing range improvements in the Clan Alpine Allotment during the field checks of heavy livestock use areas. No additional degrading damage is likely to occur to the prehistoric component and therefore the eligibility of site CrNV- 03-3730. Therefore, no further treatment (fencing, removing of water developments) is thought to be necessary, even though past grazing impacts to the ground surface are evident within the site boundary. The BLM is instituting a schedule of monitoring to insure the continued livestock grazing use of the site would have No Adverse Effect to the eligible component of the property. If in the future additional degrading damage is documented, mitigation of adverse effects shall be addressed pursuant to 36 CFR §§ 800.5 and 800.6.

If historic properties are located during any subsequent field inventories in the allotments, and the BLM determines that grazing activities are adversely impacting the properties, mitigation would be identified and implemented in consultation with the SHPO.

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences Cultural resources are non-renewable resources; any loss or degradation of cultural resources is permanent. It is important that there is no net loss of scientific information regarding cultural resources, and that NRHP eligible sites (historic properties) are managed to prevent or minimize adverse effects. Cultural resource concerns regarding livestock grazing and related effects focus on NRHP eligibility of historic properties, site type, and the potential impacts from livestock grazing related activities. Current or future livestock related activities have the potential to affect historic properties. Impacts would be viewed relative to the elements that make these properties eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

The BLM recognizes the potential for grazing to impact historic properties through: (1) improper grazing activity; (2) the concentration of livestock on historic properties where the natural conditions of shade, shelter, forage, or water attract the animals; (3) the concentration of livestock on historic properties where construction and maintenance of grazing facilities or improvements have attracted the animals; and (4) other grazing-related operations such as access roads.

Site types thought to be most susceptible to grazing related activities include sites with exposed structural features. Standing walls, rock alignments, and rock rings at historic and prehistoric sites can attract cattle as rubbing areas, resulting in impacts to those structures. Concentrated livestock grazing can severely and adversely affect these site types by forcing individual animals to walk into the confined area of a structural feature, whereas dispersed individual animals would tend to walk around them.

Also very susceptible to impacts are sites at sensitive locations, such as where soils lack natural vegetative cover or in areas that tend to concentrate the presence of livestock (such as watering locations both naturally occurring springs and water haul sites, corrals, trails, or salt licks), and sites with discrete features such as hearths, artifact concentrations, soil staining, middens, and other features that are susceptible to trampling. Sites in erosive sediments suffer from natural weathering impacts that are exacerbated by livestock hoof action and vegetation removal. Features such as middens, hearths, fire-cracked rock, and stone artifact concentrations are easily disturbed by hoof action and soil chemistry alteration, and once disturbed, lose integrity and scientific value.

At stable sites not prone to erosion, continuing additional adverse effects might not be expected, as livestock are probably re-mixing the upper few centimeters of site sediments that have been previously mixed. Scattered flaked and ground stone artifacts at these sites would eventually become reduced to a minimum size likely to be impacted by trampling and would probably suffer only a minimal amount of additional damage (Gifford-Gonzales et al. 1985; Nielson 1991; Osborn et al. 1987; Roney 1977).

The direct impacts that occur where livestock concentrate, during normal livestock grazing activity, include trampling, chiseling, and churning of site soils, cultural features, and cultural artifacts, artifact breakage, and impacts from standing, leaning, and rubbing against historic structures, above-ground cultural features, and rock art (Broadhead 2001, Osbourn et al. 1987). Indirect impacts include soil erosion, gullying, and increased potential for unlawful

88 collection and vandalism (Broadhead 2001, Osbourn et al. 1987). Continued livestock use in these concentration areas may cause substantial ground disturbance and cause irreversible adverse effects to historic properties. Continued livestock management is appropriate, as long as identified grazing impacts are properly mitigated.

For the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments permit renewals; the potential exists for adverse impacts to cultural resources in general, including historic properties, due to the continuation of livestock grazing with or without modifications to the grazing permit. Based upon a cultural resource analysis for the current and proposed utilization of the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, the concentration of livestock adjacent to basins/playas, canyons and naturally occurring water resources can adversely affect the significant values of historic properties. Mitigation measures such as site exclosures and relocation of water haul sites can be used to eliminate adverse effects to known cultural resources.

3.9.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Common to All Allotments Overall, the Proposed Action should reduce the adverse impacts to historic properties throughout the allotment. Adding additional range improvements, the repair of existing nonfunctional range improvements associated with water and a schedule to disperse livestock, or basically any activity that aids in the dispersal and movement of livestock should reduce the potential to adversely affect sites.

As stated above, the BLM is instituting a schedule of monitoring to insure the continued livestock grazing use of the one documented historic property at a water development site, CrNV-03-3730, would have No Adverse Effect to the eligible component of the property. If in the future additional degrading damage is documented, mitigation of adverse effects shall be addressed pursuant to 36 CFR §§ 800.5 and 800.6.

There could be an increase in adverse effects without measureable control with the inclusion of the TNR component. The weed treatment proposals do not have the potential to impact historic properties. The proposed mineral pit location was examined during a cultural survey, and due to the negative results of the survey, the pit would not affect any historic properties (Bowen 2014b).

3.9.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to historic properties throughout the allotment. Adoption of this Alternative would result in a reduced number of livestock in Dixie Valley and as a result continual adverse effects to historic properties in Dixie Valley may be reduced.

3.9.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to historic properties throughout the allotment. Adoption of this Alternative would result in closing Cherry Valley to hot-season grazing, shifting the use to a different time of year when water is less in

89 demand, and as a result continual adverse effects to historic properties in Cherry Valley may be reduced.

3.9.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to historic properties throughout the allotment. Adoption of this Alternative would result in a reduced number of livestock in Clan Aline and only winter use in Cow Canyon which would result in a reduction in continual adverse effects to historic properties. Areas near natural water sources would continue to have the highest potential for the presence of and impacts to cultural sites, however there would be less use by livestock in these areas under this alternative.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.9.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to historic properties throughout the allotment as there would be less livestock impacting the resources.

3.9.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing While a no grazing alternative alleviates potential damage from livestock activities, there could still be impacts to cultural resources from cultural and natural processes. Cultural processes include any activities directly or indirectly caused by humans. Natural processes include chemical, physical, and biological processes of the natural environment that impinge and or modify cultural materials. Cultural resources are constantly being subjected to site formation processes or events after creation (Binford 1981, Schiffer 1987). These processes can be both cultural and natural and take place in an instant or over thousands of years.

3.9.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the current conditions throughout the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments. Continuation of the current level of livestock grazing is not expected to differ substantially from the Proposed Action in terms of its effect to cultural resources. Additionallyover time the wild horse population would continue to grow resulting in an increase in the overutilization of areas that are currently experiencing heavy utilization by wild horses. New areas would be impacted as the growing wild horse population move into new areas to utilize needed forage and water. This would be expected to result in increasing damage to cultural resources and water sources. There would be an increase in adverse effects to cultural resources with this alternative.

3.10 Native American Religious Concerns 3.10.1 Affected Environment One Native American Tribe has cultural affiliation within or adjacent to the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (FPST) (Bengston

2002; Pendleton et al. 1982). Per 36 CFR Part 800 and 43 CFR Part 8100 (BLM), as amended, correspondence including a general summary and a map of the allotments was provided to the FPST in November of 2010, and then again in June of 2011. During a face to face meeting (December 12, 2010) with FPST and previous consultation with the Tribe, information was shared concerning the grazing activities within their aboriginal territory. The Tribe has stated that adverse effects to cultural resources, natural water sources, and native plants should be avoided.

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Overall, the Proposed Action should reduce the adverse impacts to cultural resources throughout the allotment. Adding additional range improvements, repairing existing nonfunctional range improvements associated with water, and a schedule to disperse livestock, or basically any activity that aids in the dispersal and movement of livestock should reduce the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. There could be an increase in adverse effects with the inclusion of the TNR component. The weed treatment proposals do not have the potential to impact cultural resources. The proposed mineral pit location was examined during a cultural survey, and it would not affect any cultural resources (Bowen 2014b).

The BLM has been and would continue to conduct government to government consultation with the FPST during the life of this term grazing permit renewal. Per 36 CFR Part 800 and 43 CFR Part 8100, as amended, BLM would review tribal concerns as identified and conduct Native American coordination and consultation for all proposed range improvements brought forward during the term grazing permit renewal for each project proposal including, but not limited to, correspondence including a general summary and map, results of each cultural resource inventory(s), face-to-face meetings, and field trips to the proposed project area, as necessary, and as requested .

3.10.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to cultural resources throughout the allotment. Adoption of this Alternative would result in a reduced number of livestock in Dixie Valley and as a result continual adverse effects to cultural resources in Dixie Valley may be reduced.

3.10.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to cultural resources throughout the allotment. Adoption of this alternative would result in closing Cherry Valley to hot-season grazing, shifting the use to a different time of year when water is less in demand, and as a result continual adverse effects to historic properties in Cherry Valley may be reduced.

3.10.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments

Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to cultural resources throughout the allotment as there would be less livestock impacting the resources.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.10.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative should reduce the adverse impacts to cultural resources throughout the allotment as there would be less livestock impacting the resources.

3.10.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Canceling the term grazing permit would reduce impacts to historic properties and Traditional Cultural Places. If no livestock are on the landscape adverse effects would be reduced, however, not completely eliminated due to the presence of the wild horse and wildlife use, specifically at existing range improvements and naturally occurring water sources.

3.10.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the current conditions throughout the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments. Continuation of the current level of livestock grazing is not expected to differ substantially from the Proposed Action in terms of its effect to cultural resources. Additionally, over time the wild horse population would continue to grow resulting in an increase in the overutilization of areas that are currently experiencing heavy utilization by wild horses. New areas would be impacted as the growing wild horse population move into new areas to utilize needed forage and water. Concerns brought forward during prior government to government consultation with the FPST, about adverse effects to cultural resources, water sources, and plant collection areas would not be addressed with this alternative.

3.11 General Wildlife 3.11.1 Affected Environment Key Habitats by Allotment:

Cow Canyon Allotment Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub―Within the Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat, annual rainfall tends to be low (3-8 in) and wildlife are generally not found in great densities. Lizards are the most diverse and abundant assemblage of species found. Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) is a key forage species for some wildlife species, in particular, pronghorn. Desert pavement and/or microbiotic crusts, which help stabilize soil, can be found in the shrub interspaces.

The Intermountain cold desert scrub habitat covers approximately 40% of the Cow Canyon Allotment. Five assessments were conducted in this key habitat. Some areas of winterfat were in poor condition, and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) was common on many of the sites. Native grasses were lacking in quantity and species diversity throughout the key habitat. The intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat is not meeting standards with drought, wild horse utilization, and livestock grazing all contributing factors.

Sagebrush―The sagebrush key habitat primarily occurs at higher elevations in the Cow Canyon Allotment (Clan Alpine Mountains) and covers approximately 25% of the total area within the allotment. Two assessments were conducted in this key habitat. Sufficient diversity, distribution, and abundance of native plant species were present in higher elevations, while native grasses were deficient in lower elevations. Cheatgrass was found to be scattered throughout the habitat. Overall, the standard is being met in this habitat.

Lower Montane Woodland―Approximately 25% of the allotment contains the lower montane woodland habitat, which consists of a pinyon/juniper dominated community. Understory layers are variable depending on tree density. No assessments were conducted in this key habitat.

Desert Playas and Ephemeral Pools ―Approximately 10% of the allotment contains the desert playa and ephemeral pool habitat. Dixie Meadows hot spring and a variety of other springs provide the Dixie Meadows Salt Marsh with a permanent water source. Soils adjacent to the playa support species such as fourwing saltbush, saltgrass, and greasewood. No assessments were conducted adjacent to this key habitat.

Springs and Springbrook/Intermountain Rivers and Streams―Nevada has the most known springs of any state in the U.S. with over 4,000 mapped. They are of various temperatures and flow and are extremely important in maintaining Nevada’s wildlife diversity (WAPT 2012). Springbrooks refer to areas of flowing water linked to the spring source such as Cow Canyon Spring (rated PFC). The three main categories of springs are warm, cold, and hot; with some springs being ephemeral in nature. Even small springs and/or flows can support important endemic gastropods and other aquatic invertebrates, as well as a diverse plant community including various species of forbs, sedges, and rushes. While the actual amount of riparian/spring habitat is small in Nevada (<5%), about 80% of all vertebrate species require this habitat. Consequently, meeting the standard in this key habitat is especially critical for wildlife.

Two springs/springbrooks and three perennial creeks were formally assessed. In general, the riparian areas are not meeting standards for plant and animal habitat, with livestock grazing a contributing factor.

Dixie Valley Allotment Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub―General characteristics of the Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat are described above under Cow Canyon Allotment.

Approximately 45% of the allotment contains the Intermountain cold desert scrub habitat. Five assessments were conducted in this key habitat. Some areas of winterfat were in poor condition, and Russian thistle was common on many of the sites. Furthermore, native grasses were lacking in quantity and species diversity throughout the key habitat. The Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat is not meeting standards with drought, wild horse utilization, and livestock grazing all contributing factors.

Sagebrush―The sagebrush key habitat encompasses approximately 40% of the Dixie Valley Allotment. Two assessments were conducted in this key habitat. Sufficient diversity,

93 distribution, and abundance of native plant species were present in higher elevations, while native grasses were deficient in lower elevations. The majority of the sagebrush key habitat in the allotment occurs within the higher elevations (Clan Alpine Mountains and Stillwater Range). Cheatgrass is scattered throughout the key habitat. Overall, the standard is being met in this habitat.

Lower Montane Woodland―Approximately 11% of the allotment contains the lower montane woodland habitat, which consists of a pinyon/juniper dominated community. Understory layers are variable depending on tree density. No assessments were conducted in this key habitat.

Desert Playas and Ephemeral Pools ―Approximately 2% of the allotment encompasses this key habitat. Dixie Meadows hot spring and a variety of other springs provide the Dixie Meadows Salt Marsh with a permanent water source. Soils adjacent to playa support species such as fourwing saltbush, saltgrass, and greasewood. No assessments were conducted adjacent to this key habitat.

Springs and Springbrooks/Intermountain Rivers and Streams―A general description of this key habitat is described in Cow Canyon Allotment above.

Three springs/springbrooks and three perennial creeks were formally assessed. In general, the riparian areas are not meeting standards for plant and animal habitat, with livestock grazing being a contributing factor.

Marshes―This key habitat is considered one of the most diverse and critical for some species of migratory birds for both breeding and migratory needs. Only a few hundred acres of the key habitat exist within the allotment. However, most of these areas are on Navy lands and are protected by fencing. No assessments were conducted in these areas.

Clan Alpine Allotment Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub― General characteristics of the Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat are described above under Cow Canyon Allotment.

Approximately 28% of the Clan Alpine Allotment contains the Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat. Five assessments were conducted in this key habitat. Some areas of winterfat were in poor condition, and Russian thistle was common on many of the sites. Futhermore, native grasses were lacking in quantity and species diversity throughout the key habitat. The Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat is not meeting standards with drought, wild horse utilization, and livestock grazing all contributing factors.

Sagebrush― The sagebrush key habitat primarily occurs at higher elevations in the Clan Alpine Allotment (Clan Alpine Mountains, Desatoya Mountains, and New Pass Range) and covers approximately 48% of the total area within the allotment. Two assessments were conducted in this key habitat. Sufficient diversity, distribution, and abundance of native plant species were present in higher elevations, while native grasses were deficient in lower elevations. Cheatgrass was found to be scattered throughout the habitat. Overall, the standard is being met in this habitat.

Lower Montane Woodland―Approximately 14% of the allotment contains the lower montane woodland habitat, which consists of a pinyon/juniper community dominated community. Understory layers are variable depending on tree density. No assessments were conducted in this key habitat.

Desert Playas and Ephemeral Pools ―Approximately 3.5% of the allotment encompasses this key habitat. The playas associated with the allotment do not contain a large permanent water source. No assessments were conducted adjacent to this key habitat.

Springs and Springbrook/Intermountain Rivers and Streams― A general description of this key habitat is described in Cow Canyon Allotment above.

PFC assessments were conducted at four springs/springbrooks and three perennial creeks. In general, the riparian areas do not meet standards for plant and animal habitat, with livestock grazing and wild horse utilization being contributing factors.

Big Game Species:

Mule Deer Although mule deer occur in various ecosystems, there are many parallels in diet and habitat composition. Mule deer are secondary successional species that prefer areas containing plant species resulting from some type of disturbance (Wasley 2004). Ideal mule deer habitat is characterized by areas of thick brush or trees interspersed with open areas. The thick brush and trees provide the ungulate with both thermal and protective cover, while the openings provide available forage (UDWR 2008). A mule deer’s diet consists of a variety of browse, grass, and forb species, with forbs and grasses being the most important in spring and early summer, while shrubs are most utilized during winter and the dry summer months.

Though winter range is often identified as the most critical habitat in influencing mule deer population numbers (Cox et al. 2009), Austin and Urness (1985) and Clements and Young (1997) equated the importance of maintaining quality summer and transitional ranges. The overall quality of summer and transitional ranges, which includes the ability to provide highly nutritious forage in the spring and early summer, can have significant effects on mule deer body condition entering the winter months. Tollefson et al. (2011) states that the lack of quality forage in summer and autumn resulting from habitat degradation, lack of rainfall, or habitat loss has the potential to negatively impact individual survival during the winter and fawning success in the upcoming spring.

Healthy riparian areas are essential components of quality mule deer habitat. This is due to the fact that proper functioning riparian systems can provide high quality forage, protection from predators, and thermal cover (Carson and Peek 1987). The ability to provide high quality forage and hiding cover from predators makes riparian areas critical to fawn-rearing success (Leckenby et al. 1982, Wasley 2004).

Suitable mule deer habitat occurs within the boundaries of the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. More specifically, suitable habitat within the Cow Canyon Allotment occurs in portions of the Clan Alpine Mountains, suitable habitat within the Dixie Valley

Allotment occurs in sections of the Stillwater Range and Clan Alpine Mountains, and suitable habitat within the Clan Alpine Allotment occurs in portions of the Clan Alpine Mountains, Desatoya Mountains, and New Pass Range. The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has classified the suitable mule deer habitat within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments as crucial summer range, crucial winter range, or year-round habitat. The approximate acres of each habitat type within the allotments are displayed below (Table 36, Table 37 and Table 38).

Table 36: Approximate Acres of Mule Deer Crucial Summer Range, Crucial Winter Range, and, Year-round Habitat within the Cow Canyon Allotment Percentage of BLM Land Acres on BLM Land Within Habitat Classification Within Cow Canyon Cow Canyon Allotment Allotment Crucial Summer 10,812 7.5% Crucial Winter 23,187 15.9% Year-round 17,049 11.7%

Table 37: Approximate Acres of Mule Deer Crucial Summer Range, Crucial Winter Range, and, Year-round Habitat within the Dixie Valley Allotment Percentage of BLM Land Acres on BLM Land Within Habitat Classification Within Dixie Valley Dixie Valley Allotment Allotment Crucial Summer 21,179 8.5% Crucial Winter 45,256 18.1% Year-round 16,170 6.5%

Table 38: Approximate Acres of Mule Deer Crucial Summer Range, Crucial Winter Range, and, Year-round Habitat within the Clan Alpine Allotment Percentage of BLM Land Acres on BLM Land Within Habitat Classification Within Clan Alpine Clan Alpine Allotment Allotment Crucial Summer 18,432 5.2% Crucial Winter 22,282 6.2% Year-round 58,260 16.3%

Pronghorn Antelope The vegetative height, cover, and community type, as well as the elevation, topography, and distance to water, influence pronghorn habitat selection. Pronghorn generally prefer shrub communities with the vegetation structure averaging about 38.1 cm (15 in) in height, in areas with flat terrain or rolling topography from 914-1,829 m (3,000-6,000 ft) in elevation. More specifically, preferred ranges consist of approximately 50% living vegetation, with the vegetative composition consisting of 20-50% grasses, 10-30% forbs, and 10-30% shrubs (Yoakum 1980). The proximity to water can influence pronghorn habitat use within ranges containing suitable topography and vegetation. For example, while conducting a study in northern Arizona, Bright and Van Riper III (1999) found that 84% of all pronghorn locations were located within 6 km (3.8 miles) from a water source.

Table 39: Pronghorn Habitat Rating in Regards to Vegetative Cover (Yoakum 1980) Vegetation Type Good Fair Poor Forbs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover <5% ground cover Grass 20-50% ground cover 10-20% ground cover <10% ground cover Shrubs 10-30% ground cover 5-10% ground cover >30% ground cover

It is important to have the appropriate vegetative structure and composition within a range to provide both protective cover and forage for pronghorn populations. Vegetation height is important, as pronghorn prefer areas with lower vegetation to provide long-range visibility of predators. The exception is during the fawning period, in which pronghorn does utilize areas with above average shrub height (Alldredge et al. 1991, Howard 1995) and/or tall grasses and forbs (>25 cm (9.8 in)) to provide protective cover for fawns (Barrett 1981). According to Yoakum (1980) which summarized a variety of foraging studies conducted on pronghorn in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, browse species were the most preferred year-round. The highest forb use occurred during the summer months, followed by spring, and then fall (Table 40). Beale and Smith (1970) documented a relationship between precipitation and diet in western Utah, where forbs provided over 90% of a pronghorn’s summer diet when they were abundant as a result of above average rainfall. When forbs were absent due to below average rainfall, the primary dietary component for pronghorn during the summer was browse species. Furthermore, Beale and Smith (1970) documented that grass was more commonly utilized during the spring, and browse species were the most utilized during the fall and winter.

Table 40: Percent Volume of Forage Consumed by Season for Pronghorn in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada (Yoakum 1980) Vegetation Winter Spring Summer Fall Mean Type Grass 6% 10% 1% 13% 7% Forbs 8% 24% 34% 22% 22% Browse 86% 66% 65% 66% 71%

Suitable pronghorn habitat occurs within the boundaries of the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. More specifically, NDOW has classified the suitable pronghorn habitat as agricultural habitat, crucial summer range, or year-round habitat. The approximate acres of each habitat type within the allotments are displayed below (Table 41, Table 42 and Table 43).

Table 41: Approximate Acres of Pronghorn Antelope Year-round Habitat within the Cow Canyon Allotment Percentage of BLM Land Acres on BLM Land Within Habitat Classification Within Cow Canyon Cow Canyon Allotment Allotment Year-round 72,939 49.9%

Table 42: Approximate acres of pronghorn antelope year-round habitat within the Dixie Valley Allotment Habitat Classification Acres on BLM Land Within Percentage of BLM Land

Dixie Valley Allotment Within Dixie Valley Allotment Year-round 215,512 86.1%

Table 43: Approximate acres of pronghorn antelope agricultural habitat, crucial summer range, and year-round habitat within the Clan Alpine Allotment Percentage of BLM Land Acres on BLM Land Within Habitat Classification Within Clan Alpine Clan Alpine Allotment Allotment Agricultural 3,587 1.0% Crucial Summer 15,305 4.3% Year-round 256,430 71.6%

Bighorn Sheep The subspecies of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) found in the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments is the desert bighorn sheep (O. c. Nelsoni). They prefer rough, rocky, and steep terrain; require freestanding water in the summer months or during drought; and eat a variety of grasses, shrubs, and forbs. Due to the dry environments they occupy, browse is generally the dominant dietary component for desert bighorn sheep (Tesky 1993).

Suitable desert bighorn habitat occurs within the boundaries of the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. More specifically, NDOW has classified portions of the Clan Alpine Mountains within the Cow Canyon Allotment as year-round habitat, portions of the Clan Alpine Mountains within the Dixie Valley Allotment as year-round habitat and lambing habitat, the Stillwater Range within the Dixie Valley Allotment as year-round habitat, portions of the Desatoya Mountains within the Clan Alpine Allotment as lambing habitat; crucial summer habitat; and year-round habitat, and the eastern portion of the New Pass Range within the Clan Alpine Allotment as potential habitat. The approximate acres of each habitat type within the allotments are displayed below (Table 44, Table 45 and Table 46).

Table 44: Approximate Acres of Desert Bighorn Sheep Year-round Habitat within the Cow Canyon Allotment Acres on BLM Land Habitat Classification Within Cow Canyon Allotment Year-round 60,839

Table 45: Approximate Acres of Desert Bighorn Sheep Crucial Summer, Lambing, and, Year-round Habitat within the Clan Alpine Allotment Acres on BLM Land Habitat Classification Within Clan Alpine Allotment Crucial Summer 2,758 Lambing 4,096 Year-round 86,360

Table 46: Approximate Acres of Desert Bighorn Lambing and Year-round Habitat within the Dixie Valley Allotment Acres on BLM Land Habitat Classification Within Dixie Valley Allotment Lambing 1,719 Year-round 138,635

Upland Game The primary upland game species within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments are Chukar Partridge (Alectoris chukar) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Springs and springbrooks are important for the survival of these game birds.

Other Species Occurring Within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments Wildlife species known to occur within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments not discussed in previous sections in the document include a variety of fish, mammalian, avian, and reptilian species. One fish species that has been observed within the allotments is the brook trout. Additionally, in Dixie Valley on Navy lands, there are several additional fish species that reside in existing ponds including largemouth bass, green sunfish, crappie, mosquito fish, carp and tui chub. Mammalian species that have been found within the allotments and not been discussed in previous sections of this document are the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida), white-tailed antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), American badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), and Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus). Additional avian species recorded within the allotment include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp- shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). Reptilian species that have been observed within the allotments include the zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), Great Basin rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus lutosus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), common side- blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), and California kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae).

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 3.11.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments, implementing the livestock grazing and wild horse and burro components of the Proposed Action should result in the spring and springbrook, Intermountain rivers and streams, and Intermountain cold desert scrub habitats to make progress towards achieving RAC Standards. Individual springs and streams that are already meeting standards within the allotments should continue to meet standards. Furthermore, the livestock grazing and wild horse and burro components of the Proposed Action should result in improved conditions within the sagebrush key habitat, especially on the lower elevations.

Livestock distribution throughout the allotments would be controlled by adhering to the pasture rotation/grazing system. This would include placing all salt and/or supplements at least ¼ mile from all riparian areas, repairing and developing range improvement projects, implementing drought actions when and where appropriate and enforcing utilization triggers in both the upland and riparian habitats.

Reinstating the lost AUMs within the Shoshone Pasture in the Clan Alpine Allotment should have negligible impacts on the Intermountain cold desert scrub, spring and springbrook, Intermountain Rivers and streams, and sagebrush key habitats within the area. AUMs would only be reinstated if the permittee complies with all grazing permit conditions, it is determined that conditions on the allotment allow for the additional use, and annual monitoring ensures that the additional use is not impacting the ability of the area to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving RAC Standards.

The use of a TNR permit should have negligible to positive benefits to wildlife that utilize the Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, spring and springbrook, and Intermountain rivers and streams key habitats. TNR would only be authorized if field visits determine that the additional use would not impact the ability of the area to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving RAC Standards. During years when cheatgrass or other invasive plant species flourish, allowing the undesirable species to be flash grazed could be beneficial, as it would give the native plants a better chance to outcompete the more aggressive invasive plant species. Additionally, this would decrease the likelihood of an intense wildfire that could initially eliminate the shrub component within the key habitats.

Dirt Spring, the unnamed spring in Cherry Valley, and Rock Creek Spring are currently degraded and not functioning as high quality habitat for wildlife that utilize these areas. Constructing perimeter fences around these springs would protect them from continued overutilization and trampling by wild horses and livestock which would benefit wildife. This protection should result in improvements (i.e. an increase in aquatic vegetation used as forage and/or protective cover, an improvement in water quality, a decrease in erosional potential, etc…) to the degraded conditions within the springs.

Pinyon pine and juniper trees are encroaching into the wet meadow at Rock Creek Spring. This is a concern, since the trees are contributing to the overall decline in water availability and riparian vegetation within the spring. Removing the encroaching pinyon pine and juniper trees could result in increased soil moisture and riparian vegetation within the spring (Gedney et al. 1999 and Zouhar 2001), as well as improve overall riparian functions which would also benefit wildife that utilize the spring.

Implementing the invasive and noxious weeds program should improve the habitat for wildlife within the allotments over the long-term, as the intent of the program is to reduce the occurrence of the weed species and increase the occurrence of native vegetation used by wildlife for forage and/or cover. Short-term impacts for the salt cedar removal would be a loss in vertical structure that some wildlife species could use for protective cover.

100

Constructing the proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek Valley should have negligible impacts to wildlife species that utilize the Clan Alpine Allotment. The area of the proposed pit functions as low quality habitat, as it is adjacent to an existing gravel pit and predominantly composed of cheatgrass. The potential increase in vehicle traffic, which could result in increased noise (therefore causing wildlife to avoid the areas in and around the gravel pits) and potential of wildlife mortality as a result of being run over by vehicles (primarily for small mammals), is not a major concern due to the low quality of the habitat.

Big Game Specific impacts to bighorn sheep from the Proposed Action are discussed in the Sensitive Species Section.

Pronghorn are associated with the spring/springbrook, sagebrush, and Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitats. General impacts to these habitats from the livestock, wild horse, range improvement, and noxious and invasive weed components of the Proposed Action are described above. Although the pronghorn population in Hunt Units 181-184 have remained stable (Table 47), the concern with pronghorn within these units is the reduced recruitment levels (Table 46). Implementing the drought, livestock, noxious and invasive weed, and range improvement components of the Proposed Action should address some of the factors (e.g. drought, lack of native grasses, degradation of riparian areas, abundance of noxious and invasive weeds, etc…) that are contributing to the decreased recruitment rates. Furthermore, improving the riparian conditions at Rock Creek Spring should benefit pronghorn that utilize the spring.

The proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek is within pronghorn year-round habitat. Due to the amount of pronghorn year-round habitat within and around Edwards Creek Valley, constructing the new gravel pit and designating the area as a community pit would have negligible impacts to the pronghorn population within Hunt Units 181-184.

General impacts to the key habitats (e.g. sagebrush, spring/springbrook, etc…) occupied by mule deer within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments from the livestock, range improvement, and noxious and invasive weed components of the Proposed Action are described above. Although the population for the Area 18 mule deer herd has remained relatively stable over recent years (Table 40), Figure 2 illustrates an overall declining trend for the number of fawns per 100 does since 2010. Implementing the drought, livestock, noxious and invasive weed, and range improvement components of the Proposed Action should address some of the factors (e.g. drought, lack of native grasses, degradation of riparian areas, abundance of noxious and invasive weeds, etc…) that are contributing to the decreased recruitment rates. Furthermore, improving the riparian conditions at Rock Creek Spring, Dirt Spring, and the unnamed spring in Cherry Valley should benefit mule deer that utilize these springs.

The proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek Valley is not within suitable habitat for mule deer; therefore, the pit would not have any effects on mule deer.

101 Upland Game Chukar should benefit from implementing the Proposed Action, as the spring and springbrook key habitat should make progress towards achieving RAC Standards.

3.11.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use The mineral, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed management under this alternative would be the same as described under the Proposed Action; therefore, the impacts on the key habitats are the same as described under the Proposed Action above. The difference is that under this alternative, the key habitats (e.g. sagebrush, Intermountain cold desert scrub, and spring/springbrook) within the Dixie Valley North Pasture would receive additional resource protection, as 1600 AUMs would be placed in suspended non-use for the protection of the resources on public lands. Grazing the Dixie Valley South Pasture from 11/1-2/28 during odd and even years, instead of alternating the grazing schedule to winter grazing in even years and spring grazing in odd years, should ensure additional vegetation within the pasture during the spring that wildlife would be able to use for forage and cover.

Big Game Specific impacts to bighorn sheep from Alternative 2 are discussed in the Sensitive Species Section.

Pronghorn year-round habitat and mule deer habitat are located within the Dixie Valley North and South pastures. Providing additional resource protection to the Dixie Valley North Pasture (by placing 1600 AUMs in suspended nonuse) should result in increased vegetation year- round within the pasture that pronghorn and mule deer could use for forage and cover. In comparison to the current grazing schedule within the Dixie Valley South Pasture, only grazing the pasture from 11/1-2/28 should result in an increase in vegetation within the pasture during the spring. This increase in vegetation within the pasture during the spring would provide additional forage and hiding cover for pronghorn and mule deer using the area during the timeframe.

Upland Game Chukar should benefit from implementing Alternative 2, as the spring and springbrook key habitats within the Dixie Valley North and South pastures should make progress towards achieving or achieve RAC Standards.

3.11.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing The mineral, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed management under this alternative would be the same as described under the Proposed Action; therefore, the impacts on the key habitats are the same as described under the Proposed Action above. Under this alternative, the livestock season of use within the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31 due to management concerns. Since livestock tend to congregate around riparian areas during the hot season, grazing during this time period can result in significant degradation to these areas (BLM Technical Reference 1737-20) and negatively impact wildlife. As a result closing the Cherry Valley Pasture to livestock grazing during the hot season should result in the key

102 habitats, particularly springs and springbrooks, progressing towards or achieving RAC Standards and benefit wildlife that utilize the riparian areas within the pasture.

Big Game Specific impacts to bighorn sheep from Alternative 3 are discussed in the Sensitive Species Section.

Mule deer crucial summer, crucial winter, and year-round habitat occurs within the Cherry Valley Pasture. Closing the Cherry Valley Pasture to livestock grazing during the hot season should result in the riparian key habitats progressing towards or achieving RAC Standards and benefit mule deer that utilize the pasture. More specifically, not grazing the Cherry Valley Pasture during the hot season should result in an increase in riparian vegetation that mule deer would utilize for forage and cover.

3.11.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments The impacts to wildlife and their associated key habitats (from cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 4) would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action. Changing the grazing season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment from summer/fall to winter and reducing cattle grazing in the Clan Alpine Allotment should result in additional vegetation available for wildlife that could be used as forage and/or cover.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.11.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing The impacts to wildlife and their associated key habitats from the cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 5 are the same as described in the Proposed Action.

Eliminating domestic sheep grazing from the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment should result in additional vegetation available for wildlife from 12/1 – 3/15 that could be used as forage and/or cover.

3.11.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, there would be no impacts from livestock to the key habitats (e.g. Intermountain salt desert scrub, sagebrush, spring/springbrook, and Intermountain rivers/streams) and the wildlife species that utilize these habitats. No vegetation would be trampled or consumed by cattle within the allotments; therefore, there should be additional vegetation available to wildlife that could be used for forage and/or cover. Wild horses would continue to trample and utilize the plants as they would not be managed to maintain AML.

103 Alternative 6 would most likely result in the key habitats progressing towards, achieving, or maintaining RAC Standards; therefore, wildlife species within the allotments should benefit from Alternative 6.

Big Game Specific impacts to bighorn sheep from Alternative 6 are discussed in the Sensitive Species Section.

Under this alternative, the forage originally allocated for livestock would become available to wildlife such as mule deer and pronghorn. As a result, both pronghorn and mule deer could experience increased recruitment levels due to the increase in available vegetation that could be used for forage and/or cover.

Upland Game Chukar should benefit from implementing Alternative 6, as spring and springbrook key habitats should make progress towards achieving or achieve RAC Standards.

3.11.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action The current grazing operations have led to not meeting the standards in the Intermountain cold desert scrub key habitat, a lack of native grasses in the sagebrush key habitat (on the lower elevations), and generally not meeting standards within the spring and springbrook and Intermountain river and stream key habitats within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional range improvements, so springs not meeting RAC Standards would likely realize further degradation. Overall ecosystem health and species diversity could decline.

The allotments would continually be surveyed along roadways and other disturbed areas for new weed infestations. Treatment methods could include biological, mechanical, and chemical control. When applicable, several of these methods would be combined into an integrated pest management program in order to reduce the costs and risks to humans and the environment. Areas previously treated with herbicides would continue to be monitored. Wildlife would benefit from the weed treatments, as the long-term goal would be to decrease the amount of invasive, noxious, and nonnative weeds and increase the amount of native vegetation.

No new mineral material pits would be constructed under this alternative. There would be no additional loss of wildlife habitat, though the habitat that would have been eliminated from the construction of the new gravel pit is considered very low quality since it is primarily composed of cheatgrass.

Big Game Specific impacts to bighorn sheep from the No Action Alternative are discussed in the Sensitive Species Section.

Since the key habitats (e.g. Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, spring/springbrook, and Intermountain rivers/streams) would likely not improve under the No Action Alternative, it is highly likely that the recent downward trends in recruitment levels for both mule deer and

104 pronghorn (Figure 2 and 3) would continue.

Upland Game Chukar would not benefit from implementing the No Action Alternative, as spring and springbrook key habitats would likely not make progress towards achieving RAC Standards.

3.12 Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds

3.12.1 Affected Environment On January 11, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 (Land Bird Strategic Project) placing emphasis on the conservation and management of migratory birds. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, and the EO addresses the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect them by taking actions to implement the MBTA. BLM management for these species is based on Instruction Memorandum No. IM 2008-050 dated December 18, 2007.

The Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan (2010) and the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (2008) were used to determine which avian species known to occur, or potentially occur, in the allotments have been classified as priority species by the USFWS and/or the state of Nevada. The ecological tenet underlying the process is that actions focused on priority species would impact other avian species that utilize similar habitats.

Table 47: The Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan (2010) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (2008) priority species that occur, or could potentially occur, within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, or Clan Alpine Allotment. Key Habitats Species Notes American Avocet One of the main threats to the species is the Desert Playas and (Recurvirostra dewatering of playas or springs from drought or Ephemeral Pools americana) water diversions (GBBO 2010). One of the main threats to the species is the Desert Playas and Black-Necked Stilt dewatering of playas or springs from drought or Ephemeral Pools (Himantopus mexicanus) water diversions (GBBO 2010). Though they primarily breed in shrub steppe habitats and are considered to be shrub steppe obligates, they are also associated with salt Intermountain Cold Brewer’s Sparrow desert scrub habitats. Nests are usually Desert Scrub/Sagebrush (Spizella breweri) constructed in the mid to upper canopy of tall, dense sagebrush or greasewood. Insects comprise the majority of the bird’s diet in the spring and summer (GBBO 2010, WAPT 2012). Within these habitat types, suitable areas for the owl consists of shrubs spaced far apart or low stature vegetation that allows the bird to see for Intermountain Cold Burrowing Owl long distances. Ideal habitats are also closely Desert Scrub/Sagebrush (Athene cunicularia) associated with burrowing animals such as ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) and badgers (Taxidea taxus), as burrowing owls use

105 Key Habitats Species Notes holes created by these species as nest sites. Prey for burrowing owls consists of small rodents and insects (GBBO 2010, WAPT 2012). Dispersed juniper trees found at the ecotone of pinyon-juniper and desert shrub communities Intermountain Cold provide ideal nesting trees for ferruginous Desert hawks. The hawk is also commonly observed Scrub/Sagebrush/Lower Ferruginous Hawk nesting in cliffs. Ideal ferruginous hawk hunting Montane (Buteo regalis) territory consists of brush communities Woodlands/Cliffs and containing a variety of native grasses and forbs, Canyons as these communities generally support a high density of ground squirrels and lagomorphs (GBBO 2010, WAPT 2012). The bird feeds on a variety of small mammals, Sagebrush/Intermountain Golden Eagle snakes, birds, juvenile ungulates, and carrion. Cold Desert Scrub/Cliffs (Aquila chrysaetos) Nests are generally constructed on rock ledges and Canyons or in large trees (WAPT 2012). The bird is a cavity nester that uses dead aspen, cottonwood, and pinyon trees. Lower Montane Lewis’s Woodpecker Conserving grasses and shrubs in riparian and Woodlands (Melanerpes lewis) aspen habitats, in order to maintain a high density of insects, is important to conserving the species (Neel 1999). Loggerhead shrikes nest in isolated trees or Intermountain Cold large shrubs and use scattered, tall shrubs and Desert Scrub/Lower Loggerhead Shrike fences as perches to feed on a variety of prey, Montane (Lanius ludovicianus) which includes small birds, lizards, and mice Woodlands/Sagebrush (Neel 1999). Pinyon Jay Pinyon jays are known as semi-colonial nesters Lower Montane (Gymnorhinus and pinyon pine woodland obligates (Neel Woodlands cyanocephalus) 1999). Nests are generally constructed on the ledges of rocky cliffs, but prairie falcons will also nest in Sagebrush/Intermountain Prairie Falcon trees utilizing old hawk and raven nests. Prairie Cold Desert Scrub/Cliffs (Falco mexicanus) falcon populations are strongly correlated with and Canyons the populations of ground squirrels and other small mammals (GBBO 2010). Preferred habitat includes areas with shrubs at Intermountain Cold Sage Sparrow least 45 cm (18 in) tall with 10-25% crown cover Desert Scrub/Sagebrush (Amphispiza belli) mixed with a sparse grass and forb component to support insects (Neel 1999, GBBO 2010). Primarily inhabits sagebrush areas, but can also be found in salt desert scrub habitat where it integrates with sagebrush or greasewood Intermountain Cold Sage Thrasher dominates. Nests are either constructed in the Desert Scrub/Sagebrush (Oreoscoptes montanus) branches of sagebrush (or occasionally greasewood) or placed underneath the shrub. Insects comprise the majority of a sage thrasher’s diet, but the bird will also forage on

106 Key Habitats Species Notes fruits and berries (GBBO 2010, WAPT 2012). Snowy Plover One of the main threats to the species is the Desert Playas and (Charadrius dewatering of playas or springs from drought or Ephemeral Pools alexandrines) water diversions (GBBO 2010). Nesting generally occurs within these habitats from 915-1372 m (3,000-4,500 ft) in elevation, but individual pairs have been observed nesting Sagebrush/Agricultural at elevations up to 1,829 m (6,000 ft). Isolated Swainson’s Hawk lands/Intermountain cottonwood trees are generally the preferred (Buteo swainsoni) Rivers and Streams nesting tree, but nests located in junipers and aspen have been documented. The primary food sources for the bird are small mammals and large insects (Neel 1999).

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 3.12.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action While livestock can directly impact the reproductive success of migratory songbirds through the trampling of nests, it is more likely that they indirectly influence reproductive success by altering vegetation (e.g. species composition, height, and cover) through trampling and grazing.

In the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments, the primary key habitats that are impacted by livestock grazing are spring and springbrooks, Intermountain rivers and streams, Intermountain cold desert scrub, and sagebrush. Aerial foragers correlated with open habitats and ground foragers favoring areas with less cover seem to benefit from some grazing in riparian habitats. Bock et al. (1993) did state that species that appear to benefit from livestock grazing in riparian areas tended to be habitat generalists and therefore not necessarily restricted to riparian communities. Avian species requiring a dense shrub and/or herbaceous component in riparian areas for nesting and/or foraging tend to respond negatively to livestock grazing in these areas. Furthermore, improper livestock grazing practices (e.g. allowing excessive hummocking of the soil from hoof action and overutilization of riparian vegetation) can eventually result in the complete loss of riparian areas, which would negatively impact migratory birds that depend on this habitat. In shrub steppe habitats, avian species reliant on herbaceous cover for nesting and/or foraging (whether it be songbirds reliant on insects or raptors dependent on rodents) would often respond negatively to heavy grazing. In general, if livestock grazing is conducted in a manner that would result in the key habitats achieving or maintaining RAC Standards, livestock would most likely have negligible impacts on the nesting and/or foraging habitat of the majority of priority avian species listed in Table 47.

Within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments, implementing the livestock grazing component of the Proposed Action should result in the spring and springbrook, Intermountain Rivers and streams, and Intermountain cold desert scrub habitats to make progress towards achieving RAC Standards. Individual springs and streams that are already meeting standards within the allotments should continue to meet standards. The livestock

107 grazing component of the Proposed Action should result in improved conditions within the sagebrush key habitat, especially on the lower elevations. Livestock distribution throughout the allotments would be controlled by adhering to the pasture rotation/grazing system. This would include placing all salt and/or supplements at least ¼ mile from all riparian areas, repairing and developing range improvement projects, implementing drought actions when and where appropriate and enforcing utilization triggers in both the upland and riparian habitats.

The use of a TNR permit should have negligible to positive benefits on migratory bird populations that utilize the Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, and spring and springbrook/Intermountain rivers and streams key habitats TNR would only be authorized if field visits determine that the additional use would not impact the ability of the area to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving RAC Standards. During years when cheatgrass or other invasive plant species flourish, allowing the undesirable species to be flash grazed could be beneficial, as it would give the native plants a better chance to outcompete the more aggressive invasive plant species. Additionally, this would decrease the likelihood of an intense wildfire that could initially eliminate the shrub component within the key habitats and negatively impact shrub nesting birds.

Dirt Spring, the unnamed spring in Cherry Valley, and Rock Creek Spring are currently degraded and not functioning as high quality habitat for migratory birds. Constructing perimeter fences around these springs would protect them from continued overutilization and trampling by wild horses and livestock, which should result in improvements (i.e. an increase in aquatic vegetation, an improvement in water quality, a decrease in erosional potential, etc…) to the degraded conditions within the springs. Therefore, constructing the perimeter fences around the springs should benefit migratory birds that utilize these areas.

Pinyon pine and juniper trees are encroaching into the wet meadow at Rock Creek Spring. This is a concern since the trees are contributing to the overall decline in water availability and riparian vegetation within the spring. Removing the encroaching pinyon pine and juniper trees could result in increased soil moisture and riparian vegetation within the spring (Gedney et al. 1999 and Zouhar 2001), as well as improve overall riparian functions, migratory bird species that utilize the spring would benefit.

Avian species that utilize pinyon pine and juniper for nesting and/or perching could be negatively impacted as a result of removing these trees that have encroached into Rock Creek Spring. The negative impact from lost trees used for nesting and/or perching would be

108 negligible due to the amount of trees immediately adjacent to the spring. Allowing the riparian area to recover should result in increased food abundance for many avian species.

Implementing the invasive and noxious weeds program should improve the habitat for migratory bird species within the allotments over the long-term, as the intent of the program is to reduce the occurrence of the weed species and increase the occurrence of native vegetation used by migratory birds for nesting and/or foraging. Short-term impacts from the salt cedar removal would be a loss in vertical structure that some avian species would use for perching, cover, and nesting. To prevent negative impacts to migratory birds from treatments, only herbicides with low acute toxicity to avian species would be used.

Constructing the proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek Valley would impact migratory birds, though these impacts should be negligible. The direct loss of habitat resulting from the construction of the new mineral material pit would have negligible impacts on migratory bird populations, since the vegetation is predominantly cheatgrass and the area functions as low quality foraging and nesting habitat. Designating the area as a community pit could result in increased noise from additional traffic, though impacts would be minimal.

3.12.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative, the period of use for livestock on the Dixie Valley Allotment would be changed and 1600 AUMs in the Dixie Valley North Pasture would be placed into suspended non-use. Although livestock can directly impact the reproductive success of migratory songbirds through the trampling of nests; it is more likely that they indirectly influence reproductive success by altering vegetation (e.g. species composition, height, and cover) through trampling and grazing. Not allowing livestock to graze in the Dixie Valley North Pasture until the authorized officer deems acceptable should result in the key habitat types within the pasture to make progress towards meeting RAC Standards. This would have positive impacts on the migratory bird populations that utilize the key habitats within the pasture.

3.12.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative, the livestock season of use within the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31 due to management concerns. Since livestock tend to congregate around riparian areas during the hot season, grazing during this time period can result in significant degradation to these areas (BLM Technical Reference 1737-20) and impact migratory bird populations that are dependent on riparian zones. As a result, closing the Cherry Valley Pasture to livestock grazing during the hot season should result in the key habitats, particularly springs and springbrooks, progressing towards or achieving RAC Standards and benefit avian populations that utilize the pasture.

3.12.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon

109 Under this alternative, the season of use on the Cow Canyon Allotment would be changed from May 1 through November 15 to October 1 through April 15. Impacts to the Cow Canyon Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

Clan Alpine Under this alternative, the Clan Alpine Allotment permitted AUMs would be reduced, the Bell Flat Pasture removed, and the season of use would be changed from May 1 through March 31 to March 1 through February 28. Although livestock can directly impact the reproductive success of migratory songbirds through the trampling of nests; it is more likely that they indirectly influence reproductive success by altering vegetation (e.g. species composition, height, and cover) through trampling and grazing. Permitting livestock grazing in the Cow Canyon Allotment only when plants are dormant along with reducing the number of livestock allowed to graze in the Clan Alpine Allotment and permitting a more flexible grazing system should result in the key habitat types making progress towards meeting RAC Standards. This alternative would have positive impacts on the migratory bird populations that utilize the key habitats within the allotment.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.12.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing The impacts to neo-tropical migratory/song birds and their associated key habitats from the cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 5 are the same as described in the Proposed Action.

Eliminating domestic sheep grazing from the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment during the winter should benefit the key habitats within the area. Additional vegetation available during the winter should result in the New Pass area supporting more small rodents during this time period, which would benefit raptors that winter in the area. There would be no grazing pressure by sheep in the winter within the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment, allowing the area to have improved nesting/foraging habitat for migratory bird species the upcoming spring.

3.12.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, there would be no impacts from livestock grazing to the key habitats (e.g. Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, Intermountain rivers/streams, and spring/springbrook) and the migratory birds that use them. Livestock would not trample any bird nests or consume vegetation utilized by avian species for forage or cover. Wild horses would continue to trample and utilize the plants as they would not be managed within AML.

Alternative 6 would most likely result in the key habitats progressing towards, achieving, or maintaining RAC Standards; therefore, implementing this alternative would benefit local avian populations.

3.12.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action

110 The current grazing operations have led to not meeting the standards in the Intermountain cold desert scrub habitat, a lack of native grasses in the sagebrush key habitat (on the lower elevations), and generally not meeting standards within the spring and springbrook and Intermountain river and stream key habitats within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional range improvements, so springs not meeting RAC Standards would likely realize further degradation. Horse populations would continue to increase, eventually going beyond AML, causing increased degradation to native plant communities. Overall ecosystem health and vegetative species diversity would likely continue to decline, resulting in negative impacts to migratory birds.

The allotments would continually be surveyed along roadways and other disturbed areas for new weed infestations. Treatment methods could include biological, mechanical, and chemical control. When applicable, several of these methods would be combined into an integrated pest management program in order to reduce the costs and risks to humans and the environment. Areas previously treated with herbicides would continue to be monitored. Migratory bird species would benefit from the weed treatments.

No new mineral material pits would be constructed under this alternative. There would be no additional loss of habitat for migratory birds, though the habitat is considered very low quality.

3.13 Nevada BLM Sensitive Species 3.13.1 Affected Environment BLM sensitive species are defined by BLM Manual 6840 as species that normally occur on Bureau administered lands for which the Agency has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management. The State Director may designate additional categories of special status species as appropriate and applicable to his or her state's needs. The sensitive species designation may include such native species as those that:

 Could become endangered in or extirpated from a state, or within a significant portion of its distribution in the foreseeable future,  Are under status review by USFWS and/or NMFS,  Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution,  Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density, such that federally listed, proposed, candidate, or state listed status may become necessary,  Have typically small and widely dispersed populations,  Inhabit ecological refugia, specialized, or unique habitats, or  Are state listed but which may be better conserved through the application of BLM sensitive species status.

Table 48: BLM Nevada Sensitive Species that Occur, or Could Potentially Occur, within the Dixie Valley, Cow Canyon, and Clan Alpine Allotments Key Habitats Species Notes

111 Key Habitats Species Notes Avian Intermountain Cold Desert Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Brewer’s Sparrow Scrub/Sagebrush Section. Intermountain Cold Desert Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Burrowing Owl Scrub/Sagebrush Section. Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub/Sagebrush/Lower Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Ferruginous Hawk Montane Woodlands/Cliffs and Section. Canyons Sagebrush/Intermountain Cold Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Golden Eagle Desert Scrub Section. Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Lower Montane Woodlands Lewis’s Woodpecker Section. Intermountain Cold Desert Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Scrub/Lower Montane Loggerhead Shrike Section. Woodlands/Sagebrush Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Lower Montane Woodlands Pinyon Jay Section. Greater Sage-grouse Sagebrush (Centrocercus Habitat described below. urophasianus) Desert Playas and Ephemeral Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Snowy Plover Pools Section. Sagebrush/Intermountain Habitat described in the Migratory Birds Swainson’s Hawk Rivers and Streams Section. Mammals The species is found at lower to middle elevations in a variety of habitats in Intermountain Cold Desert Nevada, which includes lowland riparian, Scrub/Sagebrush/Intermountain desert scrub, sagebrush steppe, montane Rivers and California Myotis grassland, pinyon-juniper woodland, and Streams/Marsh/Lower Montane (Myotis californicus) mixed-conifer. Mines, caves, rock Woodlands/Springs and crevices, and hollow trees are used as Springbrooks roosting sites, and small moths, flies, and beetles comprise the majority of their diet (Bradley et al. 2006). Dark kangaroo mice are found in sandy and gravelly soils in desert scrub, Dark Kangaroo Mouse Sagebrush/Intermountain Cold sagebrush, grassland, and desert playa (Microdipodops Desert Scrub habitats in Nevada. Although the rodent megacephalus) will feed on insects, its diet primarily consists of seeds. Habitat and recruitment trends described Desert Bighorn Sheep Cliffs and Canyons under Big Game within the General (O. c. Nelsoni) Wildlife Section. Intermountain Rivers and The bat primarily forages on aquatic Little Brown Myotis Streams/Marsh/Lower Montane insects such as caddis flies, midges, and (Myotis lucifugus) Woodlands/Cliffs and mayflies (WAPT 2012)

112 Key Habitats Species Notes Canyons/Spring and Springbrooks The species is predominately found in Lower Montane Long-Eared Myotis coniferous forests and gleans prey off of Woodlands/Cliffs and Canyons (Myotis evotis) foliage, tree trunks, rocks, and the ground (WAPT 2012). Pale Kangaroo Mouse Pale kangaroo mice are found in sandy Intermountain Cold Desert (Microdipodops soils in valley bottoms dominated by Scrub pallidus) greasewood and saltbush (WAPT 2012). Pallid bats are found throughout Nevada in low to mid elevations in habitats that include pinyon-juniper, blackbrush, Intermountain Cold Desert Pallid Bat creosote, sagebrush, and salt desert Scrub, Sagebrush, Lower (Antrozous pallidus) scrub. Foraging occurs both in vegetation Montane Woodlands and on the ground surface, and the bat’s diet primarily consists of ground-dwelling arthropods (Bradley et al. 2006). Pygmy rabbits can be found in areas with tall, dense sagebrush and loose soils. Pygmy Rabbit-Only They primarily eat sagebrush and are the known to occur in the only rabbits in North America to dig their Sagebrush Clan Alpine Allotment own burrows. The primary threat to pygmy (Brachylagus rabbits is the loss of shrub-steppe habitat idahoensis) due to fire, improper grazing practices, invasion of exotic annuals, and agricultural conversion (WAPT 2012). Spotted bats display a scattered distribution within Nevada, as their distribution is closely associated to the Lower Montane availability of cliff-roosting sites. The Woodlands/Cliffs and Spotted Bat species has been found in pinyon-juniper, Canyons/Intermountain Rivers (Euderma maculatum) sagebrush, and riparian areas that range and Streams/Springs and from 540-2,130 m (1,772-6,988 ft) in Springbrooks elevation. Over-grazing, recreational climbing, and mining operations are threats to the species (Bradley et al. 2006). Townsend’s big-eared bats are highly Lower Montane Woodlands, adaptable and inhabit a variety of habitats Townsend’s Big-eared Cliffs and in Nevada that range from 210-3,500 m Bat Canyons/Intermountain Rivers (689-11,483 ft) in elevation. Primary (Corynorhinus and Streams/Springs and threats to the species includes disturbance townsendii) Springbrooks during the hibernation and maternity periods (Bradley et al. 2006). Plants Found along washes, roadsides, and Lahontan Beardtongue canyon floors, predominately on (Penstemon palmeri carbonate-containing substrates and var. macranthus) where moisture is available throughout the summer (NNHP 2001).

113 Key Habitats Species Notes Found with greasewood and other salt Tonopah Milkvetch desert shrub taxa in drainages, valley (Astragalus floors, old beaches, and stabilized and pseudiodanthus) active dune margins (NNHP 2001).

Greater Sage-grouse During March of 2010, the USFWS determined that the GRSG warranted protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that listing the species was precluded by the need to address other higher priority species first (Federal Register Vol.75, p. 13910-14014). As a result, the GRSG was identified as a candidate for listing under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) until September 22, 2015. On this date, Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the Interior, announced that the GRSG did not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Males gather on traditional "strutting grounds" (leks) from approximately March 1 to May 15 and put on courtship performances. Females usually visit these grounds in higher numbers starting in late March and mate with only a few dominant males. Sites chosen as leks are usually openings with an abundance of sagebrush within 90-200 m (300-650 ft) for escape cover. These lek sites usually occur in broad valleys, ridges, benches and plateaus, or mesas (Connelly et al. 2000, Parrish et al. 2002).

Within one to two weeks after mating, GRSG hens search for suitable nesting and brood rearing sites that are usually within 1.1-6.2 km (0.68-3.85 miles) of a lek (Connelly et al. 2000). In rare circumstances, females have been recorded to travel greater than 20 km (12.5 miles) from a lek to a nest site (Connelly et al. 2000). According to Hagen et al. (2007), ideal GRSG nesting and brood-rearing habitat contains taller sagebrush (>20 inches) with 15-25% canopy cover, at least 10% forb cover, and greater than 15% grass cover. Also, Sveum et al. (1998) observed higher nesting success, due to decreased predation, for structures placed in sagebrush steppe habitat with grasses taller than 18 cm (7.1 in) than in sagebrush steppe areas with lower grasses. In areas with high raven populations, Coates and Delehanty (2010) suggests that nesting habitat with sagebrush cover from 20-30%, with total shrub cover ≥40%, is the most ideal at preventing ravens from predating on GRSG nests. An abundance of insects and forbs comprise ideal nesting/early brood-rearing habitat (insects are critical to the survival and development of chicks within the first three weeks after hatching) (Johnson and Boyce 1990, Crawford et al. 2004). As the summer progresses, hens with broods relocate to wet meadows and riparian areas abundant with forbs and grasses that are near sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2000, Parrish et al. 2002).

Snow depth determines the areas available to GRSG during the winter. In general, ideal winter habitat contains tall, vigorous sagebrush that extends above the snow and exhibits sufficient canopy coverage (Connelly et al. 2000). Eng and Schladweiler (1972) more commonly observed GRSG during the winter in Montana in sagebrush habitats that had greater than 20% canopy coverage. Conversely, it was stated in Connelly et al. (2000) that Robertson (1991) more commonly observed GRSG during the winter in Idaho occupying

114 sagebrush habitats with the canopy cover averaging about 15%. During winter, sagebrush leaves are the primary food source for the GRSG (Connelly et al. 2000, Parrish et al. 2002).

Blomberg et al. (2012) documented a relationship between GRSG population sizes, annual variances in precipitation, and the presence/absence of an exotic annual grass component. As much as 75% of the annual variance in population size during the study could be explained by the annual deviation in precipitation. Populations inhabiting areas with a substantial exotic annual grassland component showed much lower recruitment than areas without, even following years of sufficient rainfall. A comparison was made between male sage-grouse breeding at leks with a substantial exotic annual grassland component, and males breeding at leks bordered by native sagebrush habitats. The males breeding in areas with a substantial exotic annual grassland component exhibited lower survival than males breeding in areas surrounded by native sagebrush habitats.

Desired habitat conditions for GRSG are further identified in Table 2-2 of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (2015)).

GRSG priority habitat management areas (PHMA), general habitat management areas (GHMA), and/or other habitat management areas (OHMA) occur within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments (Table 49, Table 50 and Table 51). PHMA are the highest valued sage-grouse habitats and include locations used for breeding and late brood-rearing, winter concentration areas, and migration corridors. GHMA are occupied seasonal or year-round habitats that are outside of PHMA. GHMAs are deemed more important to GRSG than OHMA. OHMA refer to sage-grouse seasonal or connectivity habitats. See the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (2015) for more information on PHMA, GHMA, and OHMA.

Table 49: Approximate Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the Cow Canyon Allotment Percentage of BLM Land Total Acres Within the Cow Habitat Classification Within the Cow Canyon Canyon Allotment Allotment GHMA 993 0.7% OHMA 18,146 12.4%

Table 50: Approximate Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the Dixie Valley Allotment Percentage of BLM Land Total Acres Within the Dixie Habitat Classification Within the Dixie Valley Valley Allotment Allotment PHMA 13,146 5.3% GHMA 8,028 3.2% OHMA 22,652 9.1%

Table 51: Approximate Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the Clan Alpine Allotment

115 Percentage of BLM Land Total Acres Within the Clan Habitat Classification Within the Clan Alpine Alpine Allotment Allotment PHMA 11,333 3.2% GHMA 15,036 4.2% OHMA 64,917 18.1%

A variety of GRSG Population Management Units (PMU) occur within the area encompassing the Dixie Valley, Cow Canyon, and Clan Alpine Allotments. Specifically, the Stillwater PMU encompasses the northwest portion of the Dixie Valley Allotment, the Desatoya PMU comprises the eastern boundary of the Clan Alpine Allotment, and the Clan Alpine PMU occurs within all three allotments.

The primary PMU within the area encompassing the allotments is the Clan Alpine PMU (> 70% of the PMU occurs within the three allotments). The only known lek within the Clan Alpine PMU is the Camp Creek Lek located in the southeastern portion of the Dixie Valley Allotment. The number of males observed on this lek during surveys increased from 2004-2006 then has declined since 2006 (Figure 3). According to the standards and guidelines determination documents for the Clan Alpine, Dixie Valley, and Cow Canyon Allotments, the major concerns were the lack of grasses and forbs in areas used for nesting and degraded conditions in late brood-rearing habitat.

High Male Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG)Count from Lek Surveys Conducted at the Camp Creek Lek 50

30 High Male Count 20

10 Numberof Male GSG 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year Figure 3: The highest number of males observed during leks surveys at the Camp Creek Lek within the Clan Alpine PMU from 2003-2014.

The Rock Creek Lek is located in the Clan Alpine Allotment within the Desatoya PMU. The high male count recorded during lek surveys each year has fluctuated since 2002, with a general upward trend from 2002-2005 followed by a general downward trend from 2005-2011. In 2012, the high male count increased to 38, only to decrease to 17 in 2013 and 15 in 2014 (Figure 4). Currently there is insufficientdata regarding the movement and behavior of the sage-grouse that attend this lek and it is not known whether the majority of the birds that

116 attend this lek remain within the Desatoya PMU for wintering, nesting, or brood-rearing or utilize portions of the Clan Alpine PMU during these periods.

High Male Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG) Count from Lek Surveys Conducted at the Rock Creek Lek 40

30 High Male 20 Count

10 Numberof Male GSG 0

Year

Figure 4: The highest number of males observed during leks surveys at the Rock Creek Lek within the Desatoya PMU from 2002-2014.

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences 3.13.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Impacts to the key habitats (e.g. Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, spring/springbrook, and Intermountain rivers/streams) utilized by sensitive species within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments (Table 48) from the livestock, drought, range improvement, and noxious, invasive, and nonnative weed treatment components of the Proposed Action are the same as described in the Wildlife Section.

Avian Species (Excluding Greater Sage-Grouse) Impacts to the sensitive avian species that are known to occur, or could potentially occur, within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments (Table 48Error! Reference source not found.) from the mineral material, livestock, drought, range improvement, and noxious, invasive, and nonnative weed treatment components of the Proposed Action are the same as stated within the Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds Section. Implementing the Proposed Action may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to any populations or species.

Greater Sage-Grouse While livestock and wild horses can directly impact reproductive success of GRSG by trampling of nests and causing nest abandonment, it is more likely that they indirectly influence reproductive success and survival of GRSG by changing the composition, height, and cover of vegetation.

The overall impacts of livestock grazing on GRSG habitat depend on the intensity, timing, and duration of grazing. For example, overgrazing by livestock can result in the elimination of

117 bunchgrasses that sage-grouse use as nesting and escape cover. Overgrazing also results in an increase in bare ground between perennial plants, which consequently favors the invasion of cheatgrass (Crawford et al. 2004, Reisner et al. 2013, Rayburn et al. 2014). As cheatgrass becomes more abundant in the understories of sagebrush communities, the fire return interval decreases significantly (e.g. the fire return interval in Wyoming big sagebrush communities can change from approximately 50-100 years to less than 5 years (Whisenant 1990)), which threatens the long-term persistence of the overall sagebrush component within the shrub- steppe ecosystem. Heavy grazing in riparian areas, particularly during the hot season, can result in the loss of succulent vegetation used as forage or hiding cover for sage-grouse broods (Crawford et al. 2004). In contrast, Klebenow (1982) states that light to moderate grazing in dense, grassy meadows can benefit GRSG broods, as reducing the grass cover can expose forbs selected by the grouse.

GRSG use the spring and springbrook and sagebrush key habitats within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. Implementing the livestock grazing component of the Proposed Action (e.g. utilization triggers for livestock, pasture rotation system for livestock, etc…) should result in the spring and springbrook habitats progressing towards meeting RAC and Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. Individual springs that are already meeting standards within the allotments should continue to meet standards. The livestock grazing component of the Proposed Action should also result in improved conditions within the sagebrush key habitat, especially on the lower elevations.

The use of a TNR permit should have negligible to positive benefits to GRSG using the sagebrush and spring and springbrook key habitats. TNR would only be authorized if field visits determine that the additional use would not impact the ability of the area to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving RAC and Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. During years when cheatgrass or other invasive plant species flourish, allowing the undesirable species to be flash grazed could be beneficial as it would give the native plants a better chance to outcompete the more aggressive invasive plant species. Additionally, this would decrease the likelihood of an intense wildfire that could initially eliminate the shrub component within the sagebrush key habitat. Blomberg et al. (2012) documented lower survival and recruitment for GRSG occupying areas with a substantial exotic annual grassland component.

The unnamed spring in Cherry Valley and Rock Creek Spring are currently degraded and not functioning as high quality habitat for GRSG. Constructing perimeter fences around these springs would protect them from continued overutilization and trampling by wild horses and livestock. This should result in an increase in forage and protective cover for sage-grouse broods that utilize the areas. The perimeter fences would be marked appropriately to reduce the likelihood of GRSG colliding with the structures.

Pinyon and juniper trees are encroaching into the wet meadow at Rock Creek Spring. This is a concern as trees are contributing to the overall decline in water availability and riparian vegetation within the spring. Removing the encroaching pinyon and juniper trees would reduce perching opportunities for predators around the spring and could result in increased soil moisture and riparian vegetation within the spring benefitting sage grouse (Gedney et al. 1999 and Zouhar 2001).

118

Implementing the invasive and noxious weeds program should improve the habitat for GRSG within the allotments, as the intent of the program is to reduce the occurrence of weed species and increase the occurrence of native vegetation used by GRSG for cover and/or forage. To prevent negative impacts to GRSG from treatments, only herbicides with low acute toxicity to the bird would be used.

The following environmental protection measures would be incorporated into the Proposed Action:  To avoid impacts to GRSG, livestock utilizing the Cold Springs Pasture during April would not be allowed to congregate in the southern portion of the pasture.  The perimeter fences proposed to be constructed around the unnamed spring in Cherry Valley and Rock Creek Spring would be marked appropriately to reduce the likelihood of GRSG colliding with the structures.  Pinyon-juniper removal around Rock Creek Spring would not occur from March 1 to August 30 to ensure no negative impacts to lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing GRSG.

Livestock grazing, range improvements, and the invasive and noxious weed program components of the Proposed Action address the concerns for GRSG within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments.

Constructing the proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek Valley would not impact GRSG or their habitat as it is not in any identified GRSG habitat management areas. NDOW classifies the area as unsuitable habitat for the grouse, there are no known leks within four miles of the proposed site, and the proximity to the closest suitable GRSG habitat is greater than five miles.

Mammals The Proposed Action should have negligible to beneficial impacts to sensitive bat species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments (Table 48). Since no foraging or roosting habitat would be impacted from constructing the new pit in Edwards Creek Valley, the mineral material component of the Proposed Action should not have any impacts on sensitive bat species. Implementing the livestock, drought, and range improvement components of the Proposed Action should improve the conditions of the riparian areas within the allotments. As the conditions within the riparian areas improve, there should be increases in insects and available water, which in turn would benefit bat populations. Removing the encroaching pinyon/juniper trees around Rock Creek Spring would result in the loss of roosting habitat for tree roosting bat species; however, due to the amount of trees immediately adjacent to Rock Creek Spring and within the Clan Alpine Allotment, this impact is negligible and overshadowed by the benefits of improving the riparian area. Implementing the noxious, invasive, and nonnative weed portion of the Proposed Action should result in an initial decline in vegetation along targeted riparian areas, which could result in a short-term decrease in prey abundance. Over the long-term, there would be an increase of native species and decreased unwanted species, which could benefit sensitive bat species within the allotments. Implementing the Proposed Action may impact

119 individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to any populations or species.

As illustrated in Table 48, sensitive small mammal species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, or Clan Alpine Allotments that could be impacted by the Proposed Action include the dark kangaroo mouse, pale kangaroo mouse, and pygmy rabbit. Livestock grazing can impact dark kangaroo mouse, pale kangaroo mouse, and pygmy rabbit populations by removing grasses and forbs that either provide forage directly or indirectly (pale and dark kangaroo mice forage on insects as well as vegetation). Since the livestock component of the Proposed Action features a pasture rotation system, the enforcement of utilization triggers on key forage species, and the implementation of drought actions when appropriate, grazing from livestock should not have major negative impacts on the habitat for sensitive small mammal species.

Constructing the proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek Valley would not impact dark kangaroo mice, pale kangaroo mice, and pygmy rabbits, since the area does not function as suitable habitat for these species. Implementing the Proposed Action may impact individuals or habitat for sensitive small mammal species but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to any populations or species.

Bighorn Sheep occur within the Dixie Valley, Cow Canyon, and Clan Alpine Allotments. Implementing the utilization triggers for livestock grazing, implementing drought actions when appropriate, installing new range improvements and fixing existing range improvements should result in the key habitats within the allotments to progress towards meeting RAC and Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. The Proposed Action should provide some benefits to bighorn sheep; however domestic sheep grazing would still be authorized within the Edwards Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment. Since the New Pass Range within the Edwards Pasture functions as potential bighorn sheep habitat (suitable habitat exists but it is not known to be occupied), and the mountain ranges immediately adjacent to the New Pass Mountains are currently occupied by bighorn sheep, there is the potential of domestic and bighorn sheep interactions, which could put entire bighorn sheep herds at risk of contracting lethal pneumonia (Foreyt 1989 and Besser et al. 2013).

The distance between the domestic sheep grazing in the New Pass Range (the potential bighorn sheep habitat) and the known occupied bighorn sheep habitat within the Clan Alpine Mountains is approximately 8.5 miles. The distance between domestic sheep grazing within the Edwards Pasture and the known occupied bighorn sheep habitat within the Desatoya Mountains is approximately 9 miles. There is potential bighorn sheep habitat within the Clan Alpine Mountains and Desatoya Mountains immediately adjacent to the domestic sheep grazing within the Edwards Pasture in the New Pass Range, thus the current separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep could be less than the approximate 8.5 and 9 miles for the Clan Alpine Mountains and Desatoya Mountains respectively.

Constructing the proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek Valley would not impact bighorn sheep as the area does not function as suitable habitat for these species.

120

Plants As stated in Table 48, sensitive plant species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments are the Lahontan beardtongue and Tonopah milkvetch. These species do not occur within the proposed mineral material pit in Edwards Creek Valley thus there would be no impacts to the species from the construction of the new pit. Implementing the livestock (e.g. utilization triggers on key species, establishing pasture systems, etc…) component of the Proposed Action should ensure that grazing impacts on sensitive plants species are minimized.

3.13.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Impacts to the key habitats (e.g. Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, spring/springbrook) utilized by sensitive species within the Dixie Valley Allotment (Table 48) from the drought, range improvement, and noxious, invasive, and nonnative weed treatment components of Alternative 2 are the same as described under the environmental consequences for the Proposed Action in the Wildlife Section. Avian Species (Excluding Greater Sage-Grouse) Impacts to the sensitive avian species that are known to occur, or could potentially occur, within the Dixie Valley Allotment (Table 48) from Alternative 2 are the same as stated within Alternative 2 in the Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds Section.

Greater Sage-Grouse While livestock can directly impact reproductive success of GRSG by trampling of nests and causing nest abandonment, it is more likely that they indirectly influence reproductive success and survival of GRSG by changing the composition, height, and cover of vegetation. Not allowing livestock to graze in the Dixie Valley North Pasture until conditions are deemed appropriate by the authorized officer should result in an improvement in the composition, height, and cover of vegetation for GRSG within the sagebrush key habitat type. Eliminating grazing within the Dixie Valley South Pasture from March 1 to May 31 and only grazing the area from November 1 to February 28 should benefit GRSG that utilize the area for nesting/brood-rearing, since there would be no direct impacts from cattle on nesting sage- grouse (i.e. crushing of nests) and an increase in the amount and height of grasses and forbs that would be used for either cover and/or forage would be expected.

Mammals Providing additional resource protection to the Dixie Valley North Pasture, by placing 1600 AUMs in suspended non-use, should facilitate improving conditions in the riparian areas within the pasture. As the conditions in the riparian areas within the pasture improve the quantity of insects and available water should increase which in turn would benefit bat populations.

Sensitive small mammal species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Dixie Valley North Pasture are the dark kangaroo mouse and pale kangaroo mouse. Under Alternative 2, dark kangaroo mice and pale kangaroo mice within the pasture should have increased grasses, forbs, and consequently insects available for forage over current

121 management. This alternative should benefit dark kangaroo mouse and pale kangaroo mouse populations within the pasture.

Providing additional resource protection to the Dixie Valley North Pasture (suspended non-use of 1600 AUMs) should result in an improvement in the quality of bighorn sheep habitat and bighorn sheep should benefit.

Plants Providing additional resource protection to the Dixie Valley North Pasture, by placing 1600 AUMs in suspended non-use, would benefit sensitive plants within the pasture.

3.13.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Avian Species (Excluding Greater Sage-Grouse) Impacts to the sensitive avian species that are known to occur, or could potentially occur, within the Clan Alpine Allotment (Table 48) from Alternative 3 are the same as stated within Alternative 3 in the Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds Section.

Greater Sage-Grouse Under this alternative, the livestock season of use within the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment would be changed from July 1 through August 31 to September 1 through October 31 due to management concerns. Since livestock tend to congregate around riparian areas during the hot season, grazing during this time period can result in extensive degradation to these areas (BLM Technical Reference 1737-20) and have negative impacts on GRSG, particularly hens with broods. As a result, closing the Cherry Valley Pasture to livestock grazing during the hot season should result in the key habitats, particularly the spring and springbrook key habitat, progressing towards or achieving RAC and Table 2-2 Habitat Standards and benefit GRSG that utilize the riparian areas within the pasture.

Mammals Closing the Cherry Valley Pasture to hot season grazing should improve the riparian conditions within the pasture. As the riparian areas within the pasture improve, the quantity of insects and available water should increase, which would benefit bat populations.

Closing the Cherry Valley Pasture to hot season grazing should result in the key habitats, particularly the spring/springbrook key habitat, to progress towards or achieve RAC and Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. As a result, bighorn sheep that utilize the Cherry Valley Pasture should benefit from Alternative 3.

Plants There are no sensitive plant species within the Cherry Valley Pasture of the Clan Alpine Allotment.

3.13.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Allotment

122

The impacts to sensitive species and their associated key habitats (from cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 4) would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action. Removing cattle grazing from the Cow Canyon Allotment during the critical growing season should result in less stress to the vegetation thereby increasing the quality and quantity of plants available for sensitive species that could be used as forage and/or cover. This action should benefit sensitive species that utilize the Cow Canyon Allotment.

Clan Alpine Allotment The impacts to sensitive species and their associated key habitats (from cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 4) would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action. Reducing cattle grazing from the Clan Alpine Allotment should result in additional vegetation being available for sensitive species that could be used as forage and/or cover. This action should benefit sensitive species that utilize the Clan Alpine Allotment.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1. Greater Sage-Grouse Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments The impacts to GRSG (from the cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 4) would be similar to those described above. These actions should result in improved vegetation communities for GRSG in all associated habitat types.

Dixie Valley Allotment Impacts to the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to those discussed in Alternative 1.

3.13.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing The impacts to sensitive species and their associated key habitats from cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 5 are the same as described in the Proposed Action.

Eliminating domestic sheep grazing from the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment should result in additional vegetation being available for sensitive species from 12/1 – 3/15 that could be used as forage and/or cover. Removing domestic sheep grazing from 12/1 – 3/15 should benefit sensitive species that utilize the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment. No domestic sheep grazing within the New Pass area of the Clan Alpine Allotment reduces the likelihood (compared to the Proposed Action) that there would be comingling between domestic and bighorn sheep that occupy the Clan Alpine or Desatoya Mountains.

Greater Sage-Grouse The impacts to GRSG from the cattle grazing, minerals, and invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed components of Alternative 5 are the same as described in the Proposed Action.

123

Eliminating domestic sheep grazing from 12/1 – 3/15 should result in additional vegetation available for forage and/or cover for GRSG during the winter and the nesting/early brood- rearing season.

3.13.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Impacts to the key habitats (e.g. Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, spring/springbrook, and Intermountain rivers/streams) utilized by sensitive species within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments (Table 48) from the No Grazing Alternative are the same as described under the No Grazing Alternative in the Wildlife Section.

Avian Species (Excluding Greater Sage-Grouse) Impacts to the sensitive avian species that are known to occur, or could potentially occur, within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments (Table 48) from the No Grazing Alternative are the same as described under the No Grazing Alternative within the Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds Section.

Greater Sage-Grouse Under the No Grazing Alternative, there would be no impacts from livestock grazing to the sagebrush and spring/springbrook key habitats, as no vegetation would be trampled or consumed by cattle. There would also be no direct impacts to nesting GRSG and their eggs from cattle. Wild horses would continue to trample and utilize the plants; however they should be managed within AML which would reduce these impacts.

Implementing Alternative 6 would most likely result in improved conditions within the sagebrush and spring/springbrook key habitats and address some of the major concerns (lack of grasses in nesting habitat and degraded late brood-rearing habitat) impacting GRSG within the Clan Alpine PMU where the number of males attending the Camp Creek Lek has declined since 2006 (Figure 3).

Mammals Implementing the No Grazing Alternative should result in improvements to the riparian areas within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. As the conditions within the riparian areas improve, there should be increases in insects and available water, which would benefit bat populations.

As illustrated in Table 48, sensitive small mammal species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments include the dark kangaroo mouse, pale kangaroo mouse, and pygmy rabbit. Implementing the No Grazing Alternative should result in increased grasses, forbs, and consequently insects available for forage over current management for sensitive small mammal species.

Implementing the No Grazing Alternative should result in increased forage available to bighorn sheep and improve conditions within the riparian areas which would benefit bighorn sheep that reside within the allotments.

124

Plants Implementing the No Grazing Alternative would eliminate livestock grazing pressure on sensitive plant species within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments; therefore, implementing this alternative would benefit sensitive plant species.

3.13.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Impacts to the key habitats (e.g. Intermountain cold desert scrub, sagebrush, spring/springbrook, and Intermountain rivers/streams) utilized by sensitive species within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments (Table 48) from the No Action Alternative are the same as described under the No Action Alternative under the Wildlife Section. Implementing the No Action Alternative should result in negative impacts to sensitive avian, mammal, and plant species (Table 48) populations within the allotments.

Greater Sage-Grouse The current grazing operations have led to a lack of native grasses within the sagebrush key habitat (on the lower elevations) and generally not meeting standards within the spring and springbrook key habitat within the Cow Canyon, Dixie Valley, and Clan Alpine Allotments. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional range improvements, so riparian areas not meeting RAC and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards would likely realize further degradation. Implementing the No Action alternative would have negative impacts on GRSG populations.

3.14 Visual Resources 3.14.1 Affected Environment The assignment of Visual Resource Management (VRM) objectives for the District in previous land use plans was not complete and did not extend to the more remote eastern and southern areas of the District. Because of this, the VRM objectives for the planning area have not been assigned and are considered to be unclassified. When no VRM objectives exist, the CCD CRMP standard operating procedure states that an interim VRM objective is to be assigned at the time a project is proposed.

The Visual Resource Inventory (VRI), which provides the baseline data used in establishing VRM objectives, was completed for the District in 2011 and used to establish the interim VRM objectives for this project (refer to maps in Appendix A). Within the project area, the VRI inventory Class acreage is identified in Table 52.

Table 52: VRI Class Acreage (BLM Lands Only) VRI Class Acreage

125

Class II 62,738 Class III 341,200 Class IV 350,858

The SFO ID team conducted a review of the VRI inventory and assessed the current management activities in the area and provided a recommendation to the Field Manager to assign the project area an interim rating of VRM Class III to allow for management decisions consistent with the resource allocation for the area. The exception to this are the areas located within the Desatoya, Clan Alpine, Job Peak and Stillwater WSA’s, which are assigned a VRM Class I based upon BLM Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory; and BLM policy Memorandum IM No. 2000-096, Use of VRM Class I Designation in Wilderness Study Areas. The VRM Class I management objective is assigned to all WSAs to protect the visual values of the landscape and manage the degree of change that can be authorized. This means ground disturbing or landscape altering activities that require construction or installation such as new range improvements including troughs, wells, solar panels or vegetation manipulation for grazing purposes would most likely not be authorized since it would be difficult to meet the VRM Class I objectives. Maintenance of grandfathered range improvements that reduce the adverse impacts to scenic values would be evaluated and considered, but the activity would need to meet the non-impairment standards as defined in BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas.

The objectives for VRM Class I and III are as follows:  VRM Class I objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape while allowing for natural ecological changes. Very limited management activity is allowed, and the level of change to the characteristic of the landscape should be very low and must not attract attention to the casual observer. The construction of new range improvements such as stock tanks, troughs, wells, solar panels or vegetation treatment projects is rarely permitted.

 VRM Class III objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape while allowing a moderate level of change to the landscape from permitted or authorized activities. These activities or developments may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Attempts should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, color, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements and forms found in the natural landscape.

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences 3.14.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action This alternative would be in conformance with Visual Resource Management guidelines and policy and would provide the best alternative to reducing the potential adverse impacts to visual resources from grazing activities, mineral development, and invasive species management. The intent of the Proposed Action is to achieve the standard and guideline objectives within the allotments through improved herd management, installation of new range improvements and increased maintenance of existing range improvements including wells, pipelines at developed springs and fences protecting riparian areas. Actions such as extending the grazing period while maintaining the same levels of AUMs should help reduce grazing

126 impacts which in turn would improve the visual character of the areas. Removing livestock from the allotments more efficiently and timely would also provide opportunities for native vegetation to recover. Maintaining range improvements within and outside of the WSAs should help disperse livestock use more effectively throughout the allotments thereby reducing localized impacts which can negatively affect the natural setting of the area. Range improvements implemented at springs would reduce the impacts from localized and heavily concentrated grazing leading to an improvement in the scenic quality of the natural vegetation surrounding the spring. As conditions of the areas improve as a result of the implementation of the listed actions, visual qualities would also begin to improve, thus creating a more positive visitor experience. The grazing schedule under this allotment would move towards meeting the established Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health and Table 2-2 Habitat Standards which would improve the scenic quality of the allotment.

By following the guidelines for non-impairment criteria and maintaining scenic values established under WSA policy, replacing or maintaining range improvements within the WSAs should improve the naturalness of the allotment and comply with the “substantially unnoticeable” impacts of human activity requirements. This is important since the level of change in the characteristics of the landscape within VRM Class I designations should be low to non-existent. Impacts to visual resources associated with the proposed grazing system should improve current conditions and are considered acceptable with the VRM objectives for the WSA areas.

The designation of one new mineral material site along Antelope Valley Road in the Edwards Creek Valley area and the continued use of this site as a community pit for sand and gravel material extraction would not have a noticeable effect on visual quality. The new pit would encompass the footprint of two existing older pits, effectively using areas that have been previously disturbed. Other pits in the planning area are located adjacent to existing roads, are relatively small, and are used infrequently for maintenance of local roads. Visual quality concerns can be adequately addressed by following established mitigation measures in the permit stipulations and conditions.

The Proposed Action for VRM is to establish interim visual management objectives for the project area until such time that permanent objectives are designated in the revised CCD CRMP. Once the RMP decision is made, the management decision regarding VRM would supersede the decision made in this document. Since the current management direction provided by the CRMP does not specify VRM objectives for the planning area, the authorized officer is required to establish interim objectives based upon the VRI and current allocation of resource use in the project area. Since the primary resource use within the project area is grazing and energy development, establishing an interim classification of VRM Objective III for areas outside of the four WSAs would be in compliance with current guidelines and policy for VRM.

3.14.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Effects under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action in the Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments. In the Dixie Valley Allotment, the closure of the north pasture and the change in seasonal use could potently reduce the impacts to vegetation due to

127 a reduction in 1,600 permitted AUMs. Removal of cattle from this pasture would allow for the eventual natural restoration and rejuvenation of vegetation in degraded areas over a period of time which would serve to improve the visual quality of the area.

The effects and impacts to the visual quality of the allotments in relation to mineral and invasive, non-native and noxious weeds actions would be the same as the Proposed Action. 3.14.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative, the effects to the visual quality would be similar to those of the Proposed Action for the Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments. In the Clan Alpine Allotment, closing the Cherry Valley pasture during the months of July and August would greatly improve the visual quality of the area since the vegetation would be allowed a longer growing period resulting in a higher quality visual rating. The ridge between War Canyon and Cherry Valley has the highest visitation rates within the Clan Alpine WSA. This area offers spectacular views and an abundance of camping areas for hunters, hikers and photographers. Historically, cattle have been found within the pasture outside of the permitted season of use and within the exclosures designed to protect spring and riparian water sources. This has resulted in visible degradation of native vegetation and water sources which affects the visual quality of the allotment.

The effects and impacts to the visual quality of the allotments in relation to mineral and invasive, non-native and noxious weeds actions would be the same as the Proposed Action.

3.14.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Under this alternative the removal of hot season grazing on the Cow Canyon Allotment and the reduction of livestock grazing on the Clan Alpine allotment would result in reduced impacts to the waters and the native vegetation which would benefit the naturalness and improve the visual quality of the allotment.

The effects and impacts to the visual quality of the allotments in relation to the Dixie Valley Allotment, minerals and invasive, non-native and noxious weeds actions would be similar to that described in the Proposed Action.

3.14.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative, Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected. For the Clan Alpine Allotment, the elimination of domestic sheep grazing in the New Pass area would result in reduced impacts to the native vegetation which would benefit the naturalness and improve the visual quality of this portion of the allotment.

The effects and impacts to the visual quality of the allotments in relation to mineral and invasive, non-native and noxious weeds actions would be the same as the Proposed Action.

3.14.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under this Alternative, the landscape contrast and sequence would be the most representative of natural conditions and could provide the greatest benefit to the visual quality within the allotments. There would be no effects on vegetation or impacts to springs due to livestock

128 grazing, allowing a trend of natural vegetation regeneration; thereby improving the scenic quality of the allotments.

Exclusion fencing around springs and riparian areas would not be constructed and existing range improvements would not be maintained. The impacts to most water sources would be reduced as there would be no livestock grazing; however there would still be impacts from use by wild horses. This would result in the continued degradation of the quality and quantity of native vegetation and water sources thereby negatively affecting the natural and visual quality of the area.

The proposed gravel pit would not be constructed under this decision. However this action was determined to have minimal impact on the visual resources in the planning area so overall there is no change.

The effects and impacts to the visual quality of the allotments in relation to invasive, non-native and noxious weeds would be the same as the Proposed Action.

3.14.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the grazing schedule would not be changed from the current permit and existing visual conditions and scenic quality of the area would remain essentially the same. The lack of repair and maintenance of existing range improvements and failure to provide for new exclosure fencing at springs and riparian areas would further degrade the scenic quality of the natural vegetation surrounding the water sources within these allotments. The VRM Class I management objectives would not be met within the four WSAs.

With the current grazing schedule, cattle would likely stay at the available water sources in larger groups for a longer period of time resulting in an increased impact on native vegetation and soil, which would reduce the scenic quality around the water sources. The concentration of highly visible cattle trails leading to and away from the water sources would continue to increase, resulting in the addition of unnatural linear features in the viewshed. This Alternative would not move towards meeting the established Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards, which would adversely impact the overall scenic quality of the allotments.

Wild horse numbers would not be within established AMLs for the Clan Alpine HMA. This action would serve to increase the population to a level that has been determined to be above that considered sustainable for the area, thereby increasing negative impacts to the vegetation and water sources. As herd populations increase, the scenic quality, especially adjacent to water sources would have to be monitored for changes or adverse impacts.

The proposed community gravel pit would not be constructed under this decision. However this action was determined to have minimal impact on the visual resources in the planning area so overall there is no change.

The proposed weed treatments as described in the Proposed Action Alternative could still be completed, but would likely occur over a longer period of time and may not receive the commitment and funding necessary to be as beneficial to the vegetative community. If these

129 weed infestations go untreated, they would increase their dominance on the sites where they currently exist. They may start out as isolated or light infestations, but in time they could become monocultures and spread to adjacent lands. Not treating these weeds could result in further habitat degradation on BLM and other lands thus further degrading the scenic quality of the allotments.

3.15 Wilderness/WSAs 3.15.1 Affected Environment The BLM’s policy is to protect the wilderness characteristics of all designated WSAs in the same or better condition than they were on October 21, 1976, until Congress determines whether or not they should be designated as wilderness. During this period and until Congress has determined otherwise, the BLM is required to manage these lands in a manner so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. Section 603(c) of FLPMA, provides for the continuation of grazing in WSAs provided that actions required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their resources or to afford environmental protection may be implemented. Any activity or development within a WSA must follow the guidelines and policy established in BLM Manual M-6330 Management of Wilderness Study Areas and the Visual Resource Management Objective Class I visual management standards established in BLM Manual M-8400 Visual Resource Management.

Four WSAs, the Clan Alpine Mountains, Job Peak, Stillwater Range and Desatoya Mountains occupy 251,605 acres or approximately thirty-three percent of the project area. The Clan Alpine Mountains WSA falls entirely within the project area divided equally between the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments, and the remaining WSAs fall partially within the eastern and western edge of the project area (refer to maps in Appendix A). Refer to Table 53 for a breakdown of the WSA acreages within each allotment.

Table 53: Wilderness Study Acreages with the Planning Area Allotment WSA WSA WSA Acreage Percent of Name Name Acreage in Allotment Allotment Clan Alpine 196,128 75,507 21.0 Clan Alpine Desatoya 51,402 15,985 4.5 Clan Alpine 196,128 51,162 20.44 Dixie Valley Job Peak 90,209 7,527 3.0 Stillwater 94,607 32,381 12.94 Cow Canyon Clan Alpine 196,128 69,043 47.22

Due to the remoteness of the project area, recreational activity within the four WSAs is minimal and mostly revolves around dispersed recreational uses such as camping, hiking, backpacking, geo-caching, horseback riding, wildlife and bird watching, photography, and hunting. While opportunities for solitude or outstanding primitive and unconfined recreation are reduced around the perimeter of the WSAs due to roads, powerlines and other resource uses, solitude and primitive recreation opportunities can be found within the larger canyons and for those willing to venture into the interior of the WSAs.

130

Under the WSA management policy, maintenance of range improvements that were authorized during, or prior to the 1976 grazing fee year, would continue to be an allowable use within the allotments. New range improvements can only be authorized if they meet the non- impairment standards or an exemption to the non-impairment standards as defined in Manual 6330. Permanent structures or installations are normally not permitted in a WSA under the non-impairment criteria but may be allowed if they meet one of the exemptions. Examples of allowable structures relevant to this situation are permanent riparian, wetland, and aquatic structures and facilities designed to maintain or enhance wilderness values, protect or maintain natural conditions, or restore deteriorated habitat resulting from human influence. Additional discussion is provided further in this section.

The following standards would need to be met for each permanent installation or surface disturbing activity within a WSA:

 Is substantially unnoticeable;  Would not have a permanent negative impact on habitat in the WSA;  Would not create a cumulative impact through its proximity to other facilities in the WSA;  Except for the use of identified primitive routes, is not dependent on mechanical or motorized transport for access and/or maintenance;  A determination has been made that alternative sites outside the WSA or nonstructural alternatives would not accomplish the objectives of the proposed project; and  All developments or structures must be painted with an acceptable or similar color from the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart; CC-001: June 2008 in order to blend in with the surroundings as much as possible. An alternative acceptable method would be to use untreated iron pipe that would form a patina or rust surface over time.

Motorized and mechanized travel within WSAs is limited to primitive routes (previously known as “ways”) that were identified and documented at the time of the 1979-80 intensive wilderness characteristics inventory. Primitive routes may be maintained with hand tools, but the use of mechanical or motorized equipment is prohibited unless a decision is made by the authorized officer that use of such equipment would be the minimum tool required to maintain or improve the wilderness characteristics of the area. When primitive routes are utilized for access to range improvements, impacts to the routes must not exceed the approximate conditions of impact to the wilderness characteristics that existed on October 21, 1976.

In the event any of the four WSAs are designated as a Wilderness Area by Congressional designation, it would not preclude the continuation of livestock grazing but could impose increased restrictions on the use of mechanical or motorized transport and on installation of range developments that could impair wilderness values. Such restrictions would be identified in the wilderness management plan prepared by the BLM following designation by Congress.

Livestock Management Activities within WSAs Salting: For both grandfathered and non-grandfathered grazing operations, salting practices may occur. New salting locations may be established to improve the distribution of grazing use within the WSAs as long as the non-impairment criteria are met.

131

Supplemental Feeding: Supplemental feeding including minerals, vitamins, protein blocks or cubes, and high quality alfalfa, may be continued if it was allowed under the authorization that was in effect on October 21, 1976. No other supplemental feeding is allowed.

Emergency Feeding: Temporary emergency feeding may be authorized by the BLM when forage becomes unavailable as a result of unforeseen natural events such as fire, flood, or heavy snowfall. Emergency feeding may only be allowed for short periods of time while the emergency exists and until the livestock can be removed.

Vegetation Treatment: If vegetative manipulation was allowed under the authorization that was in effect on October 21, 1976, the vegetative treatment may be maintained by reapplying the same or similar treatment as long as it does not create greater impacts and achieves the same objective.

Motor Vehicle Use: 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. Refer to maps in Appendix A for authorized primitive routes (ways) with each of the WSAs

Changes in Grazing Practices If rangelands within any of the WSAs fail to achieve Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards, the significant factors contributing to the failure must be determined through monitoring and a review of existing uses. If existing grazing management practices are found to be a significant factor in the failure to achieve standards, new grazing management practices may be established as needed if they meet the non-impairment standard or one of the exceptions.

New Grazing Management: New grazing management is not a grandfathered use and in all cases may only be established if it meets the non-impairment standard or one of the exceptions. As a grandfathered use, grazing management authorized during or prior to the 1976 grazing fee year including levels of use, may not be changed solely because the use may impair a WSAs suitability for preservation as wilderness.

New Range Improvements: New range improvements may only be approved in one of the WSAs if the improvement meets the non-impairment standard or one of the exceptions, such as protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics. In determining whether a development meets the protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics exception, the BLM would determine if the structure’s benefits to the natural functioning of the ecosystem outweigh the increased presence of human developments and any loss of naturalness or outstanding recreational opportunities caused by the new development. The proposed development must be substantially unnoticeable. New grazing developments that are allowed under the grandfathered use exception cannot result in the increase in the AUMs that existed prior to the development. The development project must not require new motorized access since this would constitute surface disturbance and would not meet the non-impairment standard.

132

Water Developments: Water developments that are incorporated into the protection of springs or riparian areas or new water sources may be permitted to enhance or protect wilderness character but must meet an exception to the non-impairment criteria. Protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics or values around water sources is an example of an acceptable justification under the non-impairment criteria Section C.2.F and is further discussed in Section 10.c.i

Fences: New fences such as exclosure fencing may be allowed to protect springs or water sources from impairment if such actions lead to protecting or enhancing wilderness character. Protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics or values around water sources is an example of an acceptable justification under the non-impairment criteria Section C.2.F and is further discussed in Section 10.c.i

Grazing Increases: Grazing increases may be allowed if the impacts of such increases would meet the non-impairment standard or one of the exceptions. If the proposal meets the non- impairment standard or one of the exceptions, a temporary non-renewable increase may be authorized. If the studies indicate the increase is causing impairment of the WSAs suitability for preservation as wilderness, the increase would be reduced or discontinued.

Grazing Reductions: Reductions in grazing may be allowed if the rangeland is failing to achieve Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. The significant factors that contribute to the failed conditions should be ascertained and temporary or permanent reductions may be implemented as needed. While there would be no reduction in grazing use levels due to impacts to wilderness characteristics, grandfathered grazing use is not frozen at the October 21, 1976 level, but may be subject to general BLM grazing management policy.

Pre-FLPMA Range Improvements Range improvements existing or under construction on October 21, 1976 may continue to be used and maintained in the same manner and to the same degree as such use was being conducted on that date. The improvements could have the same, but not more, physical or visual impact as they did at that time. To ensure all current applicable guidelines and policy pertaining to development within a WSA are followed, all maintenance or replacement of range improvements within each of the WSAs would require review and approval by the authorized officer prior to project implementation.

Table 54 lists the known range improvements within the four WSAs with a description of the improvement and the year of construction if known. If records or documents do not indicate the year the development was installed, the year it was first document was recorded.

Table 54: Wilderness Study Area Range Improvement Projects Year Project Name Project Number Structure Type Built/Documented Cooperative Agreement/Range Improvement Permit Cold Springs Summit 540249 Fence 1966 Topia Fence 546676 Drift Fence 1993 Kaiser Peak Fence 544041 Fence 1969

133

Year Project Name Project Number Structure Type Built/Documented Cow Canyon DF 540018 Drift Fence 1941 Kissing Rock Pipeline 544241 Pipeline 1972 Grover Point Well 544246 Well 1956 Deep Creek-Freeman 540120 Drift Fence 1959 DF East Lee Canyon Fence 543503 Fence 1969 East Dixie Valley Fence 544088 Fence 1966 East Lee Cattleguard 544229 Cattleguard 1968 Camp Creek 546375 Cattleguard 1967 Cattleguard BLM, no agreement 2 Lazy 2 Spring Spring Development & 002500 2006 Development & Fence Fence Cherry Valley Gully 544418 Plugs 1974 Plugs Cherry Valley Meadow 546352 Exclosure Fence 1984 Exclosure Cherry Valley Aspen 546544 Exclosure Fence 1991 Exclosure Dirt Spring Exclosure 546606 Exclosure Fence 1993 Clan Alpine Wildlife 546693 Guzzler 1995 War Creek Exclosure 546717 Exclosure Fence 1992 Twin Peaks Fire Fence 546876 Fence 2001 Deep Canyon Spring 546599 Fence 1991 Bench Creek Exclosure 545108 Exclosure Fence 1976 Augusta Meadow 546351 Exclosure Fence 1988 Exclosure Cherry Valley Ex #2 546419 Exclosure Fence 1987 Upper Bench Creek 546431 Exclosure Fence 1987 Exclosure Dummy Big Game 546447 Guzzler 1988 Guzzler Paiute Big Game 546448 Guzzler 1987 Guzzler Horse Creek Exlosure 546456 Exclosure Fence 1988 Horse Creek Exclosure 546457 Exclosure Fence 1988 #2 Cherry Valley West SP 546493 Exclosure Fence 1989 Exclosure

There are only two range improvements proposed that occur within WSAs. This includes the Dirt Springs spring improvement/exclosure fence at the north end of the Clan Alpine WSA and the Unnamed Spring spring improvement/exclosure fence in Cherry Valley. Both are located within and near the Clan Alpine WSA border. Dirt Springs is located at the northern end of the WSA and is accessible by a designated primitive route W33. This primitive route is an authorized route for access to this spring and can be maintained by use of hand tools, but

134 mechanized or motorized maintenance would be prohibited unless permitted by the authorized officer (refer to maps in Appendix A). The Unnamed Spring is located on the eastern edge of the WSA and is accessible through War Canyon by vehicle or Cherry Valley by ATV on routes located outside of the WSA boundary (refer to maps in Appendix A). At both locations, BLM is proposing to improve the wilderness characteristics of the area by replacing the existing dilapidated spring exclosure fencing, installing a spring box and improving the trough and piping systems to prevent additional degradation of the springs, allowing for native vegetation restoration, and improving the water source for wildlife and wild horses. Replacement of the structures, in accordance with the current Visual Resources Management (VRM) standards and WSA policy on non-impairment, would be allowable to help preserve the wilderness character around and adjacent to the springs and provide a water source for wild horses and wildlife.

The two proposed spring improvement and exclosure fencing projects also fall within the Clan Alpine HMA. As such, Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas Manual 6330, Section 1.6.D.10.a requires that wild horse herd management actions prevent impairment of wilderness characteristics, watershed function and ecological processes. Section 1.6.D.10.c.i, Water Developments, allows for the water developments that are incorporated into the protection of springs or riparian areas if they meet an exception to the non-impairment criteria. These two springs are existing water sources for both cattle and wild horses and are not considered new, but would be developed to protect the springs and riparian areas from further degradation of wilderness characteristics. The Proposed Action meets the exception to non- impairment criteria Section 1.6.C.2.F, Protect or Enhance Wilderness Characteristics or Values by providing protection and enhancement of wilderness characteristics or values that are being impacted. The current level of use by cattle and wild horses has degraded the native vegetation surrounding both springs and compacted the soils to the level that the springs are nearly non-functional. Section 1.6.D.10.c.ii also allows for the construction of exclosure fencing where necessary to protect springs or other water sources from impairment by wild horses within WSAs.

Since both springs are located within a WSA, and the intent is to protect wilderness character of the area around the springs, it is not feasible to move the project outside of the WSA boundary. Alternative methods considered to protect and enhance the wilderness characteristics included the construction of a four rail steel jack fence that sits on the ground and does not require imbedded posts, installation of an above ground pipeline, construction of a wood fence, and hand trenching and excavation for the pipeline and spring box. These methods were eliminated since the steel jack fence and above ground pipeline would be more visually intrusive to the wilderness character, a wood fence would not withstand the elements or abuse from wild horses, and the soils are too dense to hand trench effectively, which would result in the same amount of surface disturbance as that produced by use of the small tracked backhoe.

Wilderness Character Preservation In order to keep wilderness character intact and reduce the visual impacts to the naturalness of an area, abandoned or waste materials from old range improvements should be removed from within the WSAs whenever feasible. When conducting maintenance on existing structures, any

135 unnecessary material should be removed via a haul-back system, and the impacts from old uses should be rendered unnoticable.

Water Developments Water developments that are incorporated into the protection of springs or riparian areas or new water sources may be permitted to enhance or protect wilderness character but must meet an exception to the non-impairment criteria. Protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics or values around water sources is an example of an acceptable justification under the non-impairment criteria Section C.2.F and is further discussed in Section 10.c.i

Fences New fences such as exclosure fencing may be allowed to protect springs or water sources from impairment by wild horse and burros if such actions lead to protecting or enhancing wilderness character. Protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics or values around water sources is an example of an acceptable justification under the non-impairment criteria Section C.2.F and is further discussed in Section 10.c.i

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 3.15.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action The Proposed Action would provide the best alternative to reducing the potential adverse impacts to wilderness character from grazing activities by bringing the allotments into compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health Assessment and Table 2- 2 Habitat Standards. The intent of the Proposed Action is to achieve the standard and guideline objectives within the allotments through improved livestock, installation of new range improvements and increased maintenance of existing range improvements including wells, pipelines at developed springs and fences protecting riparian areas. Actions such as extending the grazing period while maintaining the same levels of AUMs should help reduce grazing impacts which in turn would improve the wilderness character of the WSAs. Removing livestock from the allotments more efficiently and timely would also provide opportunities for native vegetation to recover.

Maintaining range improvements within the WSAs should help disperse livestock use more effectively throughout the allotments thereby reducing localized impacts which can negatively affect the natural setting of the area. Range improvements implemented at springs would reduce the impacts from localized and heavily concentrated grazing leading to an improvement in the scenic quality of the natural vegetation surrounding the spring. The two range improvements would have minimal short term impacts, and in exchange, would help restore damage to wilderness character and result in long term benefits by providing for restoration of the two springs, the native vegetation, and enhancement of water sources for wild horses and wildlife. Since the Proposed Action is being implemented to prevent additional degradation and provide for enhancement of wilderness characteristics around the springs, it meets the exception to non-impairment criteria Section 1.6.C.2.f, protection or enhancement of wilderness characteristics or values and Section 1.6.D.10.c.i and ii, improving water development and construction of fences for wild horse and burro management. The proposed construction method allows for the removal of the range improvements with minimal temporary surface disturbance without irreparable damage to wilderness character in the event the WSA

136 is designated a wilderness area in the future and a decision is made to remove the improvements. By following the guidelines for non-impairment criteria and maintaining scenic values established under WSA policy, replacing or maintaining range improvements should improve the naturalness of the allotment and comply with the “substantially unnoticeable” impacts of human activity requirements. Replacing the non-functioning spring exclosure fencing and installing the spring box, trough and piping system at Dirt Springs and the Unnamed Spring in Cherry Valley should improve the wilderness character around the springs and benefit wildlife as well. This alternative would be in conformance with WSA guidelines and policy.

As conditions of the areas improve as a result in the implementation of the listed actions, visual qualities would also begin to improve, thus creating a more positive visitor experience. The grazing schedule under this allotment would move towards meeting the established Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards which would benefit the improving the scenic quality of the allotment.

There would not be a notable change in outstanding opportunities for solitude from current conditions under this Alternative. Existing roads would continue to be used by recreationists and permittees at existing levels. Opportunities for unconfined and primitive recreation are not expected to change.

3.15.2.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Effects under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described in the Proposed Alternative in the Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments. In the Dixie Valley Allotment, the closure of the north pasture and the change in seasonal use could potently reduce the impacts to vegetation within the Clan Alpine WSA due to a reduction in 1,600 permitted AUMs. Removal of cattle from this pasture would allow for the eventual natural restoration and rejuvenation of vegetation in degraded areas over a period of time which would serve to enhance the wilderness quality of the area.

The effects and impacts to the wilderness character of the allotments in relation to mineral and invasive, non-native and noxious weeds actions would be the same as the Proposed Action.

3.15.2.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative, the effects to the wilderness quality would be similar to those of the Proposed Action for the WSAs in the Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments. In the Clan Alpine Allotment, closing the Cherry Valley pasture during the months of July and August would help improve the wilderness quality of the Clan Alpine WSA surrounding Cherry Valley and War Canyon since the vegetation would be allowed a longer growing period prior to grazing which would result in higher quality visual rating and degree of naturalness for an extended period of time. While technically outside of the WSA boundary, Cherry Valley and War Canyon are close to being an inholding within the WSA and visual degradation of the vegetation and springs negatively reflects the visual quality and naturalness of the area as a whole. The ridge between War Canyon and Cherry Valley has the highest visitation rates within the Clan Alpine WSA. This area offers spectacular views and an abundance of dispersed camping areas for hunters, hikers and photographers. Historically, cattle have been

137 found within this area of the pasture outside of the permitted season of use and within the exclosures designed to protect spring and riparian water sources. Cattle that graze in the Cherry Valley area also forage into the WSA, so elimination of this grazing area during the summer months would also have a beneficial effect on the WSA.

The effects and impacts to the wilderness character of the allotments in relation to mineral and invasive, non-native and noxious weeds actions would be the same as the Proposed Action. 3.15.2.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Under this alternative the removal of hot season grazing on the Cow Canyon Allotment and the reduction of livestock grazing on the Clan Alpine allotment could potentially reduce the impacts to vegetation and waterways within the Clan Alpine WSA. Changing the Cow Canyon Allotment to winter grazing and reducing the permitted number of cattle allowed to graze on the Clan Alpine Allotment should allow for some natural restoration and rejuvenation of streambank and upland vegetation in degraded areas over a period of time which would serve to enhance the wilderness quality of the area.

The effects and impacts to the wilderness character of the allotments in relation to the Dixie Valley Allotment, minerals and invasive, non-native and noxious weeds actions would be the same as that described under the Proposed Action.

3.15.2.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing This alternative would have no effect on WSA’s since domestic sheep are not permitted to graze within the WSAs.

3.15.2.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under this Alternative, the landscape contrast and sequence would be the most representative of natural conditions and could provide the greatest benefit to the wilderness character within the allotments by eliminating cattle from all of the WSAs. There would be no effects to vegetation and riparian areas associated with livestock grazing, allowing a trend of natural vegetation regeneration; thereby improving the overall health, naturalness, and scenic quality throughout the area. Natural conditions would be expected to improve around water sources with the re-establishment of native vegetation. The use of motorized equipment, and the sights and sounds associated with range maintenance that may affect wilderness character and fail to fulfill the visitor expectation of solitude would be eliminated. While the No Grazing Alternative would be an allowable use under the WSA guidelines, this Alternative would not be in conformance with the CCD CRMP objectives or the BLM multiple use mandates.

The wild horse population would continue to increase, which could cause the greatest adverse impacts to the natural conditions of the WSAs, especially if allowed to increase to a level above AML that would damage the natural conditions of the WSAs. As herd populations increase, wilderness characteristics, especially adjacent to riparian areas or water sources, would have to be monitored for changes or adverse impacts. Maintenance of existing range improvements would not be a priority though they could still occur if the funding was made available. Of particular concern would be the maintenance of spring exclosure fencing, which

138 would be necessary for wildlife due to the adverse impact the wild horses have on the springs, associated riparian vegetation, and water quality.

There would be an improvement, but not a notable change in outstanding opportunities for solitude under this Alternative. There would be a reduction in traffic from the elimination of grazing activities but the amount of traffic currently generated is too small to create an adverse effect. The impacts around water sources would be reduced and the solitude would be increased due to the lack of cattle or grazing activities within the four WSAs. Opportunities for unconfined and primitive recreation would improve slightly.

3.15.2.7 Alternative 7: No Action The grazing system under the No Action Alternative has the potential of increasing the adverse impacts to the wilderness character within the WSAs by concentrating cattle in the same areas for longer periods of time as compared to the Proposed Action. These impacts would potentially increase the impacts to soils and vegetation, and therefore, the wilderness characteristics of the WSAs. The deteriorating condition of older range improvements and subsequent negative impacts to springs and riparian areas from concentration of cattle and horses would continue to be an eyesore and an adverse impact to the scenic value and naturalness of the area.

There would not be a notable change in outstanding opportunities for solitude under this Alternative. Existing roads would continue to be used by recreationists and the permittee at existing levels. Opportunities for unconfined and primitive recreation are not expected to change.

It is expected that wild horse populations would continue to impact the natural conditions since many of the primary undeveloped water sources in the area are in the higher elevations of the WSAs. As herd populations increase, wilderness characteristics, especially adjacent to water sources would have to be monitored for changes or adverse impacts.

The No Action Alternative is expected to have greater impacts and a higher adverse effect to all of the WSAs than the Proposed Action.

3.16 Monitoring and Mitigation Livestock Grazing Range monitoring would continue for the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments as it has in the past. The SFO would continue to do the following: (1) Photo Point, (2) 100’ Quadratic Frequency, (3) 100’ Line Point Intercept, (4) Utilization, (5) Use Pattern Maps, (6) Rangeland Health Assessments, (7) Riparian Health Assessments, (8) Actual Use Reports, (9) Weather Data, (10) Compliance Checks, and (11) Range Improvement Inspections. Actual methods used would depend on monitoring needs (which could include AIM data in GRSG habitat areas), conditions, and resources available.

Minerals

139

Monitoring would consist of inspections by BLM specialists to ensure compliance with applicable stipulations and contract requirements for mineral material sales.

Invasive, Non-native and Noxious Species Monitoring would consist of 1) conducting a weed survey along all passable roads, either by truck or ATV, to identify weed locations, species, and size of infestations; and 2) checking those areas treated with herbicides after one to seven years, depending on the weed species, to determine treatment success.

Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds The following environmental protection measure would be used to ensure that there are no violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 during vegetation removal associated with the mineral material community pit, pinyon pine and juniper removal around Rock Creek Spring, and implementing the invasive and noxious weed treatments:

 Project related activities that could disturb nesting migratory birds would not occur unless a pre-disturbance nest survey is conducted by qualified personnel. The nesting season is approximately March 15 to May 30 for pinyon jays, March 1 to July 31 for raptors, and April 1 to July 31 for all other avian species. The survey must be done no more than 14 days before project related activities are to occur. If nesting migratory birds are found within the project area, an appropriate buffer from each active nest would be established and maintained until the young birds have fledged or the nest has failed.

140

4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

4.1 Cumulative Effects Overview The purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis for the Proposed Action is to evaluate the combined, incremental effects of human activity within the scope of the project. The CEQ regulations define scope to include connected actions, cumulative actions, and similar actions (40 CFR 1508.25). 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 foreseeable 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)”.

The Cumulative Effects Study Area (CESA) for evaluating the Proposed and Alternative actions for this EA is the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Grazing Allotments, including the Clan Alpine HMA. The project area consists of approximately 790,187 acres. Since the effects of the Proposed Action are expected to last ten years, this time frame is considered to be most appropriate for considering the incremental effect of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (RFFA). The reasonable scope of the cumulative analysis would be restricted to connected, cumulative, and similar actions to the Proposed Action within the project area.

4.2 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. For the Proposed Action, the time frame for potential future actions is reasonably assumed to be for at least the duration of the 10-year term grazing permit. Although new terms and conditions may be proposed, it is likely that the grazing permit would continue to be renewed beyond this 10-year period.

Past and current land use activities in the CESA include authorized geothermal energy leases, gravel pits, wild horse gathers, off highway vehicle races, dispersed recreation, mining activity, livestock grazing, and various range improvements such as spring developments, storage tanks, troughs, fences, corrals, and cattle guards.

The primary past, present, and RFFA that would contribute to cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action include continued use of existing unpaved roads, continued exploration and development of geothermal resources, continued use of existing right-of-way authorizations, livestock grazing and ranching, wild horse gathers, off highway vehicle races, dispersed recreation, and mining activity.

141

Table 55: Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable future actions applicable to the cumulative analysis area specifically related to wild horses. Status (x) Project -- Name or Description Past Present Future Issuance of multiple use decisions and grazing permits for ranching operations through the allotment evaluation process X X X and the reassessment of the associated allotments. Livestock grazing. X X X Wild horse gathers. X X

Invasive weed inventory/treatments. X X X Wild horse’s management including the issuance of multiple X X use decisions, AML adjustments and planning. Geothermal Exploration and Development Activities X X X ROW Authorizations X X X OHV Races X X X Mining Exploration and Development X X X Sand and Gravel Operations X X X Range Improvement Projects X X X

4.3 Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

4.3.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action would ensure that grazing allotments not meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards would make significant progress toward achieving those standards and areas currently meeting or making significant progress towards meeting thosestandards would continue to do so based on present livestock management. Long-term stability of the livestock industry would be supported through the authorized use of public lands. Allotment monitoring and evaluation would ensure that if resource conditions change on allotments, appropriate management actions would be taken to ensure standards are met or making significant progress toward being met.

The Proposed Action in many cases would allow a larger percentage of desirable, native vegetation to complete annual growth and set seed which would allow for an increase in reproduction and result in improved upland health. Protection of riparian areas would allow for recovery of the springs and surrounding vegetation and regular maintenance of existing range improvements would further reduce impacts on the allotments.

Reducing the existing noxious weed infestations within riparian areas would minimize streambank alteration and allow for the recovery of streambank stabilizing herbaceous species. Upland habitats would also benefit from reduced amounts of noxious weeds through increased productivity, diversity and reduced amounts of bare ground.

All facets of the plant communities in the Project Area are affected by climate, wildlife, and direct disturbance through the presence of roads and other physical facilities both within and

142 adjacent to the allotment. Past grazing practices and recreation use have and would continue to affect the vegetation within the allotment. When added to the existing activities in and adjacent to the Project Area, approval of this alternative would not cause undue damage to upland vegetation in relation to past, present and RFFA’s in the general area.

4.3.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. The closing of the Dixie Valley North Pasture would allow for the vegetation and riparian areas to recover earlier due to the relief of livestock grazing pressure on these environments.

4.3.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. The closure of Cherry Valley to hot season grazing would allow riparian vegetation to complete its growth cycle and reduce pressure on waterways and surrounding areas where livestock tend to congregate during the summer season.

4.3.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. The change in grazing season on the Cow Canyon Allotment and the lower stocking rate and flexibility in grazing use on the Clan Alpine Allotment would relieve some of the grazing pressure on the vegetation thus increasing the likelihood for meeting or making significant progress towards meeting Rangeland Health And/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. All facets of the plant communities and waterways on the allotments are affected by climate, wildlife, and direct disturbance through the presence of roads and other physical facilities both within and adjacent to the allotment. Past grazing practices and recreation use have and would continue to affect the vegetation and waters within both allotments. When added to the existing activities in and adjacent to the Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments, implementation of this alternative would not cause undue damage to the waterways or upland vegetation in relation to past, present and foreseeable future land uses in the general area.

Dixie Valley Cumulative effects under this alternative for the Dixie Valley Allotment would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.3.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. The elimination of domestic sheep grazing would reduce the possibility of repeated grazing pressure on the native perennials by both cattle and domestic sheep in the New Pass Mountains of the Clan Alpine Allotment.

143

4.3.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, no livestock would be authorized in the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments. Not renewing the term livestock grazing permits would likely result in economic harm to the permittees as livestock grazing on the Allotments would no longer contribute to the regional economy and larger society.

4.3.7 Alternative 7: No Action Selection of Alternative 7, No Action or continuation of current management, would authorize livestock grazing in some areas that are not meeting standards. Alternative 7 could result in cumulative degradation to watersheds, especially where similar conditions exist on adjoining lands as no changes to the management would occur.

Upland sites not meeting Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards as a result of current livestock grazing would continue to decline in productivity and upland health. Annual grasses and non-native grasses along with noxious weeds could increase, especially during times of drought. Riparian sites not meeting standards due to current livestock management would remain static or continue in a downward trend. Riparian plant community succession and streambank stabilization would be interrupted or impeded leading to degradation and potential loss of functioning riparian areas.

The present level of weed control could lead to an increase in noxious weeds in the planning area. Browse, forbs and grass availability for wildlife would continue to decline on allotments not meeting rangeland health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards. Over time, the reduction in wildlife forage and increased levels of noxious weeds would cause a cumulative loss in the wildlife value of these areas. Public lands in the planning area that are not in proper functioning condition would continue to contribute pollutants such as sediment, nitrates, fecal coliform and warmer water to streams.

4.4 Cumulative Impacts on Wild Horses

4.4.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Cumulative impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action that could be expected include improvement of upland vegetation conditions which would in turn benefit permitted livestock, native wildlife, and the wild horse population as forage (habitat) quality and quantity should improve over the current level.

4.4.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative effects to wild horses are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.4.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative effects to wild horses are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.4.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs

144

Under this alternative effects to wild horses are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.4.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative the Clan Alpine HMA wild horses would not be affected.

4.4.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing When combined with the effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, cumulative effects associated with the No Grazing Alterative would have a beneficial cumulative effect for wild horses as competition with livestock for forage and water resources would be eliminated.

4.4.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, management of grazing allotments would be essentially unchanged and would not be expected to result in new impacts on wild horse management.

Cumulative effects would result in foregoing the opportunity to improve rangeland health and properly manage the available forage and water for livestock and wild horses. Attainment of site-specific vegetation management objectives and Standards for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards would not be achieved.

4.5 Cumulative Impacts on Minerals

4.5.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Impacts from Proposed Action would be negligible except for the proposed community pit action. This action and RFFAs are expected to be short term and minimal to all resources analyzed (air quality, noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species, geology and minerals, soils, vegetation, range resources, visual resources, recreation and lands and realty) since the community pit disturbance would be reclaimed once sand and gravel resources have been exhausted.

4.5.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use The effects of this Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action.

4.5.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4.5.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Under this alternative effects to minerals are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.5.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing The effects of this Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action.

145

4.5.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing The effects of this Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action.

4.5.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new impacts on minerals. The proposed Edwards Creek Community Gravel Pit would remain as two separate gravel pits. Material sales would continue in the area. The Proposed Action would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts to wildlife, migratory birds, or special status species.

4.6 Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality

4.6.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Cow Canyon Flexibility during the gathering period, paired with maintenance to existing, and construction of new range improvements, in combination with past, present and RFFAs would continue meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and the narrative standards as per NAC 445A.121. With maintenance of existing range improvements, water quality is expected to remain at standard levels or improve.

Clan Alpine When combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, the Proposed Action would continue meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and NAC 445A.121 narrative standards.

Dixie Valley When combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, the Proposed Action would make progress towards meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and NAC 445A.121 narrative standards.

4.6.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cow Canyon Alternative 2 is not applicable to the Cow canyon Allotment.

Clan Alpine Alternative 2 is not applicable to the Clan Alpine Allotment.

Dixie Valley Under Alternative 2 when combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs, reducing livestock numbers and adjusting the season of use would improve water quality and make progress towards meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and NAC 445A.121 narrative standards.

146

4.6.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cow Canyon Alternative 3 is not applicable to the Cow canyon Allotment.

Clan Alpine Alternative 3 when combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs would continue to meet RAC Standards for Water Quality and NAC 445A.121 narrative standards. Hot season grazing would be omitted thereby reducing livestock grazing pressure on water resources.

Dixie Valley Alternative 3 is not applicable to the Dixie Valley Allotment.

4.6.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Under Alternative 4 when combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs, changing the grazing season on the Cow Canyon Allotment and reducing livestock numbers along with the increased grazing flexibility on the Clan Alpine Allotment would improve water quality and assist in making progress towards meeting the RAC Standards for Water Quality and NAC 445A.121 narrative standards.

Dixie Valley Cumulative impacts to water quality under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 1.

4.6.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cow Canyon Alternative 5 is not applicable to the Cow canyon Allotment.

Clan Alpine There would be no cumulative effects on water quality under Alternative 5 because there are no springs or natural waters in the New Pass Area of the Clan Alpine Allotment.

Dixie Valley Alternative 5 is not applicable to the Dixie Valley Allotment.

4.6.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Common to all Allotments Under Alternative 6, waters would be closed to livestock grazing assisting in the restoration of riparian vegetation, thus reducing erosion and sedimentation, and improving water quality over time.

147

4.6.7 Alternative 7: No Action Common to all Allotments Under the No Action Alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, springs and water quality would likely continue to meet standards. Water quality impacted by range improvements in disrepair would need additional time to recover. Overall, if springs are maintained according to the No Action Alternative, they would continue to meet standards and shift to upward trends because of increased maintenance and protection.

4.7 Cumulative Impacts on Wetlands and Riparian Zones

4.7.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Common to All Allotments Under the Proposed Action, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, riparian areas/wetlands would shift towards neutral or upward trends. Maintenance to existing range improvements would further reduce the impact of grazing on riparian zones and work towards meeting the RAC and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards for Riparian/Wetlands.

4.7.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cow Canyon Alternative 2 is not applicable to the Cow Canyon Allotment.

Clan Alpine Alternative 2 is not applicable to the Clan Alpine Allotment.

Dixie Valley Under this alternative livestock numbers would be reduced and the season of use changed resulting in less degradation to riparian and wetland areas. This alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs, would allow riparian and wetland areas to make significant progress towards meeting RAC and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

4.7.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cow Canyon Alternative 3 is not applicable to the Cow Canyon Allotment.

Clan Alpine Under this alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, hot season grazing would be omitted thereby reducing livestock grazing pressure on riparian and wetland zones. This would allow riparian and wetland areas to make significant progress towards meeting RAC and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

Dixie Valley Alternative 3 is not applicable to the Dixie Valley Allotment.

148

4.7.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Under this alternative changing the grazing season on the Cow Canyon Allotment and reducing livestock numbers along with the increased grazing flexibility on the Clan Alpine Allotment would result in less degradation to riparian and wetland areas. When combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs, this alternative would allow riparian and wetland areas to make significant progress towards meeting RAC and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

Dixie Valley Cumulative impacts to wetlands and riparian zones under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 1.

4.7.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cow Canyon Alternative 5 is not applicable to the Cow Canyon Allotment.

Clan Alpine There would be no cumulative effects on riparian areas/wetlands under Alternative 5 because there are no springs or natural waters in the New Pass Area of the Clan Alpine Allotment.

Dixie Valley Alternative 5 is not applicable to the Dixie Valley Allotment.

4.7.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Common to all Allotments Under Alternative 6, grazing closure would allow for the restoration of riparian zones, increasing bank stability, reducing erosion, and increasing groundwater recharge. This would likely improve functionality and make significant progress towards meeting RAC and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards.

4.7.7 Alternative 7: No Action Common to All Allotments Under the No Action Alternative when combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs, could include a significant loss of riparian vegetation, increased erosion and sedimentation. Downward trends could potentially escalate, especially for areas not meeting PFC.

4.8 Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation

4.8.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, there would be an overall improvement of the health, vigor, and recruitment of perennial grasses, forbs, and shrub species. Cattle numbers would be reduced on the Cow Canyon and

149

Clan Alpine Allotments and compliance with the rotational grazing schedule on Dixie Valley Allotment would allow for better cattle distribution, wherein less leaf and litter cover would be removed, affecting the vegetation in a positive way.

4.8.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Under this alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, effects to the vegetation are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. The Cow Canyon and Clan Alpine Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

4.8.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Under this alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, effects to the vegetation are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. The Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

4.8.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cow Canyon Under this alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, effects to the vegetation are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. The vegetation communities would be grazed during dormancy and not during the critical growing season. This would allow for increased regeneration of the native plant communities.

Clan Alpine Under this alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, effects to the vegetation are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. The vegetation communities would receive less utilization as livestock numbers have been reduced. This would allow for increased regeneration of the native plant communities.

Dixie Valley Allotment Cumulative impacts to vegetation under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 1.

4.8.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Under this alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, effects to the vegetation are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. The vegetation would receive less utilization being allowed to rest after cattle have grazed through the area. This would allow for increased regeneration of the native plant communities. The Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments would not be affected by this alternative.

4.8.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under this alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, effects to the vegetation are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. Initially there would be an overall improvement of the health, vigor, and recruitment of perennial grasses, forbs, and shrub species, in part due to no utilization of vegetative resources by livestock, therefore less

150 leaf and litter cover would be removed, affecting the vegetation in a beneficial way. Over time the increased forage base would assist in expanding the wild horse population which could then damage the vegetation as a result of their over use. High utilization levels, whether by livestock or wild horses, are not conducive to the successful recruitment and regrowth of perennial grasses and forbs.

Conversely, areas left ungrazed have a higher probability for severe wildfires. Appropriate levels of grazing by livestock can reduce fuels and result in smaller, less intense wildfires.

4.8.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, the reissuance of the grazing permits without modifications to the current license would result in riparian zones beginning and/or continuing in a downward trend and would be detrimental to maintaining and/or sustaining the health of the upland vegetation communities.

4.9 Cumulative Impacts on Invasive, Non-native and Noxious Species

4.9.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, the amount of cheatgrass plants and seeds could be reduced, and the risk of wildfire would be reduced. There would be a further decrease in cheatgrass within the CESA should TNR be authorized. Any short term and long term effects considered negative from herbicide application would be negligible as the herbicides would be applied per label instructions. The decrease in utilization of vegetative resources by excess wild horses would also enhance plant communities making them more resilient to invasive, non-native and noxious weed species. All of these factors would contribute to making conditions more favorable for the desired native plant species to become established.

4.9.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects to invasive, non-native, and noxious species are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.9.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects to invasive, non-native, and noxious species are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. 4.9.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cumulative effects to invasive, non-native, and noxious species are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.9.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects to invasive, non-native, and noxious species are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

151

4.9.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, multiple use objectives outlined in the CRMP would not be met. Existing noxious and non-native species populations would remain in the project area. Invasive species populations sensitive to spread via livestock herbivory could be spread by other vectors such as wild horses, wildlife, wildfire and vehicles. Expansion of invasive populations may be slowed without livestock grazing and would not provide for the targeted use of cheatgrass, resulting in dense areas of ungrazed invasive species that would pose a high risk of catastrophic wildfire.

4.9.7 Alternative 7: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, when combined with the effects from past, present, and RFFAs, livestock grazing and the spread of noxious weeds would continue at existing levels. Noxious weeds would continue to increase and displace native vegetation when not treated. Under the No Action BLM would continue to implement weed treatments at existing levels which would cumulatively benefit native species.

4.10 Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources

4.10.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action When combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs, cumulative effects from the Proposed Action would be consistent with current use. Cultural resources would be identified prior to implementation of any Proposed Actions: historic properties would be mitigated using various treatments including exclosures or relocation of a proposed project, and the BLM would follow the State Protocol Agreement between the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office for Implementing the National Historic Preservation Act.

4.10.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.10.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.10.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.10.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.10.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, livestock would not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources within the allotments as no livestock grazing would be permitted.

152

4.10.7 Alternative 7: No Action Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.11 Cumulative Impacts on Native American Religious Concerns

4.11.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action When combined with the effects from past, present and RFFAs cumulative effects from the Proposed Action are expected to be negligible to Native American religious concerns. Native American representatives would be consulted prior to implementation of any proposed improvements and values of interest to Native Americans would be protected in accordance with H-8120-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation (BLM 2004b).

4.11.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.11.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.11.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.11.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.11.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, livestock would not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources within the allotments as no livestock grazing would be permitted.

4.11.7 Alternative 7: No Action Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.12 Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife

4.12.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on wildlife habitat (e.g. invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are currently having or could have detrimental impacts to wildlife habitat (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). Actions associated with the Proposed Action, such as constructing range improvements and conducting invasive weed treatments, can be expected to increase the quantity and quality of

153 habitat available to wildlife. When combined with all past, present, and RFFAs, the Proposed Action should result in neutral to positive impacts on wildlife habitat.

4.12.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.12.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.12.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. Impacts would be reduced due to use when plants are dormant in the Cow Canyon Allotment and the decrease of livestock use of the vegetation in the Clan Alpine Allotment which would benefit wildlife species.

4.12.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.12.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on wildlife habitat (e.g. invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts on wildlife habitat (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the the No Grazing Alternative should result in neutral to positive impacts on wildlife habitat.

4.12.7 Alternative 7: No Action Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on wildlife habitat (e.g. invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts to wildlife habitat (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the the No Action Alternative should result in negative impacts to wildlife habitat.

4.13 Cumulative Impacts on Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds

4.13.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on migratory birds (e.g. invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts to migratory birds

154 and their habitats (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). Actions associated with the Proposed Action, such as constructing range improvements and conducting invasive weed treatments, can be expected to increase the quantity and quality of habitat available to migratory birds. When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the Proposed Action should result in neutral to positive impacts to migratory birds and their habitats.

4.13.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.13.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.13.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. Impacts would be reduced due to use when plants are dormant in the Cow Canyon Allotment and the decrease of livestock use of the vegetation in the Clan Alpine Allotment which would benefit avian species.

4.13.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.13.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on migratory birds (e.g. invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts to migratory birds and their habitats (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the the No Grazing Alternative should result in neutral to positive impacts to migratory birds and their habitats.

4.13.7 Alternative 7: No Action Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on migratory birds (e.g. invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts to migratory birds and their habitats (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the the No Action Alternative should result in negative impacts to migratory birds and their habitats.

155

4.14 Cumulative Impacts on Nevada BLM Sensitive Species

4.14.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on BLM sensitive species and their habitats (e.g. invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts to sensitive species and their habitats (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). Actions associated with the Proposed Action, such as constructing range improvements and conducting invasive weed treatments, can be expected to increase the quantity and quality of habitat available to sensitive species. When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the Proposed Action should result in neutral to positive impacts to sensitive species and their habitats.

4.14.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.14.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.14.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. Impacts would be reduced due to use when plants are dormant in the Cow Canyon Allotment and the decrease of livestock use of the vegetation in the Clan Alpine Allotment which would benefit sensitive species.

4.14.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.14.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on BLM sensitive species (e.g.invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, wild horse gathers, etc…), while other past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts to BLM sensitive species and their habitats (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the the No Grazing Alternative should result in neutral to positive impacts to sensitive species and their habitats.

4.14.7 Alternative 7: No Action Within the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Allotments, some of the past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have positive impacts on BLM sensitive species (e.g.invasive weed treatments, range improvement projects, etc…), while other past

156 actions, present actions, and RFFAs are having or could have detrimental impacts to sensitive species and their habitats (e.g. OHV races, mining, sand and gravel operations, geothermal activities, etc…). When combined with all past actions, present actions, and RFFAs, the the No Action Alternative should result in negative impacts to sensitive species and their habitats.

4.15 Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources

4.15.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Livestock operations have the potential to introduce contrasting elements of line, form, color, and texture against the surrounding landscape. These elements may be created from livestock trails, linear tracks from cross-country vehicle travel, and structural forms used for livestock operations. Due to the limited size of range improvements such as troughs, wells, or exclosure fencing and frequent placement adjacent to existing disturbance, the impacts to scenic values is expected to be minimal to the casual observer. Applying VRM design strategies for reduction of unnecessary disturbance during construction, proper siting and location within the landscape, avoidance of ridgelines and unique geologic features, and paint color selection would sufficiently reduce potential impacts to meet the VRM Class III objectives of the area.

Grazing activities could contribute in varying degrees to cumulative effects by influencing plant species composition which would impact the visual quality within the allotment, thus impacting the areas naturalness. Overall, it is anticipated that under the Proposed Action, the rangeland health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards would be met so impacts from permitted grazing activities are expected to be minimal and should not impair visual conditions or quality. Due to the remoteness and dispersed locations of the springs and range developments within the allotments, there should be no cumulative effect from any past, present, and RFFAs related to range improvements or management activity.

Cumulative effects to scenic values within the CESA are expected to be minimal if Alternatives 1, 2, 3 or 4 is implemented. Implementation of either Alternative 5 or 6 would have a greater impact to vegetation from wild horse and livestock grazing which could alter the scenic values and influence plant species within the allotment. While these impacts would vary within differing allotments, overall, these impacts would be considered minimal throughout the cumulative analysis area as a whole.

Visual impacts would occur when range improvement within the allotments are installed or removed. However, due to the large acreage of the CESA, location of access roads within the allotments, and the unique placement of range improvements, the cumulative impacts would be minimal.

Motorized travel on existing perimeter routes, cherry stemmed roads and primitive routes within the allotments by recreationists, the permittee, and others would occasionally intrude on visual quality but should not affect the visual objectives. Recreation-related traffic in the area would remain constant regardless of the alternative selected. Permittee-related motorized traffic would remain fairly low. The overall scenic quality would not be expected to change under this alternative.

157

In the long term, the combined effects of grazing management activities, travel management planning, and recreational uses within the CESA should not affect the ability to meet the proposed visual quality objectives.

4.15.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Cumulative effects to visual resources are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.15.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects to visual resources are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action in addition to a slight increase in the visual quality of the Cherry Valley area due to the elimination of grazing during the summer months. This would allow the native vegetation to be undisturbed for a longer period of time which would improve the naturalness of the area for recreational visitors.

4.15.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Cumulative effects to visual resources in the Cow Canyon Allotment would be reduced due to changing livestock to winter use. The Clan Alpine Allotment visual resource effects would be reduced due to the decrease of livestock use of the vegetation. The reduction would result in an expected increase in visual quality and naturalness of the landscape.

4.15.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing Cumulative effects to visual resources in the Clan Alpine Allotment would be reduced due to the elimination of domestic sheep use of vegetation. The reduction would result in an expected increase in visual quality and naturalness of the landscape, especially in the higher elevations where the domestic sheep tend to graze.

4.15.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Since grazing would be eliminated, the No Grazing Alternative would result in the reduction of cumulative effects to visual quality from livestock within the CESA. The elimination of grazing activity and the eventual removal of range improvements would be a beneficial effect on the overall visual resource objectives for the area. The cumulative impacts to vegetation from livestock grazing would be greatly reduced and visual quality would improve as native vegetation is re-established.

However the impacts to water sources would not improve since they would still be impacted by wild horse populations, especially if the herd populations are not managed within the designated AML. This would result in the continued degradation of the quality and quantity of native vegetation affecting the natural and visual quality around water sources. The VRM Class I management objectives to preserve the existing character of the landscape within the four WSAs and the visual resource objectives throughout the CESA would likely not be met.

158

4.15.7 Alternative 7: No Action The No Action Alternative would result in the gradual decrease in visual conditions and scenic quality. Competition for feed and water by cattle, wildlife and wild horses would increase resulting in degradation of the vegetation and scenic quality of the area, especially within the WSAs. This alternative would not meet the visual quality objectives establish for this area.

The VRM Class I management objectives to preserve the existing character of the landscape within the WSAs and the visual resource objectives throughout the allotments would likely not be met.

4.16 Cumulative Impacts on Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas

4.16.1 Alternative 1: Proposed Action Grazing activities throughout the planning area could contribute, in varying degrees, to cumulative effects to wilderness characteristics within the WSAs by influencing plant species composition and health and therefor impact the areas naturalness. Overall, it is anticipated that under the Proposed Action, the rangeland health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards would be met and impacts to the WSAs are expected to be minimal and should not impair wilderness values. Any identified impacts related to grazing activity within the WSAs boundaries can be identified and monitored and corrective actions taken to resolve any potential issues. Due to the remoteness and dispersed locations of the springs and range developments within the WSAs, there should be no cumulative effect from any past, present, or RFFA related to range improvements or management activity. Depending on personal perceptions, opportunities for solitude could be impacted by the presence of cattle with the WSAs especially along primitive routes or near range improvements, but should be minimal considering the size of the WSAs, the limited number of improvements and the movement of cattle between the summer and winter pastures.

Motorized traffic on existing perimeter routes, cherry stemmed roads and primitive routes by recreationists, the permittee, and others would occasionally intrude on outstanding opportunities for solitude but remain at acceptable levels. Recreation-related traffic in the area would remain constant regardless of the alternative selected. Permittee-related motorized traffic would remain fairly low. Opportunities for unconfined and primitive recreation would not be expected to change except under Alternative 4.

4.16.2 Alternative 2: Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock and Change in Season of Use Effects to wilderness character are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.16.3 Alternative 3: Cherry Valley Closure to Hot Season Grazing Cumulative effects to wilderness character within the Clan Alpine WSA are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action. The visual quality and naturalness of the Cherry Valley area

159 would increase due to the elimination of grazing during the summer months. This would allow the native vegetation to be undisturbed for a longer period of time which would improve the naturalness of the area for recreational visitors. While the springs and forage in the Cherry Valley and War Canyon area are located outside of the Clan Alpine WSA boundary, cattle within this area could wander and forage in the WSA. Eliminating or reducing the number of cattle foraging in the Cherry Valley area would also reduce the number foraging within the WSA.

Under this alternative, the effects to the wilderness character and quality would be similar to those of the Proposed Action for the WSAs in the Cow Canyon and Dixie Valley Allotments.

4.16.4 Alternative 4: Cow Canyon Change in Season of Use and Clan Alpine Reduction of AUMs Effects to wilderness character are expected to be similar to the Proposed Action.

4.16.5 Alternative 5: No Domestic Sheep Grazing There would be no cumulative effect within any of the WSAs from this alternative since domestic sheep grazing is not permitted within the WSAs.

4.16.6 Alternative 6: No Grazing Under the No Grazing Alternative, the cumulative impacts from grazing management or activities would be eliminated. Overtime, adverse impacts that can be attributed to grazing near primitive routes, range improvements and riparian areas would begin to recover which in turn would reverse impacts to the naturalness of the allotments. Grazing impacts affecting unconfined and primitive recreation along with permittee-related motorized traffic would be eliminated on primitive routes. Range improvements would eventually be removed, thereby reducing the effects of human imprint within WSAs.

4.16.7 Alternative 7: No Action It is anticipated that under the No Action Alternative, the rangeland health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat Standards would not be met. The concentration of cattle and the increasing wild horses’ populations from deferred gathers would gradually affect the quality and composition of vegetation around water sources, thereby adversely affecting the naturalness of the WSAs in the CESA.

160

5.0 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS NAME TITLE PROJECT EXPERTISE Kenneth Collum Field Manager Authorized Officer Rangeland Resources Matthew Spaulding Assistant Field Manager Supervision Planning & Environmental Steven Kramer Planning, NEPA Coordinator Planning & Environmental Angelica Rose Planning; NEPA Coordinator Rangeland Management Livestock; Vegetation; Wild Linda Appel Specialist Horses & Burros Wildlife; Sensitive Species; Christopher Kula Wildlife Biologist Migratory Birds Rangeland Management Invasive, Non-native plants Jill Devaurs Specialist & Weed

Coordinator Cultural Resources; Native Kristin Bowen Archaeologist American Religious Concerns Outdoor Recreation Wilderness; Recreation; Daniel Westermeyer Planner Visual Resources, LWC Kenneth Depaoli Geologist Minerals Kelley Sterle Hydrologist (Student) Riparian; Water Quality Riparian; Water Quality; Michelle Stropky Hydrologist & Soil Scientist Soils

5.2 INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBES OR AGENCIES CONSULTED NAME Michael & Claudia Casey; Permittees - Cow Canyon & Clan Alpine Allotments Bench Creek Ranch Co., LLC; Permittee – Dixie Valley Allotment Nevada State Grazing Board District N-3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe

161

6.0 REFERENCES Alldredge, A.W., R.D. Deblinger, and J.Peterson. 1991. Birth and Fawn Bed Site Selection by Pronghorns in a Sagebrush-Steppe Community. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(2):222- 227.

Anderson, E. William. 1993. Prescription Grazing to Enhance Rangeland Watersheds. Rangelands 15(1):31-35.

Austin, D.D. and P.J. Urness. 1985. Values of Four Communities for Mule Deer on Ranges with Limited Summer Habitat. Journal of Range Management 38(2): 167-171.

Balch, J, Bradley B., and D’Antonio, C. 2012. Introduced Annual Grass Increases Regional Fire Activity across the Arid Western USA (1980-2009). Global Change Biology: 1-11.

Barrett, M.W. 1981. Environmental Characteristics and Functional Significance of Pronghorn Fawn Bedding Sites in Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 45(1):120-131.

Beale, D.M. and A.D. Smith. 1970. Forage Use, Water Consumption and Productivity of Pronghorn Antelope in Western Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 34: 124-136.

Beck, J.L. and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of Livestock Grazing on Sage Grouse Habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 993-1002.

Belnap, J., D. Eldridge, J.H. Kaltenecher, S. Leonard, R. Rosentreter and J. Williams. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. 110 pp.

Bengston, G. 2002. Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone Land Use In Northern Nevada: A Class I Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Overview. Cultural Resource Series No. 12. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.

Besser, T.E., E.F. Cassirer, M.A. Highland, P. Wolff, A. Justice-Allen, K. Mansfield, M.A. Davis, and W. Foreyt. 2013. Bighorn sheep pneumonia: Sorting out the cause of polymicrobial disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 108:85-93.

Binford, L.R. 1981. Behavioural Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise”. Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3): 195-208.

BLM. 1985. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement Walker Resource Area. Carson City District Office files, Carson City, NV.

BLM. 1986. Walker Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. Walker Resource Area. Carson City District Office files, Carson City, NV.

BLM. 1989. Cow Canyon Grazing Agreement. Unpub. Doc. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

162

BLM. 1989. Dixie Valley Allotment Management Plan. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 1992. Clan Alpine Allotment Management Plan. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 1992. Final Multiple Use Decision Cow Canyon Allotment. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 1992. Final Multiple Use Decision Clan Alpine Allotment. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 1992. Final Multiple Use Decision Dixie Valley Allotment. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 2001a. Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 2001b. BLM Handbook H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior.

BLM. 2003a. Standards for Rangeland Health & Guidelines for Grazing Management, Sierra Front Northwestern Great Basin Area. Reno, NV: BLM Nevada State Office.

BLM. 2003b. Information Memorandum 2003-071. Eliminating Grazing Permit Renewal Backlog. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior.

BLM 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.

BLM. 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.

BLM. 2008b. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office, Washington D.C.

BLM. 2009a. BLM Manual 1203: Delegation of Authority. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office, Washington D.C.

BLM. 2009b. Instruction Memorandum 2009-041 Euthanasia of Wild Horses and Burros for Reasons Related to Health, Handling and Acts of Mercy. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office, Washington D.C.

163

BLM. 2010a. Clan Alpine, Pilot Mountain and Pine Nut Herd Management Areas Gather Plan EA No. DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2010-0019-EA. Unpub. Doc. Stillwater FO, Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 2011 b. Determination for Achieving Standards for Rangeland Health and Conforming with Guidelines for Livestock Management. Unpub. Doc. Stillwater Field Office, Carson City District Office files, Carson City, NV.

BLM. 2012. Carson City District Guide Book. Carson City District Office, Carson City, NV.

BLM. 2012. State Protocol Agreement between the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office for Implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.

BLM. 2012a. Cow Canyon Allotment 2012 Standards & Guidelines Assessment. Unpub. Doc. Stillwater FO, Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 2012b. Clan Alpine Allotment 2012 Standards & Guidelines Assessment. Unpub. Doc. Stillwater FO, Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

BLM. 2012c. Dixie VAlley Allotment 2012 Standards & Guidelines Assessment. Unpub. Doc. Stillwater FO, Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

Blomberg, E.J., J.S. Sedinger, M.T. Atamian, and D.V. Nonne. 2012. Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of GRSG populations. Ecosphere 3(6): 1- 20.

Bock, C. E., V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on Neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 296-309 in Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds, D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel (Eds). Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229, Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 422 pp.

Bowen, K. 2014a. Cultural Resources Class III Inventory for Dirt Spring Range Improvement, in Churchill County, Nevada. BLM CRR 3-2679. On file at the Bureau of Land Management, Carson City District Office.

Bowen, K. 2014b. Cultural Resources Class III Inventory for an Edwards Creek Valley Mineral Material Community Pit, in Churchill County, Nevada. BLM CRR CRR 3-2695. On file at the Bureau of Land Managemen,t Carson City District Office.

Bowen, K. 2015. Cultural Resources Class III Inventory for the Grazing Permit Renewal of the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments. BLM CRR 3-2570. On file at the Bureau of Land Management, Carson City District Office.

164

Bradley, P.V., M.J. O’Farrell, J.A. Williams, and J.E. Newmark. Editors. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pp.

Bright, J.L. and C. Van Riper III. 1999. The Influences of Habitat Types, Water Sources, and Movement Barriers on Pronghorn Antelope Home Ranges in Northern Arizona. http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/cprs/news_info/meetings/biennial/proceedings/1999/pdf/5_Bright.pdf

Broadhead, W. 2001. Brief Synopsis of Expiraments Concerning Effects of Grazing on Archaeological Sites. On file at the Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office, Gunnison, Colorado.

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. FES 07-21 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Washington D. C., U.S. Department of the Interior.

Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-Wetland Areas. Denver: Department of the Interior.

Carson, R.G. and J.M. Peek. 1987. Mule Deer Habitat Selection Patterns in Northcentral Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(1):46-51.

Clements, C.D. and J.A. Young. 1997. A Viewpoint: Rangeland Health and Mule Deer Habitat. Journal of Rangeland Management 50(2): 129-138.

Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. 2010. Nest Predation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Relation to Microhabitat Factors and Predators. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2):240-248.

Colorado State University. 2012. Cheatgrass and Wildfire. Colorado State University Extension. Fort Collins, CO.

Courtois, Danielle R., Barry L. Perryman, Hussein S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation Change after 65 Years of Grazing and Grazing Exclusion. Journal of Range Management 57:574-582.

Cox, M., D.W. Lutz, T. Wasley, M. Fleming, B.B. Compton, T. Keegan, D. Stroud, S. Kilpatrick, K. Gray, J. Carlson, L. Carpenter, K. Urquhart, B. Johnson, and C. McLaughlin. 2009. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Intermountain West Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Crawford, J. A., R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C. Moseley, M. A. Schroeder, T. D. Whitson, R. F. Miller, M. A. Gregg, and C. S. Boyd 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage- grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management 57: 2–19.

Davies, K., Bates, J., Svejar, T., and Boyd, C. 2010. Effects of Long-term Livestock Grazing on Fuel Characteristics in Rangelands: An Example from the Sagebrush Steppe. Rangeland Ecology & Management: 63(6), 662-669.

165

Diamond, J., Call, C. and Devoe, N. 2009. Effects of Targeted Cattle Grazing on Fire Behavior of Cheatgrass-dominated Rangeland in the Northern Great Basin, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire: 18(8), 944-950.

Eng, R. L., and P. Schladwiler. 1972. Sage grouse winter movements and habitat use in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:141–146.

Firby, James R. et al. 1981. Paleontological Inventory of the Carson City Bureau of Land Management District and Paleontological Bibliography of Nevada, Volume I and II. Carson City District, BLM.

Foreyt, W.T. 1989. Fatal Pasteurella haemolytica pneumonia in bighorn sheep after direct contact with clinically normal domestic sheep. American Journal of Veterinary Research 50: 341-344. Gedney, Donald R.; Azuma, David L.; Bolsinger, Charles L.; McKay, Neil. 1999. Western juniper in eastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-464. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

Gifford-Gonzales, D.P., D.B. Damrosch, D.R. Damrosch, J. Pryor, and R.L. Thunen. 1985. The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Displacement. American Antiquity 50(4): 803-818.

Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO). 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. Available online at www.gbbo.org/bird_conservation_plan.html

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A Meta-analysis of Greater Sage- grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Nesting and Brood-rearing Habitats. Wildlife Biology 13(spl):42-50.

Howard, J.L. 1995. Antilocapra americana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).

Johnson, G.D. and M.S. Boyce. 1990. Feeding Trials with Insects in the Diet of Sage Grouse Chicks. The Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):89-91.

Klebenow, D. A. 1982. Livestock grazing interactions with sage grouse. In J. M. Peek & P. D. Dalke (Eds.), Wildlife-livestock relationships symposium: Proceedings (Vol. 10, pp. 113-123). Moscow, ID, USA: Forest, Wildland, and Range Experimental Station, University of Idaho.

Knapp, P. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus Tectorum L.) Dominance in the Great Basin Desert: History, Persistence and Influence to Human Activities. Global Environmental Change 6:37-52.

166

Leckenby, D.A., D.P. Sheehy, C.H. Nellis, R.J. Scherzinger, I.D. Luman, W. Elmore, J.C. Lemose, L. Doughty, and C.E. Trainer. 1982. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands-The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-139. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Mack, R. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America; an ecological chronical. Agro-ecosystems 7:145-165.

Muzika, R.M., and J. M. Swearingen. 2006. Plant Conservation Alliance Alien Plant Working Group Fact Sheet for Tamarisk. Accessed at: http://www.nps.gov/archive/plants/alien/fact/tama1.htm.

National Invasive Species Council. 2005. Five-Year Review of Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species.

Naval Air Station, Fallon-BLM. 2002. Grazing, Vegetation and Water Resource Management Plan for the Dixie Valley Settlement Area, Churchill County, Nevada.

Naval Air Station, Fallon-BLM. 2007. Memorandum of Understanding between Naval Air Station Fallon (NASF) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Carson City Field Office. Carson City District Office files. Carson City, NV.

Naval Air Station Fallon. 2016. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fallon Range Training Complex Military Readiness Activities, Nevada. https://frtceis.com/Home.aspx

Naval Air Station Fallon (NAS). 2014. Final Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada.

Neel, L.A. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/pl-nv-10.pdf

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2008. 2007-2008 Big Game Status.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2009. 2008-2009 Big Game Status.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2010. 2009-2010 Big Game Status.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2011. 2010-2011 Big Game Status.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2012. 2011-2012 Big Game Status.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2013. 2012-2013 Big Game Status. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2014. 2013-2014 Big Game Status

Nevada National Heritage Program (NNHP). 2001. Rare Plant Fact Sheet: Lahontan Beardtongue. http://www.heritage.nv.gov/sites/default/files/atlas/penstpalmemacra.pdf

167

Nevada National Heritage Program (NNHP). 2001. Rare Plant Fact Sheet: Tonopah Milkvetch. http://www.heritage.nv.gov/sites/default/files/atlas/astrapseud.pdf

Nielson, A.E. 1991. Trampling the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 56(3):483-503.

Osborn, A., S. Vetter, R. Hartley, L. Walsh, and J. Brown. 1987. Impacts of Domestic Livestock Grazing on the Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Midwest Archaeological Center Occasional Papers in Anthropology 20, series edited by F.A. Calabrese. NPS Midwest Region and the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Parrish, J.R., F.P. Howe, and R.E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, UDWR Publication Number 02-27. i–xiv + 302 pp.

Pendleton, L.S.A., A. R. McLane, and D. H. Thomas. 1982. Cultural Resources Overview, Carson City District, West Central Nevada. Cultural Resource Series No. 5, Part 1, Nevada State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada.

Rayburn, A.P., E.W. Schupp, and S. Kay. 2014. Effects of perennial semi-arid bunchgrass spatial patterns on performance of the invasive annual cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Plant Ecology 215:247-251.

Reisner, M.D., J.B. Grace, D.A. Pyke, and P.S. Doescher. 2013. Conditions favoring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:1039-1049.

Riesterer, J.L. M.D. Casler, D.J. Undersander, and D.K. Combs. 2000. Seasonal yield distribution of cool-season grasses following winter defoliation. Agron. J. 92:974-980.

Robertson, M. D. 1991. Winter ecology of migratory sage grouse and associated effects of prescribed fire in southeastern Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.

Roney, J. 1977. Livestock and Lithics: The Effects of Trampling. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Bureau of Land Management, Carson City Field Office, Carson City, Nevada.

Schiffer, M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Councily Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. 2007. https://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/res/resource_advisory/sierra_front- northwestern/standards_and_guideline.html

Sveum, C.M., J.A. Crawford, and W.D. Edge. 1998. Nesting Habitat Selection by Sage Grouse in South-Central Washington. Journal of Range Management 51:265-269.

168

Taylor, Jr., C. A. 2006. Targeted Grazing to Manage Fire Risk: in Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Mangement and Landscape Enhancement. Englewood, Colorado: American Sheep Industry Association.

Tesky, J.L. 1993. Ovis canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2013, October 242013, August 5].

Tollefson, T.N., L.A. Shipley, W.L. Myers, and N. Dasgupta. 2011. Forage Quality’s Influence on Mule Deer Fawns. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(4): 919-928.

University of Nevada- Reno. 2004. Managing Russian Knapweed. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Reno, NV.

University of Nevada- Reno. 2007. Managing Hoary Cress. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Reno, NV.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Photographic Guide to Median Stubble Heights. Idaho Technical Bulletin 1999-01.

USGS. 2005. National Gap Analysis Program. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project— Land Cover Descriptions. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University. Accessed at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/data/atool/files/swgap_legend_desc.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at ]

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2008. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan.

Wasley, T. 2004. Mule Deer Population Dynamics: Issues and Influences. Nevada Department of Wildlife. Nevada’s Mule Deer Biological Bulletin No. 14.

Welsh, S. L., et al. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 9. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

West, Neil E., Frederick D. Provenza, Patricia S. Johnson, M. Keith Owens. 1984. Vegetation Change after 13 Years of Livestock Grazing Exclusion on Sagebrush Semidesert in West Central Utah. Journal of Range Management 37 (3): 262-264.

Willden, Ronald, and Speed, Robert C., 1974, Geology and Mineral Deposits of Churchill County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 83, p4-8, 29-30, 58-60.

169

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River plains: ecological and management implications, in ED McArthur, EM Romney, SD Smith, and PT Tueller eds., Proceedings--Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management, Las Vegas, NV, April 5-7, 1989. Ogden, UT, USDA Forest Service, Intemrountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-276, p. 4-10.

Wildlife Action Plan Team (WAPT). 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno.

Yoakum, J. 1980. Habitat Management Guidelines for the American Pronghorn Antelope. U.S. Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management. Technical Note 347.

Zouhar, Kristin L. 2001. Pinus monophylla. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014, May 5].

170

7.0 APPENDICES

 Appendix A – Maps

 Appendix B – Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Soils Information

 Appendix C – Standard Operating Procedures for Herbicide Treatments

 Appendix D – Standards Determination Document

 Appendix E – Response to Comments

171

APPENDIX A – MAPS Map 1 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Project Area

172

Legend Grazing Allotments Allotment Soils Genegraf-Trocken-Bluewing association Rebel-Wholan-Pineval association Appian-Juva-Bango association Goldyke-Blacktop-Koyen association Rednik association Bango-Playas-Chuckles association Hawsley sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes Rednik-Ricert-Trocken association Bango-Stumble association Hawsley-Isolde association Rednik-Trocken-Bluewing association Barnmot-Bluewing-Badland association Hessing-Wholan-Dun Glen association Rednik-Trocken-Genegraf association Belate-Roca-Cleavage association Hooplite-Old Camp-Duco association Ricert-Celeton-Trocken association Blacktop-Downeyville-Rock outcrop association Hooplite-Old Camp-Singatse association Ricert-Chilper-Pineval association Bluewing very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes Hooplite-Theon-Old Camp association Ricert-Desatoya-Pineval association Bluewing-Inmo association Hooplite-Theon-Puett association Ricert-Desatoya-Trocken association Bluewing-Pineval association Isolde-Hawsley association Ricert-Pineval association Bombadil-Old Camp association Isolde-Parran-Appian association Ricert-Trocken-Pineval association Cow Canyon Buckaroo-Genegraf-Pineval association Itca-Clanalpine-Rock outcrop association Ricert-Trocken-Rebel association Buckaroo-Rednik-Bluewing association Itca-Reluctan-Walti association Settlement-Chuckles-Rustigate association Buckaroo-Rednik-Genegraf association Izod-Rock outcrop association Settlement-Louderback-Rustigate association Budihol-Minneha-Rock outcrop association Jacratz-Nayfan association Singatse-Rock outcrop association Buffaran-Desatoya association Jobpeak-Teguro-Rock outcrop association Singatse-Theon-Rezave association Buffaran-Rebel-Puett association Jung-Clanalpine-Colbar association Slaw-Chuckles association Clan Alpine Burnborough-Cleavage-Welch association Jung-Desatoya-Roca association Slaw-Juva-Wholan association Chill-Cleavage association Jung-Old Camp-Clanalpine association Slaw-Trocken-Chuckles association Chilper-Trocken-Jerval association Jung-Old Camp-Rock outcrop association Teguro-Colbar-Cleavage association Chuckles-Bango association Juva-Wholan-Stumble association Theon-Hooplite-Singatse association Chuckles-Playas complex Kram-Attella-Rock outcrop association Theon-Mirkwood-Rock outcrop association Chuckles-Playas-Slaw association Kram-Findout-Rock outcrop association Theon-Old Camp association Chuckles-Settlement-Rebel association Kram-Hopeka-Rock outcrop association Theon-Singatse-Rock outcrop association Clanalpine-Itca-Old Camp association Layview-Packer-Hapgood association Theriot-Findout-Rock outcrop association Cleaver-Buffaran association Louderback-Rustigate-Isolde association Trocken-Bluewing association Dixie Valley Cleaver-Bundorf association Luning-Izo association Trocken-Hessing-Defler association Cleaver-Ricert-Barnmot association Mazuma-Bluewing association Trocken-Hessing-Dun Glen association Coppereid-Singatse-Findout association Old Camp-Bombadil-Loomer association Trocken-Hessing-Pineval association Defler-Pineval association Old Camp-Clanalpine-Colbar association Unsel-Annaw association Defler-Trocken association Old Camp-Colbar-Rock outcrop association Unsel-Annaw-Izo association Downeyville, moist-Downeyville-Gabbvally association Old Camp-Colbar-Rock outcrop association, steep Unsel-Desatoya-Pineval association Downeyville-Blacktop association Old Camp-Singatse-Rock outcrop association Unsel-Desatoya-Roic association Downeyville-Gabbvally association Old Camp-Theon-Rock outcrop association Unsel-Pineval association Downeyville-Stewval-Blacktop association Packer-Layview-Hapgood association Unsel-Pineval-Defler association Duco-Clanalpine-Jung association Pineval-Bluewing-Inmo association Uripnes-Budihol-Chill association Duco-Clanalpine-Old Camp association Pineval-Rebel association Uripnes-Budihol-Rock outcrop association Duco-Itca-Puett association Pineval-Rebel-Wholan association Uripnes-Rock outcrop association Findout-Izod-Rock outcrop association Playas Welch loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Fubble-Nicanor association Ravenswood-Itca-Walti association Wholan-Defler association Genegraf-Buckaroo-Bluewing association Rebel loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Yody-Buffaran-Pineval association Genegraf-Rednik-Trocken association Rebel-Pineval-Yody association Yody-Ricert-Pineval association

United States Department of the Interior Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, and Dixie Valley Soils Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Office 5665 Morgan Mill Rd. Carson City, NV. 89701 01.5 3 6 9 12 (775) 885-6000 Clan Alpine/Bell Flat Miles No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual ± use or aggregate use with other data.

Map Produced by: LA 02/13/2013 MAP 3 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine, Dixie Valley Project Area Land Status Map

174

Map 4 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Proposed Range Improvements

175

Map 5 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Proposed Community Pit

176

Map 6 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Weed Inventory – First Year Treatment

177

Map 7 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Weed Inventory – Second Year Treatment

178

Map 8 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Weed Inventory – Third Year Treatment

179

Map 9 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Weed Inventory – Fourth Year Treatment

180

Map 10 Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Weed Inventory – Fifth Year Treatment

181

Map 11 Bighorn Sheep Habitat within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

182

Map 12 Mule Deer Habitat within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

183

Map 13 Pronghorn Habitat within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

184

Map 14 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

185

Map 15 Herd Management Areas within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

186

Map 16 Interm VRM Class Designations within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

187

Map 17 Visual Resources Inventory within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

188

Map 18 Wilderness Study Areas within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

189

Map 19 Existing Range Improvements Located in Wilderness Study Areas within the Clan Alpine, Cow Canyon, and Dixie Valley Allotments

190

Map 20 Clan Alpine Alt 4 Current Pastures

191

Map 21 Clan Alpine Alt 4 Proposed Pastures

192

Map 22 Dixie Valley Allotment Pastures

193

APPENDIX B - COW CANYON, CLAN ALPINE, AND DIXIE VALLEY SOILS INFORMATION

Cow Canyon The soils within the Cow Canyon Grazing Allotment vary considerably in physical characteristics, and somewhat in chemical and biological properties. The main soil series described in the soil survey are: Old Camp, Genegraf, Trocken, Bluewing, Duco, Itca, Clanalpine, Buckaroo, Uripnes, Findout, and Kram; in addition, there are also areas of sand dunes present on the west side of the allotment. Surface textures range from extremely stony loam to very gravelly sandy loam and gravelly fine sandy loam, to fine and medium sand in the dune areas. Soil depths range from very shallow and shallow to very deep on the alluvial fans, hills and mountains. Soil reactions (pH) are generally moderately to strongly alkaline on the alluvial fans, and neutral to strongly alkaline in the higher terrain. Parent material (mixed volcanic), surface and subsurface textures, and rock, elevation, aspect, and slope determine inherent productivity. Erosion and runoff potential, while affected by these factors are also dependent upon the basal and canopy cover on site. Also roads, livestock, mining, other overland activities, and generalized vehicle use have impacted soils in certain areas. The soils in this allotment are mainly aridisols, but there are some entisols in drainageways, and mollisols in the higher elevations. Average annual precipitation ranges from 5 to 7 inches on the valley floor and foothills to 10 to 14 inches in the higher elevations. Detailed descriptions of the soils within the allotment can be found within the Churchill County Soil Survey, issued by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service.

UPLAND STANDARD AND GUIDELINES: SOILS The soil resources evaluated for the Upland Standards and Guidelines assessments were: rills, waterflow patterns, pedestaling and/or terracette presence, bare ground, gullies, wind- scoured blowouts and/or deposition areas, litter movement, soil surface resistance to erosion, and soil surface loss or degradation. Four sites were evaluated and overall, all were within the accepted parameters of the Reference sheets for the ecological sites. There were no deviations from the reference sheets in sites CC3 and CC01. Site CC1 was found to have deviations as follows: a few large areas of bare ground were “connected”, and there were wind-scour areas with evidence of soil loss due to a lack of vegetative cover, so these were slight to moderate deviations. Site CC4 had some evidence of sheet flow and some small terracettes so these were slight deviations. There is some evidence that an extended drought has affected seed production somewhat, and this may be affecting plant mortality, but there is vegetative recruitment on most sites. Overall there should be more perennial bunchgrasses present, but litter amounts were normal. The soil resources of the sites assessed in the Cow Canyon grazing allotment meet the indicators outlined in the Sierra Front-Northwestern Standards and Guidelines document.

Clan Alpine The soils within the Clan Alpine Grazing Allotment vary greatly in physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. There are dozens of multi-taxa map units within the allotment, and so the individual soil series will not be listed here. Detailed descriptions of the map units can be found in the Churchill County Soil Survey published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil classification in hills and mountainous terrain varies from lithic Cryoborolls, very shallow Torriorthents and shallow Argixerolls, to moderately deep and very deep Argixerolls

194 and Cryoborolls. Precipitation is 7 to 15 inches depending on elevation, and soil reaction (pH) varies from neutral to moderately alkaline. Soil classification on alluvial fans ranges from moderately deep Natrargids to very deep Torriorthents, Haplargids, Camborthids, and Natrargids. Precipitation varies from 6-9 inches, and soil reaction is mostly moderately to strongly alkaline. Classifications of valley bottom soils are mostly very deep Halaquepts, Camborthids, and Endoaquolls, with precipitation mainly in the 5 to 7 inch range. Soil reaction varies from neutral to strongly alkaline. Parent material, which varies considerably in this very large allotment, elevation, aspect, and slope determine inherent productivity. Erosion and runoff potential, while affected by these factors are also dependent upon the amount of vegetative basal and canopy cover present. Also roads, livestock, mining, other overland activities, and vehicle use have impacted the soils in certain areas.

UPLAND STANDARD AND GUIDELINES: SOILS The soil resources evaluated for the Upland Standards and Guidelines assessments were: rills, waterflow patterns, pedestaling and/or terracette presence, bare ground, gullies, wind- scoured blowouts and/or deposition areas, litter movement, soil surface reisistance to erosion, and soil surface loss or degradation. Four sites were evaluated and overall, all were within the accepted parameters of the Reference sheets for the ecological sites. There were no deviations from the reference sheets in sites CC3 and CC01. Site CC1 was found to have deviations as follows: a few large areas of bare ground were “connected”, and there were wind-scour areas with evidence of soil loss due to a lack of vegetative cover, so these were slight to moderate deviations. Site CC4 had some evidence of sheet flow and some small terracettes so these were slight deviations. There is some evidence that an extended drought has affected seed production somewhat, and this may be affecting plant mortality, but there is vegetative recruitment on most sites. Overall there should be more perennial bunchgrasses present, but litter amounts were normal.

The soil resources of the sites assessed in the Cow Canyon grazing allotment meet the indicators outlined in the Sierra Front-Northwestern Standards and Guidelines document.

Dixie Valley The soils within the Dixie Valley Grazing Allotment vary considerably in physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. There are dozens of multi-taxa soil map units within the allotment, and so the individual soil series will not be listed. Detailed descriptions of the map units can be found in the Churchill County Soil Survey published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil classification in mountainous terrain varies from very shallow Torriorthents to shallow Haplargids and lithic and shallow Argixerolls. Precipitation is 7 to 14 inches or more per year, and soil reaction (pH) varies from 7.2 (neutral) to 9.2 (very strongly alkaline). Depth varies from lithic to shallow, mostly. Foothill soil classification mostly varies from very shallow to very deep Torriorthents to lithic and very shallow Haplargids. Precipitation is 6 to 10 inches per year, and soil reaction can be neutral, or moderately, strongly, or very strongly alkaline. Soil depths range from lithic to very deep. Soil classification on alluvial fans can be very deep Entisols, Torriorthents, Haplargids, and Natrargids, to moderately deep Durargids. Precipitation is 5 to 6 inches per year, and soil reaction varies from neutral to strongly alkaline. Soil depths range from moderatly deep to very deep, mostly. Soil classification of valley bottom soils varies, but can be very deep Camborthids, Torriorthents, Natrargids, Fluvents, and

195

Psamments, and soil depth is generally very deep. Slopes throughout the allotment range from 0 to 2 percent on valley bottoms to up to 75 percent in the mountains. Parent material, which varies considerably in this very large allotment, surface and sub-surface textures, including coarse fragment percentages, elevation, aspect, and slope determine inherent productivity. Erosion and runoff potential, while affected by these factors are also dependent upon the amount of basal and canopy cover of the vegetation on site. Also roads, livestock, mining, other overland activities and vehicle use have impacted soils in certain areas.

UPLAND STANDARD AND GUIDELINES: SOILS The soil resources evaluated for the Upland Standard and Guideline assessments were: rills, waterflow patterns, pedestaling and/or terracette presence, bare ground, gullies, wind-scoured blowouts and/or deposition areas, litter movement, soil surface resistance to erosion, and soil surface loss or degradation. Nine sites were evaluated and overall they were within the accepted parameters of the Reference Sheets for the ecological sites. There were no deviations from the Reference Sheets in sites DV-4, DV-5, DV-6, DV-01, DV-03, Camp Creek, and Badger Flat. All parameters were rated none to slight. At site DV-1 the water flow pattern assessment was rated with a slight to moderate deviation, and the pedestal and terracette item was rated with a moderate deviation. Site DV-2 was found to have a slight to moderate deviation in bare ground, having 70-80% bare ground. In all areas assessed the watershed was functioning properly, infiltration was normal, and there was no evidence of accelerated erosion: excessive sheet flow, rilling, or gullying. The soil resources of the sites assessed in the Dixie Valley grazing allotment meet the indicators outlined in the Sierra Front-Northwestern Standards and Guidelines document.

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Budihol-Minneha- residuum and 102 Rock outcrop colluvium derived 40 2133 association from granitic rocks

mixed alluvium and Hawsley-Isolde 141 Sandy 5-8 P.Z. water re-worked 5 147 association eolian sand

Buckaroo-Rednik- Gravelly loam 4-8 153 Bluewing mixed alluvium 10 9978 P.Z. association Buckaroo-Rednik- Gravelly loam 4-8 154 Genegraf mixed alluvium 6 2521 P.Z. association Buckaroo- Gravelly loam 4-8 155 Genegraf-Pineval mixed alluvium 5 17681 P.Z. association

196

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol

Singatse-Rock residuum and Barren gravelly slope 160 outcrop colluvium derived 53 1230 4-8 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Singatse-Theon- residuum and Barren gravelly slope 162 Rezave colluvium derived 40 1951 4-8 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Isolde-Parran- 171 Sodic dunes Appian eolian deposits 10 1920 association Coarse gravelly loam Bluewing-Inmo 180 alluvium 5 6048 4-8 P.Z. association Bluewing very gravelly loamy 181 Valley wash alluvium 5 289 sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes Bluewing-Pineval 184 Valley wash alluvium 6 2894 association

residuum and Theon-Old Camp 190 Stony slope 4-8 P.Z. colluvium derived 53 4439 association from volcanic rocks

Theon-Singatse- residuum and 191 Stony slope 4-8 P.Z. Rock outcrop colluvium derived 33 12546 association from volcanic rocks

Theon-Mirkwood- residuum and 193 Stony slope 4-8 P.Z. Rock outcrop colluvium derived 40 19916 association from volcanic rocks

Theon-Hooplite- residuum and 194 Stony slope 4-8 P.Z. Singatse colluvium derived 33 18 association from volcanic rocks

Gravelly loam 4-8 Bango-Stumble mixed alluvium over 220 3 353 P.Z. association lacustrine deposites

Bango-Playas- Gravelly loam 4-8 mixed alluvium over 222 Chuckles 3 3973 P.Z. lacustrine deposites association

197

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Uripnes-Budihol- residuum and 230 Eroded granitic slope Rock outcrop colluvium derived 40 490 association from granitic rocks residuum and Uripnes-Budihol- 231 South slope 4-8 P.Z. colluvium derived 40 6567 Chill association from granitic rocks Uripnes-Rock residuum and 232 South slope 4-8 P.Z. outcrop colluvium derived 33 217 association from granitic rocks Appian-Juva- Gravelly loam 4-8 mixed alluvium over 262 Bango 1 1306 P.Z. lacustrine deposites association

residuum derived Loamy slope 8-10 Fubble-Nicanor 270 from metamorphic 29 410 P.Z. association rocks

Coarse gravelly loam Trocken-Bluewing 283 mixed alluvium 6 12732 4-8 P.Z. association Old Camp- residuum and Loamy slope 8-10 Colbar-Rock 300 colluvium derived 40 35071 P.Z. outcrop from volcanic rocks association, steep

Old Camp- residuum and Loamy slope 8-10 Singatse-Rock 302 colluvium derived 40 21727 P.Z. outcrop from volcanic rocks association Old Camp- Loamy slope 8-10 residuum derived 304 Bombadil-Loomer 40 258 P.Z. from volcanic rocks association Old Camp- residuum and Loamy slope 8-10 Colbar-Rock 305 colluvium derived 10 1163 P.Z. outcrop from volcanic rocks association

Old Camp-Theon- residuum and Loamy slope 8-10 307 Rock outcrop colluvium derived 63 3155 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

198

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol

Old Camp- residuum and Loamy slope 8-10 308 Clanalpine-Colbar colluvium derived 40 11473 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Rednik-Trocken- Coarse gravelly loam 310 Bluewing mixed alluvium 6 10827 4-8 P.Z. association Rednik-Trocken- Gravelly loam 4-8 311 Genegraf mixed alluvium 5 12918 P.Z. association Rednik-Ricert- 313 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Trocken mixed alluvium 12 1275 association Jung-Old Camp- Shallow calcareous 320 Rock outcrop mixed alluvium 23 8731 loam 10-12 P.Z. association Shallow calcareous Jung-Desatoya- 321 mixed alluvium 23 985 loam 10-12 P.Z. Roca association Jung-Puett- Shallow calcareous 322 Buffaran mixed alluvium 23 3 loam 10-12 P.Z. association

Jung-Clanalpine- residuum and Shallow calcareous 324 Colbar colluvium derived 40 7427 loam 10-12 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Jung-Old Camp- residuum and Shallow calcareous 325 Clanalpine colluvium derived 40 6946 loam 10-12 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Settlement- Louderback- 330 Saline meadow mixed alluvium 1 5641 Rustigate association Settlement- Chuckles- 331 Saline bottom mixed alluvium 1 14194 Rustigate association Slaw-Juva- 340 Deep sodic fan Wholan mixed alluvium 1 9086 association Slaw-Chuckles 341 Deep sodic fan mixed alluvium 1 5704 association Slaw-Trocken- 343 Deep sodic fan mixed alluvium 2 5273 Chuckles

199

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol association

Ricert-Pineval 350 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 3 5019 association Ricert-Chilper- 351 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Pineval mixed alluvium 6 974 association Ricert-Desatoya- 352 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Pineval mixed alluvium 6 2750 association Ricert-Trocken- Gravelly loam 4-8 353 Pineval mixed alluvium 6 10751 P.Z. association Ricert-Desatoya- 358 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Trocken mixed alluvium 6 4909 association Ricert-Celeton- Gravelly loam 4-8 359 Trocken mixed alluvium 6 2561 P.Z. association Ricert-Trocken- 360 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 6 2581 Rebel association

Pinus monophylla- Juniperus residuum and osteosperma/Artemis Duco-Clanalpine- 370 colluvium derived 23 2830 ia tridentata ssp. Jung association from volcanic rocks wyomingensis/Achna therum thurberianum

Pinus monophylla- Juniperus Duco-Clanalpine- residuum and osteosperma/Artemis 371 Old Camp colluvium derived 23 22350 ia tridentata ssp. association from volcanic rocks wyomingensis/Achna therum thurberianum

Pinus monophylla- Juniperus residuum and osteosperma/Artemis Duco-Itca-Puett 373 colluvium derived 33 3524 ia tridentata ssp. association from volcanic rocks wyomingensis/Achna therum thurberianum

200

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Pinus monophylla/Cercocar pus ledifolius- Itca-Clanalpine- residuum and Artemisia tridentata 380 Rock outcrop colluvium derived 63 2692 ssp. association from volcanic rocks vaseyana/Pseudoroe gneria spicata ssp. spicata-Poa Pinus monophylla- Juniperus osteosperma/Artemis residuum and Itca-Reluctan- 381 ia tridentata ssp. colluvium derived 40 1300 Walti association vaseyana/Pseudoroe from volcanic rocks gneria spicata ssp. spicata Defler-Pineval 390 Coarse silty 4-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 3 5033 association Defler-Trocken 391 Coarse silty 4-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 3 2800 association Chuckles-Playas 400 Sodic terrace mixed alluvium 1 1943 complex Chuckles-Bango 401 Sodic terrace mixed alluvium 1 7124 association Chuckles-Playas- 402 Sodic terrace mixed alluvium 1 4410 Slaw association Chuckles- 404 Sodic terrace Settlement-Rebel mixed alluvium 1 5871 association Buffaran- Droughty loam 8-10 410 Desatoya mixed alluvium 6 330 P.Z. association Droughty loam 8-10 Buffaran-Rebel- 411 mixed alluvium 6 1859 P.Z. Puett association Trocken-Hessing- 420 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Dun Glen mixed alluvium 5 8171 association Trocken-Hessing- 422 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Pineval mixed alluvium 3 8882 association Coarse gravelly loam Trocken-Bluewing 423 mixed alluvium 3 7208 4-8 P.Z. association Trocken-Hessing- 425 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 3 5008 Defler association

201

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Kram-Attella- residuum derived 430 Rock outcrop 33 13312 from limestone association Pinus monophylla- Juniperus osteosperma Kram-Findout- /Artemisia residuum derived 432 Rock outcrop 40 7348 nova/Achnatherum from limestone association thurberianum- Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata

Pinus monophylla- Juniperus osteosperma/Artemis Kram-Hopeka- residuum and 433 ia nova/Achnatherum Rock outcrop colluvium derived 40 2540 thurberianum- association from limestone Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata

Pinus monophylla/Cercocar pus ledifolius- Artemisia tridentata Ravenswood- residuum and 440 ssp. Itca-Walti colluvium derived 33 3532 vaseyana/Festuca association from volcanic rocks idahoensis- Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata Pinus monophylla/Cercocar pus ledifolius- Artemisia tridentata Ravenswood- residuum and 440 ssp. Itca-Walti colluvium derived 33 8773 vaseyana/Festuca association from volcanic rocks idahoensis- Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata Wholan-Defler 450 Silty 8-10 P.Z. mixed alluvium 1 3839 association Juva-Wholan- Gravelly loam 4-8 460 Stumble mixed alluvium 2 2513 P.Z. association Hessing-Wholan- 470 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Dun Glen mixed alluvium 3 7747 association

202

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Yody-Buffaran- Droughty loam 8-10 480 Pineval mixed alluvium 6 16073 P.Z. association Yody-Ricert- Droughty loam 8-10 481 Pineval mixed alluvium 6 6581 P.Z. association Pineval-Rebel- Droughty loam 8-10 491 Wholan mixed alluvium 6 775 P.Z. association Droughty loam 8-10 Pineval-Rebel 492 mixed alluvium 10 6612 P.Z. association Louderback- 500 Saline meadow Rustigate-Isolde mixed alluvium 1 7665 association Droughty loam 8-10 Pineval-Bluewing- 520 mixed alluvium 6 1872 P.Z. Inmo association Cleaver-Ricert- Gravelly loam 4-8 532 Barnmot mixed alluvium 3 509 P.Z. association Gravelly loam 4-8 Cleaver-Bundorf 535 mixed alluvium 5 659 P.Z. association Izod-Rock residuum and Shallow calcareous 560 outcrop colluvium derived 33 139 loam 8-10 P.Z. association from limestone Wet meadow 8-12 Welch loam, 2 to 580 mixed alluvium 5 172 P.Z. 8 percent slopes Droughty loam 8-10 Rebel-Pineval- 590 mixed alluvium 6 4610 P.Z. Yody association Droughty loam 8-10 Rebel loam, 0 to 591 mixed alluvium 1 2781 P.Z. 2 percent slopes Rebel-Wholan- Droughty loam 8-10 592 Pineval mixed alluvium 1 3187 P.Z. association Barnmot- mixed colluvium Barren gravelly slope Bluewing- 610 over lacustrine 40 2125 4-8 P.Z. Badland deposites association Findout-Izod- residuum and 621 South slope 4-8 P.Z. Rock outcrop colluvium derived 33 6777 association from limestone Mazuma- 643 SODIC FLAT Bluewing mixed alluvium 1 1872 association

203

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Loomer- Gravelly claypan 8- residuum derived 662 Bombadil-Old 33 107 10 P.Z. from volcanic rocks Camp association

South slope 8-10 Bombadil-Old residuum derived 680 33 1090 P.Z. Camp association from volcanic rocks

Pinus monophylla/Artemisia Clanalpine-Itca- residuum and 700 tridentata ssp. Old Camp colluvium derived 63 1594 vaseyana/Festuca association from volcanic rocks idahoensis-Poa Luning-Izo 710 Sandy 3-5 P.Z. mixed alluvium 3 37 association

Hooplite-Theon- residuum and Shallow calcareous 730 Old Camp colluvium derived 33 6744 loam 10-12 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Hooplite-Old residuum and Shallow calcareous 731 Camp-Singatse colluvium derived 33 4973 loam 10-12 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Hooplite-Old residuum and Shallow calcareous 733 Camp-Jung colluvium derived 33 370 loam 10-12 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

residuum and Shallow calcareous Hooplite-Theon- 734 colluvium derived 33 798 loam 10-12 P.Z. Puett association from volcanic rocks

Hooplite-Old residuum and Loamy slope 8-10 735 Camp-Duco colluvium derived 40 929 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Packer-Layview- residuum and 740 Mountain ridge Hapgood colluvium derived 33 9957 association from volcanic rocks

204

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol

Burnborough- colluvium and Loamy slope 12-14 760 Cleavage-Welch residuum derived 23 3262 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

Chilper-Trocken- 772 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 5 2949 Jerval association

Pinus monophylla- Juniperus residuum and osteosperma/Artemis Jacratz-Nayfan colluvium derived 790 53 1233 ia tridentata ssp. association fromsedimentary wyomingensis/Achna rocks therum thurberianum

residuum and Gravelly loam 4-8 Bedwyr-Celeton colluvium derived 800 10 179 P.Z. association from sedimentary rocks

residuum and Bedwyr-Bedzee- colluvium derived 802 Loamy 4-8 P.Z. Jobpeak 23 251 from sedimentary association rocks

colluvium derived from volcanic and metamorphic rock and/or colluvium Juniperus derived from osteosperma-Pinus Ravenswood- metavolcanics monophylla/Artemisia 811 Itca-Walti and/or residuum 33 7 tridentata ssp. association weathered from wyomingensis/Achna volcanic and therum thurberianum metamorphic rock and/or residuum weathered from metavolcanics

Belate-Roca- residuum and Cobbly claypan 12- 840 Cleavage colluvium derived 53 1274 14 P.Z. association from volcanic rocks

205

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol

Teguro-Colbar- residuum and 860 Cleavage colluvium derived 40 475 association from volcanic rocks

Teguro-Colbar- residuum and 860 Cleavage colluvium derived 40 14 association from volcanic rocks

Loamy slope 8-10 Chill-Cleavage residuum derived 870 40 656 P.Z. association from granitic rocks Coppereid- Gravelly claypan 8- residuum derived 880 Singatse-Findout 53 2673 10 P.Z. from shale association 900 Playas 1 2680 Theriot-Findout- residuum and 910 Cobbly slope 5-8 P.Z. Rock outcrop colluvium derived 40 4139 association from limestone

Layview-Packer- residuum and 930 Mountain ridge Hapgood colluvium derived 23 6610 association from volcanic rocks

Pinus monophylla- Juniperus Jobpeak-Teguro- residuum and osteosperma/Artemis 970 Rock outcrop colluvium derived 63 2729 ia tridentata ssp. association from volcanic rocks vaseyana/Achnather um thurberianum

Downeyville- residuum and 1010 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Stewval-Blacktop colluvium derived 33 149 association from volcanic rocks

Downeyville- residuum and 1011 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Blacktop colluvium derived 19 7119 association from volcanic rocks

Downeyville- residuum and 1013 Cobbly slope 5-8 P.Z. Gabbvally colluvium derived 40 837 association from volcanic rocks

206

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Unsel-Annaw-Izo 1020 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 5 1938 association Unsel-Pineval 1023 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 3 3263 association Unsel-Desatoya- 1024 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 10 1261 Roic association Unsel-Desatoya- 1025 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. Pineval mixed alluvium 5 416 association Unsel-Pineval- 1026 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 5 1604 Defler association

Goldyke- residuum and 1030 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Blacktop-Koyen colluvium derived 19 737 association from volcanic rocks

Goldyke- residuum and 1033 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Blacktop-Koyen colluvium derived 19 1600 association from volcanic rocks

Isolde-Hawsley 1040 Dunes 4-8 P.Z. eolian deposits 10 201 association Uripnes-Rock residuum and 1130 Eroded granitic slope outcrop colluvium derived 33 36 association from granitic rocks Gravelly loam 5-8 Unsel-Annaw-Izo 1142 mixed alluvium 5 349 P.Z. association Gravelly loam 5-8 Unsel-Annaw 1145 mixed alluvium 17 67 P.Z. association Genegraf- Gravelly loam 4-8 1231 Trocken-Bluewing mixed alluvium 5 13271 P.Z. association Genegraf-Rednik- Gravelly loam 4-8 1232 Trocken mixed alluvium 5 4620 P.Z. association Genegraf- Gravelly loam 4-8 Buckaroo- 1233 mixed alluvium 5 16779 P.Z. Bluewing association Blacktop- Downeyville-Rock residuum derived 1240 Loamy slope 3-5 P.Z. 53 1343 outcrop from volcanic rocks association

207

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol Unsel-Annaw 1641 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 17 1971 association Unsel-Annaw-Izo 1643 Loamy 5-8 P.Z. mixed alluvium 5 3659 association Uripnes-Rock residuum and 1680 Eroded granitic slope outcrop colluvium derived 53 136 association from granitic rocks

Downeyville- residuum and 1833 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Stewval-Blacktop colluvium derived 33 293 association from volcanic rocks

Downeyville- residuum and 1834 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Blacktop colluvium derived 19 237 association from volcanic rocks

Luning-Izo 1877 Sandy 3-5 P.Z. mixed alluvium 5 132 association Blacktop- Downeyville-Rock residuum derived 1891 Loamy slope 3-5 P.Z. 53 198 outcrop from volcanic rocks association Luning-Izo 2111 Sandy 3-5 P.Z. mixed alluvium 5 10 association volcanic ash and/or Old Camp- residuum weathered Colbar-Rock 2791 Loamy 8-10 P.Z. from andesite and/or 10 1 outcrop residuum weathered association from basalt

volcanic ash and/or loess and/or residuum weathered from shale and/or Packer-Layview- residuum weathered 3093 Mountain ridge Hapgood 33 4 from chert and/or association residuum weathered from quartzite and/or residuum weathered from volcanic rock

208

Map Ecological Site % Unit Map Unit Name Parent Material Acres Name Slope Symbol

Downeyville- residuum and 4170 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Blacktop colluvium derived 19 3322 association from volcanic rocks

Downeyville, moist- residuum and 4176 Cobbly slope 5-8 P.Z. Downeyville- colluvium derived 40 1878 Gabbvally from volcanic rocks association

Downeyville- residuum and 4178 Loamy slope 5-8 P.Z. Stewval-Blacktop colluvium derived 33 3785 association from volcanic rocks

209

APPENDIX C - STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR HERBICIDE TREATMENTS

1) Herbicides would be applied as per label instructions.

2) All personnel applying herbicides would either be certified by the BLM and/or the State of Nevada, or they would be supervised by a BLM or State of Nevada Certified Applicator.

3) Bureau or other personnel applying herbicides would use personnel protective equipment while spraying or handling herbicides.

4) Herbicide application operations would be suspended when wind speed exceeds 8 mph or precipitation is imminent.

5) Prior to herbicide treatment the area would be assessed for the presence of T & E, and BLM sensitive plant species, if present, herbicide treatment would either not be used, or the T & E species would be flagged and avoided.

6) Some treatment areas could be signed, if needed, indicating the herbicide used and the date of treatment. These signs would remain in place for at least two weeks. Areas which are isolated and/or receive very little use by human beings would not be signed.

7) The appropriate grazing permittee may be notified/consulted in advance of any herbicide treatment.

8) Cultural and mechanical control methods would be used in conjunction with herbicide application where appropriate.

9) All treated sites would be considered for reclamation and would be monitored yearly.

10) Prevention measures are listed in the Carson City Weed Prevention Schedule (see appendix five).

11) The extensive listing of Bureau-wide Standard Operating Procedures and Mitigating Measures found in the Record of Decision (Vegetation Treatment EIS) is included in appendix 6.

210

APPENDIX D – STANDARDS DETERMINATION DOCUMENTS

211

APPENDIX E – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

212

Appendix E: Responses to Comments

Comments were accepted on the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Landscape Project Environmental Assessment (EA), DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2015-0004-EA, for a 30 day period from August 26, 2016 through September 26, 2016; although comments received in a timely manner after this date were also considered.

Letters to 34 individuals, organizations and agencies were mailed on August 26, 2016. Emails were also sent that day to 60 individuals, organizations and agencies. Notification of the availability of the EA to 108 other State and federal offices was made through the Nevada State Clearinghouse on August 26, 2016. The Carson City District (CCD) published a news release on August 26, 2016 that was sent to media outlets listed on the Nevada BLM State Office media list. The Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe was notified of the Proposed Action with a letter sent in November of 2010 and again in June of 2011. The letter included a description of the proposed project, a map of the project location, and an invitation for comments or feedback regarding the project. During a face to face meeting (December 12, 2010) with FPST and previous consultation with the Tribe, information was shared concerning the grazing activities within their aboriginal territory. The Tribe has stated that adverse effects to cultural resources, natural water sources, and native plants should be avoided. Consultation with the Tribe is ongoing.

Although not required for an EA by regulation, an agency may respond to substantive and timely comments. Substantive comments: 1) question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS or EA; 2) question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used for the environmental analysis; 3) present new information relevant to the analysis; 4) present reasonable alternatives other that those analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or EA; and/or 4) cause changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives. No response is necessary for non-substantive comments (BLM, 2008). All comments were reviewed, considered, and then categorized into topics when feasible. Distinct topics and comments are summarized below in Table 1.

Comment letters were received from 2,715 individuals, State agencies, and non-governmental organizations by email or mail. Organizations included the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, the Wild Horse and Burro Fund, Friends of Animals, Nexen Energy ULC, and Friends of Nevada Wilderness. State agencies that commented include the State Land Use Planning Agency (SLUPA), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR), and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Federal agencies that commented on the EA were the Naval Air Station, Fallon (NAS Fallon) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Form Letters There were 2,690 form letters received via email and mail. While there were minor variations, the content in all the form letters was essentially the same.

Agency Comments Comment letters were received from six State and Federal Agencies as noted above. Table 1: Summary of Comments and BLM Responses on the Cow Canyon, Clan Alpine and Dixie Valley Allotments Landscape Project Environmental Assessment # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

1 Wild Horses – Gelding/ The Proposed Action and action alternatives have been Castration revised to remove all proposals for fertility control or Gelding of stallions should be prohibited. Impacts of gelding gathering of wild horses. Should a gather or fertility needs to be disclosed and the number of stallions to be gelded control of the wild horses in the Clan Alpine Herd should be disclosed in the document. Management Area (HMA) be deemed necessary in the

future, a separate, site-specific environmental analysis would be prepared at that time. 2 Wild Horses – Sex- Sex ratio skewing disrupts natural wild horse behavior and social Ratio Skewing organization by causing increased aggression for males competing for females, displacing castrated stallions, and destroying wild horse social bands. Refer to comment response #1.

BLM should strive to maintain natural sex ratios of the individual populations on the range, and that any removals that do take place should be conducted in accordance with that goal. 3 Wild Horses – Genetics/ Removal of all exclosures and livestock fencing and cattle guards Genetic Viability and gates to maximize forage and water availability and to provide for wild equine genetic variability.

Further, gelding wild stallions will not reduce reproduction rates (since one intact male can impregnate multiple females), but may reduce genetic variability within the herd due to permanently eliminating individual stallions from the gene pool.

Refer to comment response #1. The extensive use of PZP (i.e. human decision on which genes are passed into the future) goes completely against the natural selection process which has always and should continue to be SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. The natural free-choice exchange of genes among individual horses can yield progeny with a genetic base that’s broader, or more diverse, than that of either parent. A broader genetic base may give the new generations a greater ability to adapt to a wider range of environments and stresses - i.e. survival of the fittest. 4 Wild Horses - Opposition to allotting more land to livestock grazing, increase Refer to comment response #1. Appropriate AML for wild horses and wildlife, reduce or eliminate for Management Level livestock. The appropriate management level (AML) was Adjustments established for each allotment in the 1992 final Give wild horses equal use of public lands. Multiple Use Decision (MUD). Forage and water # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

needs for wild horses, wildlife, and livestock were Re-evaluate AMLs to meet the needs of wild horses. I strongly taken into account for achieving and maintaining a recommend that BLM decrease livestock AUMs within the Clan thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use Alpine HMA and increase wild horse AML to a level that is more relationship on these public lands. genetically viable and that the population be allowed to more truly fill its ecological niche in this their legal area. A change in AML is an RMP level decision and outside the scope of this EA. 5 Wild Horses & BLM’s analysis must include a discussion regarding the positive Livestock Grazing – impact of Wild Horses and/or Burros. Ecological Impacts There are many ways that Wild Equines actually support ecosystems on public land. Wild horses help spread plant seeds over large areas where they roam. They do not decompose the vegetation they ingest as thoroughly as ruminant grazers, such as cattle or sheep, which allows the seeds of many plant species to pass through their digestive tract intact into the soil that the wild horses fertilize by their droppings. Wild horses also reduce dry, Refer to comment response #1. parched and flammable vegetation, and thus can prevent catastrophic wildfires that are on the increase. Further, their ability to build more moisture-retaining soils makes them very important in this respect, since soil moisture dampens out incipient fires and makes the air coating the earth also more moist.

Additionally, other animals depend on horses to make certain resources, such as water, available. For example, in the winter horses are able to break through the ice to expose water to a variety of species. 6 Wild Horses - An independent research report verifies that although BLM’s usual The 20% annual rate of increase is not a foaling rate Population Growth 20% annual foaling rate is correct, only about half of the foals live but the actual population growth rate on an annual Rates to yearling age – i.e. reproductive age. Therefore, the BLM’s 20% basis which takes into account mortality and annual increase is false. It is mathematically and biologically fecundity. impossible. 7 Wild Horses – Herd In accordance with the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Management Area Burro Act, (WFRHBA), the BLM manages the HMAs Management to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, as Develop on the range management strategies to prevent horses reflected in the Appropriate Management Levels from leaving designated ranges and to facilitate their appropriate (AMLs) of the approved Resource Management Plans usage of the HMA, such as implementing water developments, (RMPs). Removal of horses outside the HMAs in in restoration, fencing removal and limited construction compliance with the WFRHBA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §4700. # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

8 Wild Horses – Social Disclose impacts of wild horse and burro removals, long term and Economic Impacts/ holding, and public enjoyment/viewing of the wild horses. Ethics Consider social, behavioral, and physiological impacts of population growth control measures on wild horses.

While incremental removal is preferable over largescale removals, it continue the same unsustainable roundup and warehouse practice that is bankrupting the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program. The proposed action to remove 20-30 horses annually is a proposal that will cost taxpayers $1 million to $1.5 million for the lifetime care of the horses removed each year. This proposal is fiscally unsustainable and irresponsible. Instead, the BLM must reduce livestock grazing either temporarily or permanently as per 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5 to accommodate the current horse population and reduce the population through the use of humane PZP birth control Refer to comment response #1. and natural attrition. American tax dollars should not be used to remove and warehouse wild horses or to subsidize the grazing fees for the additional livestock that will be turned out after the horses are removed.

Removal of wild horses and burros from public lands negatively impacts the human environment for those who enjoy observing, photographing and researching these animals.

Consider ethical impacts of wild horse management. It is time for BLM to recognize that individual wild horses that may be subject to its actions have intrinsic value and this in turn demands that BLM incorporate ethics into its consideration of wildlife management activities and resource planning for the Clan Alpine Wild Horse herd. 9 Wild Horses – No BLM should be focused on protecting natural, free, wild horse Removals populations on the range and not rounding up wild horses and confining them on unnatural and inhumane feedlots. Refer to comment response #1. I oppose to any further reductions/removals of these wild horses in the coming five years. The population must be allowed to rebound to a more viable level. 10 Wild Horses – Utilize The BLM should use PZP birth control as an alternative to PZP removals to humanely manage population growth on the range. Refer to comment response #1. This humane on the range management must replace the practice of removing horses from the range. # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

11 Wild Horses – Removal The use of helicopters should only be as a last resort and must be methods accompanied by increased humane standards as proposed by AWHPC and live video cameras should be used to increase transparency and ensure humane treatment during any helicopter action.

Removal of wild horses and burros from public lands negatively Refer to comment response #1. impacts the human environment for those who enjoy observing, photographing and researching these animals. The BLM must ensure that all operations are located on public lands to allow public observation of all activities. No government operations should be located on private lands for which the owners will not give permission for public observation of activities. 12 Wild Horses – relocate Refer to comment response #1. In accordance with back to HMA the WFRHBA, the BLM manages the HMAs to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, as Relocate those wild horses found outside the HMA back into the reflected in the AMLs of the approved RMPs. Past HMA vs. removals. relocation efforts have shown that horses that are relocated generally return to the same areas they were removed from within 24 hours. 13 Wild Horses – Current and historical documentation including scientifically Population supported and defensible and credible photographic proof of herd population count/census numbers, including all maps and photos and reports and titles of participating observers for at least the last twenty-plus years of aerial and land population census methods and results for wild horses and wildlife species. Time/dated photographs that supply credible BLM aerial population counts are required and video from a “Go-Pro” type of camera is also acceptable and would give verifiable documentation of the BLM’s Refer to comment response #1. aerial population census. If no verifiable video was taken, then the BLM must supply the public with the reasoning behind this willful concealment of scientifically available documentation.

All genetic sampling data and analysis of the horses in the HMA done within the past twenty years and if no research was done then the reasoning behind that decision including BLM’s presumption that there was not a need for such research. 14 Water Resources – Permits are required for all uses of water through the State Thank you for your comments. All appropriate Permits Engineer’s Office. permits will be obtained in accordance with the All waters of the State belong to the public and may be provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes. appropriated for beneficial use pursuant to the provisions of # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapters 533 and 534 and not otherwise. 15 Livestock Grazing – Concern over the 10 year timeframe of grazing permits, seems too The BLM has a multiple-use mandate to manage for Permit long and is seen as a “subsidy”. all uses of the public land. The term of grazing

permits or leases authorizing livestock grazing on The numbers of livestock and seasons of use, as well as the forage public lands is specified in 43 CFR §4130.2(d) as AUMs allocated to these livestock operations, are of great concern being 10 years with a few exceptions, which do not to me, and I feel that the wild horses are being unfairly squeezed apply to these permits. out of their rightful legal resources here in their legal area. 16 Navy Fallon Range The Department of the Navy would like interested parties and the Training Complex public at large to be aware that the Navy’s Notice of Intent to Modernization Effort prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its proposed Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) Modernization: Expansion of Land Ranges, Airspace Modifications, and Public Land Withdrawal Renewal was published in the Federal Register on 26 August 2016. The Navy is providing this comment to help ensure that potential grazing lessees are aware of the proposed FRTC Modernization effort and that the proposal, if implemented, could affect the southern Clan Alpine (Bell Flat) grazing allotment. Thank you for your comments. The land withdrawal component of the Navy’s proposal would close certain areas to public access to protect the safety of the general population, to include portions of the Clan Alpine (Bell Flat) allotment. Information concerning the proposed FRTC Modernization, to include maps showing areas to be potentially proposed for withdrawal (including potential overlap with grazing allotment areas) and a general discussion of the proposal can be found on the project website at the address https://frtcmodernization.com/. 17 Navy Concerns/ Pg. 7, Sec. 1.2 - Under this section there is a paragraph titled Comments Military Withdrawn Lands. The withdrawn lands were listed but, the Navy acquired lands that were purchased in the late 1980s were left out of this paragraph. There are 8,753 acres that are Navy The EA has been updated to incorporate a discussion acquired lands in the Dixie Valley Settlement Area on the Dixie of the Navy acquired lands in the Dixie Valley and Valley and Cow Canyon Allotments. There is a 2007 MOU Cow Canyon allotments. A reference to the Navy between BLM and NASF and a 2002 plan to manage the natural Final Environmental Impact Statement for Military resources in the Dixie Valley Settlement Area. The plan is titled Readiness Activities has also been added to the text Grazing, Vegetation and Water Resource Management Plan for the and references in the EA. Dixie Valley Settlement Area, Churchill County Nevada, was signed by NASF, BLM and Churchill County. There is wetland habitat in this area that has been fenced by the Navy to keep the cattle out. The plan also lists the artesian wells that the cattle can # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

use for water. Dixie Valley is a supersonic operating area and used by the Navy for training in aircraft electronic warfare operations, tactical ground mobility, ground maneuver tactics by troops, ground laser targeting and there are convoy operations on the 79,444 acre Dixie Valley Training Range (Navy acquired and withdrawn lands). Blank ammunition and inert grenades are used in this area. See Navy Final EIS for Military Readiness Activities at Fallon Range Training Complex, Nevada December 2015. 18 Navy Concerns/ Pg 18-20, Tables 7-12 There is no included map(s) that show Comments where the High country pasture is relative to the mid-slope pasture, A map has been added to Appendix A showing the etc for each of the grazing allotments. These maps would be very pastures. helpful to illustrate where these pastures are exactly. 19 Navy Concerns/ While it is correct that in the past the grazing schedule Comments was not adhered to, the current permittee now has different managers running the operation. The schedule is being followed, range improvements, which help with the distribution of livestock, have been fixed and placed in good working order, and the permittee and/or managers are in contact with the Table 3 states that the standards are not being met for 3 out of 5 BLM and provide regular updates. Improvement has Standards, yet the proposed alternative keeps the number of AUMs been noted on the land. The BLM will continue to unchanged and modifying the schedule somewhat. The current monitor and perform compliance checks on the periods of grazing and transition times are not adhered to. What allotment along with continuing help from the confidence does BLM have that a new schedule will be adhered to? military. Implementing change in the grazing rotation, How will the change in schedule reduce the overgrazing pressures TNR when applicable, drought actions when needed, that are currently occurring? BLM has not adequately shown how weed treatments, along with maintenance and new the range would progress towards meeting the standards. The range improvements to aid in distribution, should range improvements consist of fencing. Current Navy fences are result in progress towards meeting Standards. The area opened during periods when cattle are present; repeatedly. of highest concern to the Navy, which contains sensitive ponds and repeatedly has gates left open, is located in the Dixie Valley North Pasture, which is also a locale noted for high public use. If this area is noted to be regressing than the pasture would be closed and its respective AUMs would be suspended (see Sec 2.2 Alternative 2 pgs 38-39). 20 Navy Concerns/ Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC. These standards do The references section of the EA has been updated to Comments not appear to be in the references. incorporate these standards. 21 Navy Concerns/ The plan refers to maps in Appendix A of weeds in Dixie Valley. The BLM will coordinate with the Navy as Comments Some of the weeds mapped are on Navy lands. The Navy has been appropriate for any weed treatments proposed near controlling weeds (tamarisk, Russian knapweed, and thistles) in Navy withdrawn and acquired lands. # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

Dixie Valley for about 16 years. You need to contact NASF and coordinate future weed control projects. 22 Navy Concerns/ Pg. 52 General Setting Add information about the Navy Dixie This section of the EA has been updated to include Comments Valley Training Range and Navy managed lands (acquired and information on the Navy withdrawn and acquired withdrawn lands). lands. 23 Navy Concerns/ Pg. 58 Add the date August 2002 to the Grazing, Vegetation and The date has been added to this section of the EA and Comments Water Resource Management Plan for the Dixie Valley Settlement this document has been added to the references Area, Churchill County Nevada. Also add to Reference Section.. section. 24 Navy Concerns/ The number of ponds has been updated. Pg. 58 – 2nd bullet under 2007… Change eight ponds to 10 ponds. Comments 25 Navy Concerns/ Pg. 58 2007 MOU- Add that Dempsey, Turley and Casey Ponds This section of the EA has been updated to include Comments are prohibited from grazing. The Navy’s Horse Creek area would this information. allow limited grazing in the spring. However, emails and phone calls calling for the ceasing of grazing is not enforced by BLM and certainly not by the rancher on their own. 26 Navy Concerns/ Pg. 99 Although riparian areas are not meeting standards for plant Comments and animal habitat, BLM proposes keeping AUMs at current Refer to comment response #19 levels. Same in the DV Intermountain cold desert scrub. How will continuing current AUM levels improve habitat condition? 27 Navy Concerns/ Thank you for your comment. This section in the EA Pg. 99 Dixie Hot springs is on Navy property in the Boyer Ranch Comments is referring to the Dixie Meadows area. The Boyer Allotment. Ranch Allotment is not within the scope of this EA. 28 Navy Concerns/ Comments Page 94 of the EA under Marshes states: Only a few Pg. 100 Marshes - No assessments? Why weren’t assessments hundred acres of the key habitat exist within the completed? . allotment. However, most of these areas are on Navy lands and are protected by fencing. 29 Navy Concerns/ Comment noted. Refer to comment response #1. Comments Large numbers of wild horses have been observed in Pg. 101 BLM sites wild horse utilization being a factor. On the numerous places throughout these three allotments by Dixie Valley allotment we rarely see wild horses. The Navy does the BLM and the permittees. While the last census not see wild horses as a factor for over grazing. placed them within AML there are areas where various herds are known to congregate. Vegetation utilization has shown them to be a factor when determining overall land health. 30 Navy Concerns/ This level of detailed information on big game species Comments Pg. 106 Why no 2014 data for Pronghorn? estimates by year is not necessary for this analysis and has been revised. # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

31 Navy Concerns/ This level of detailed information on big game species Comments Pg. 108 Why no 2014 data for Desert bighorn? estimates by year is not necessary for this analysis and has been revised. 32 Navy Concerns/ Pg. 108 Add other fish besides brook trout: In Dixie Valley, In the The paragraph has been updated to include these fish Comments ponds there are largemouth bass, green sunfish, crappie, mosquito species found on Navy lands. fish, carp and tui chub. 33 Navy Concerns/ Pg. 179 Sec 6 References Add the Navy Final EIS for Military The EA has been updated to include these references, Comments Readiness Activities at Fallon Range Training Complex, Nevada as appropriate. December 2015. Add NASF BLM 2002 Grazing, Vegetation and Water Resource Management Plan for the Dixie Valley Settlement Area, Churchill County Nevada. Add the reference on pages 124 & 125 USDI Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (2015). 34 Navy Concerns/ Appendix A Maps 1, 3, 6-10. The maps referred to in The land status layer used shows all acquired lands as Comments Appendix A show the Navy acquired lands in Dixie Valley as private, regardless of ownership. The requested private land, change to DoD or Navy. Change the Navy acquired change cannot be accomplished at the District Office lands in Dixie Valley from Private, white in Index to DoD, pink level. A request has been submitted to the State Office. color. 35 Navy Concerns/ This section of the document is referring to the 2007 Comments Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Appendix E Page 228 We can’t find appendix five or Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, appendix 6 mentioned in 10 & 11. which can be found on the web at: https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html 36 USFWS Concerns/ With regard to your proposed project and accompanying EA, we Thank you for your comment. Comments note that livestock grazing represents the most prevalent form of human use within the sagebrush ecosystem. The Service therefore, believes that well-managed livestock grazing is integral to efforts to restore and conserve a healthy, diverse sagebrush landscape on behalf of the American public. As the dominant form of land use, this industry has the greatest opportunity to influence one of the most pervasive threats to this ecosystem - nonnative, invasive plant species that are facilitated in part by over-grazing, and are altering the ecology of this landscape at a disquieting rate. We believe that adherence to rangeland health standards and supplemental habitat objectives identified within the SGPA will measurably improve the sagebrush ecosystem's resistance and resilience to the combined threats of annual, invasive grasses and altered fire regimes. The Service strongly supports BLMs ongoing efforts to improve compliance with these standards and objectives, and believes that the continued viability of the sagebrush ecosystem, and its many # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

species, depends upon expeditious, and sustained, improvements in the condition of our region's rangelands. While we do not identify a single alternative as our recommended direction, we think that the suite of alternatives presented capture a sufficient range from which an appropriate management direction can be formulated. 37 USFWS Concerns/ All three allotments are not meeting three out of five identified Comments standards and require management changes to influence future condition of both the upland and riparian habitats. Most notably, the native herbaceous understory is largely absent, annual invasive species are overly abundant, and a significant percentage of mesic sites are Functioning At Risk (FAR). In general, we are uncertain whether the actions identified in the Preferred Alternative are adequate to affect sufficient change in these aspects of rangeland condition, and therefore we offer comments on each allotment with Thank you for your comments. regard to season of use, level of use, numbers of livestock, and rest, with the overarching intent of prompting additional consideration of actions that could enhance success in meeting desired rangeland conditions. Given that we do not know the details associated with these livestock operations, we do not identify specific tools or techniques but rather broadly encourage an evaluation of herding, water developments, supplements, and range infrastructure to achieve appropriate distribution and to minimize overuse. 38 USFWS Concerns/ BLM has analyzed a wide range of alternatives. The Cow Canyon - Based on total Animal Unit Months (AUM) and Comments Authorized Officer will consider all alternatives and season of use, proposed changes appear minor. Given results define the selected management in the proposed presented in the SDD, we suggest additional consideration of the grazing decision by choosing an alternative or Preferred Alternative. We would encourage affording non-use combination of alternatives to implement on each during the active growing season of native vegetation either allotment, should the decision be to issue a permit on through rest, rotation, numbers of livestock, or other techniques, to these allotments, based on the analysis presented in the allow for sufficient plant growth, maturation, and seed production. EA. 39 USFWS Concerns/ Clan Alpine - While the proposed reduction in the number of Comments AUMs associated with the Cold Springs portion of this allotment may offset the potential for negative impacts imposed by season of use, we remain concerned that yearly, early season of use may interfere with the development and production of native seed and Refer to comment response #38 may therefore hinder the recovery and persistence of native understory herbaceous species. Further, the Cold Springs area has two identified periods of use and we caution that repeated defoliation of plant species may lead to additional loss of # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

understory composition and vigor. Also, the apparent history of overuse, as discussed under the Reinstated A UMs section of the EA, prompts us to caution that whereas degradation of these systems can occur quickly, rates of restoration and recovery are typically far slower in these systems. Given the baseline conditions of this allotment, as described in the EA, we encourage you to consider whether the described measures, and associated reinstatements, are adequate to achieve desired rangeland conditions. 40 USFWS Concerns/ Dixie Valley- The proposed rotation appears an appropriate step Comments given apparent condition. We note, however, that the number of AUMs and duration of use remains unchanged. We encourage Refer to comment response #19. Also see Section 2.2 diligence in monitoring the affect this proposed change has on Alternative 2 Dixie Valley Reduction in Livestock condition to ensure utilization remains moderate. Further, we Grazing and Change in Season of Use pgs. 38-40 recommend identifying additional actions to be taken in the event that the change in rotation, alone, does not result in a positive trend in habitat condition. 41 USFWS Concerns/ Common to all Allotments - The EA identifies moderate use of key Comments forage plant species as 41-60 percent of current year's growth. We are concerned that the upper end of this range exceeds moderate use, given that literature indicates use greater than 50 percent can hinder plant development and negatively impact rangeland The EA has been updated to state that utilization is recovery (Bates and Davies 2014). Considering the negative effects recommended at 50% or less on current year’s growth. of overutilization, the SGPA identifies a 35 percent utilization level in Wyoming Basin big sagebrush habitats and a 45 percent utilization level in mountain big sagebrush habitats. Therefore, we recommend re-examining this proposed direction and modifying the Preferred Alternative as appropriate. 42 USFWS Concerns/ Adaptive Management and Flexibility Comments We appreciate and consider important opportunities for increased flexibility in rangeland management such as those considered under the temporary nonrenewable use permit (TNR) discussion and proposed extension to gathering periods. We remain optimistic that grazing can be an effective tool to improve our rangelands and Thank you for your comments. Monitoring has been appreciate the need to explore opportunities to improve rangeland incorporated into the actions proposed. condition through greater flexibility in certain grazing permit provisions. We also believe, however, that increased flexibility requires increased accountability to demonstrate successful results. Based on the SDD, these allotments are not currently meeting all of the applicable standards of rangeland health. Given that a grazing permit is active for at least 10 years, we encourage you to # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

anticipate and describe additional scenarios and responses beyond those accounted for in the TNR and drought management responses (e.g., with regard to overutilization and range improvements). We encourage this based on our understanding that, by accounting for a wider array of foreseeable if-then scenarios during this decision-making process, the BLM may be better positioned to swiftly address resource concerns that may arise. In addition, monitoring and adaptive management will be vital as we explore means of granting increased flexibility to permittees in support of the desired ecosystem conditions called for in rangeland health standards and the SGP A. However, the EA and accompanying data suggest that past monitoring of these areas has not been sufficient, and we therefore remain concerned for BLM s ability to ensure the collection of monitoring data sufficient to demonstrate compliance with existing standards and objectives. 43 USFWS Concerns/ Range Improvements Comments We appreciate the identified spring and wet meadow exclosure fencing specified described under the Proposed Range Improvements section. These mesic systems are a vital component of functioning sagebrush ecosystems, yet they are easily degraded by overuse from livestock and horses and can require substantial time and effort to restore. In reviewing the SDD, it appears that there are more springs across these allotments that are FAR than the four that are proposed to receive range improvements in the Preferred Alternative. Further, the EA does not appear to account Thank you for your comment. Implementing change for all previously-identified FAR springs in Table 14 (Existing in the grazing rotation, TNR when applicable, drought Range Improvements). actions when needed, weed treatments, herding of We encourage you to identify and include potential solutions to livestock, mineral placement away from waters, along remedy the apparent causes to all the sites classified as FAR. with maintenance of existing range improvements and Given that spring rehabilitation typically includes fencing with an construction of new range improvements to aid in associated water development to convey water for livestock use distribution, should result in progress towards meeting outside of the fenced area, we seek a better understanding as to the Standards on springs and wet meadows. quantity of water to be removed from the spring source, and the amount anticipated to remain. We recognize water developments are a necessary component of a successful livestock operation and can be an effective management tool in distributing livestock use. This use, however, should be balanced against maintaining riparian health and persistence. Further, we would encourage you to explore opportunities outside of fencing (e.g., herding) that achieves the desired outcome. While fencing can be an effective tool if maintained appropriately, it is a daunting and seemingly # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

unrealistic to contemplate constructing and maintaining fencing around all spring systems occurring on lands administered by the BLM. 44 USFWS Concerns/ Feral Horses Comments Feral horses can have a significant impact on range resources and we commend your inclusion of a suite of potential management actions to address these concerns. While the horse population appears to be within the Appropriate Management Level (AML) range, there appears to be some degree of uncertainty of this, due Thank you for your comments. Refer to comment to the logistical difficulties associated with inventorying these response #1. Additionally, reevaluating wild horse animals. Therefore, we encourage you to continue your monitoring AML is an RMP level decision and outside the scope and control efforts, especially given the apparent condition of this EA. described in the SDD. Furthermore, we support a reevaluation of the AML in relationship to past and anticipated future livestock grazing levels, given the likelihood that conditions on this Herd Management Area have changed since the original delineation based on the findings reported in the SDD. 45 USFWS Concerns/ Invasive Species Comments We particularly support and encourage your efforts to address and reduce invasive species, particularly annual invasive grasses and especially cheatgrass, the presence and expansion of which can be directly facilitated by over-grazing. We appreciate the BLM's efforts on rangeland management and even though the greater Thank you for your comments. sage-grouse is not recognized under the Act, the Service remains committed to working with others to achieve greater sage-grouse and sagebrush ecosystem conservation, per our agency's mission. We look forward to future opportunities to engage more fully with your office and to work with you through this new process to achieve successful implementation of the SGP A. 46 Wildlife – impacts from The EA should dicsuss the impacts of helicopter drive trapping on Refer to comment response #1. roundups sage grouse and other wildlife. 47 Vegetation - Forage The EA failed to examine and include analysis of rangeland availability expansion/improvements to ensure adequate year-round forage and year-round water resources available for a viable wild horse herd. Although the EA did discuss range improvements for corporate/private domestic livestock, it is commonly known that Refer to comment response #4. water sources (water-well spigots) are often turned off and troughs and tanks removed when livestock are removed from an area, therefore leaving the legal wild horses to die. See Roberts Mountain BLM drought decision.

# Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

The numbers of livestock and seasons of use, as well as the forage AUMs allocated to these livestock operations, are of great concern to me, and I feel that the wild horses are being unfairly squeezed out of their rightful legal resources here in their legal area. I urge you to follow the sound principles of Reserve Design for this wild- horse-containing ecosystem in order to achieve long-term viable, ecologically well-integrated, and naturally self-stabilizing wild horse populations. I remind you that it is the mature social units, or bands, that preserve generations-old traditions and that once these wild horses are allowed to fill their natural role/niche in the life community their social behaviors as well as physiological reactions to limited resources act to limit reproduction and lead a self- stabilization of their population numbers. They reestablish balance with the other species of plants and animals and in relation to the natural carrying capacity of the land. But we people must recognized this sound and age-old process and respect its beautiful work. 48 Wild Horses - Concern The BLM failed to provide to the public that some of the proposed over PZP use methods of wild horse population control would be PZP and GonaCon and that per the United States Environmental Protection Refer to comment response #1. Agency, these are pesticides; NOT vaccines. They are both legally listed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances as PESTICIDES. 49 Range Improvements The EA failed to address and/or include scientifically defensible research regarding: • A list of all range improvements and costs (labor and materials) done in the past twenty-plus years to manage and protect wild horses including, but not limited to, a list of all water sources, year-round availability of these water sources to wild horses and An EA is to provide an analysis to make a reasoned other wildlife. choice among alternatives and to determine whether or

not a significant impact would occur. EA's are concise • A list of all range improvements and costs to the tax-payer and summarize necessary data and research. For (labor and material) done in the past twenty-plus years to manage impacts associated with the alternatives and and protect domestic livestock including, but not limited to, a list of cumulative impacts refer to Chapters 3-4 in the EA. all water sources, year-round availability of these water sources and all fencing.

• A list of all range improvements done to manage and protect wild horses must be outlined - including, but not limited to, a list of all water sources and the year-round availability to the wild horses # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

of these water sources during and after any past or future proposed riparian fencing and piping projects are/were completed..

The EA failed to include scientifically supportable data regarding the effects of livestock fencing on the wild horses – including both effects of this fencing on their ability to access forage and water year-round and the effects of this fencing on their ability to intermingle for genetic variability and viability. The EA did mention this “pasture” division but the EA failed to provide the public with the effects of these divisions on the wild horses.

The EA failed to provide the current ecological condition of important seasonal ranges and other wildlife habitat and what the impacts are of the large herds of domestic sheep and cattle grazed in this landscape having on the habitats, and the resulting survival of healthy wild horses on their legal lands 50 NDOW Concerns/ Grazing Section Comments In general, when reviewing the EA and SDD, it is difficult to follow the rationale of the proposed action and alternative actions in relation to the analysis of the monitoring data. To help clarify Thank you for your comments. As stated in previous the rationale, we recommend presenting the data in greater detail responses, maps showing pastures have been added to (e.g., Rangeland Health Assessment), including other data that may the Final EA. be available (e.g., utilization data, use pattern mapping, photographic monitoring, actual use, etc.), sorting by pasture area, and displaying the pastures on a map with the times and amounts of use currently occurring or proposed to occur. 51 NDOW Concerns/ We generally support proper grazing management at or below the Comments 50% utilization level that is necessary to allow desirable key herbaceous species to 1) develop above ground biomass for soil protection, 2) to contribute to litter cover, and 3) develop roots to improve carbohydrate storage for vigor, reproduction, and improve/increase desirable perennial cover (Dietz 1989).

Additionally, we recommend short duration grazing where Refer to comment responses #38 and 41. applicable (as opposed to season long or continuous grazing) as this encourages a single defoliation event on a plant, which is much more beneficial to the plant than multiple defoliations. Multiple defoliation events on a plant retard root-growth, causing a decrease in total absorptive surface. Decreasing the total absorptive surface decreases total plant growth and reduces carbohydrate reserves necessary to maintain plant vigor. Therefore, we # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

encourage the use of rotations (i.e., not grazing the same place at the same time every year between and within pastures). Our primary interest is to ensure, perennial forage grasses are vigorous and allowed to complete seed set at least every second year. 52 NDOW Concerns/ The document states on page 3, “Domestic sheep trail through the The EA has been updated on page 3 to state sheep are Comments eastern most portion of the Clan Alpine Allotment in the winter approved to graze across the New Pass Mountains, months. They are approved to graze across the New Pass “remaining on the east side of Antelope Valley Mountains while moving from the Gilbert Allotment to the Road”... Cottonwood Allotment, both of which are located within the Battle

Mountain District Office (BMDO) boundaries.” On page 23, under BLM consulted NDOW and the mapped NDOW the Terms and Conditions of the proposed action the EA doesn’t ranges regarding bighorn sheep habitat (see Sec 3.13.2 specify any use locations. We recommend that the BLM specify pg 120). The domestic sheep trailing through the New the specific use areas and include maps as bighorn sheep occupy Pass Mountains is within the acceptable distance adjacent habitat. Domestic sheep are a known vector of pathogens buffer thereby allowing the trailing to continue, should that can lead to complete population losses in bighorn sheep. this alternative be chosen by the Authorized Officer.

53 NDOW Concerns/ Under the Cow Canyon proposed action, proposed modifications Comments are minor. With negligible modifications, how will progress be made towards improved rangelands given that 3 of 5 standards aren't met due to livestock? Additionally, the “lower” pasture receives grazing use every year during the sensitive, active-growth physiological phase of a grass plant, which may be a factor leading to standard 4 and 5 not being achieved as described in the SDD (i.e., “In general, the native vegetation in cold desert scrub habitat Refer to comment response #38. is deficient in diversity, distribution, and abundance and is therefore not meeting the standard for plant and animal habitat”). We recommend that the BLM consider a rotation system to allow the lower pasture rest or deferment (note that the lower pasture may need to be further separated into different pastures, use herding, stocking rate adjustments, etc.), moving to the upper pasture earlier, creating a management plan in conjunction with the Clan Alpine allotment to allow rest, etc. 54 NDOW Concerns/ Under the “Current Livestock Grazing Schedule” in Table 8 (page Comments 18) (and throughout the document), the total AUM’s sum up to The Shoshone and Alpine pasture uses are rotated 12,069, not 10,210 AUM’s as presented. It appears there is a math annually. The 1859 AUMs are permitted for each error that may be resulting in an additional 1,859 AUM’s being pasture in their respective year of use. When adding allowed. Given this math error, could the additional AUM’s be the for total AUMs the 1859 AUMs shown for each is causal factor for the standards not being achieved? We recommend added only once – not the twice shown – making the exploring this math error and adjusting the AUM’s commensurate total AUMs for the Clan Alpine Allotment 10,210. with the range resource. # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

55 NDOW Concerns/ Under the “Current Livestock Grazing Schedule” in Table 9 (page Comments 19) we support the BLM using a rotation system in the Shoshone and Alpine pastures. However, we have concerns in the Cold Springs pasture as it is allowed to be used every year during the critical growing period. One of the basic range principals is to not graze the same place every year, especially during the critical growing period as it can lead to less vigorous plants and subsequently less productivity (Hyder and Sawyer 1951; Burkhardt Refer to comment response #38. and K. Sanders 2012). As the active growth period is the most sensitive time to graze a perennial grass plant, we recommend the BLM only allow grazing to occur once every two years during this sensitive time, or rotate the critical growing time grazing period between more pastures such as the Shoshone, Alpine, Cold Springs, and Bell flat pastures and Lower Pasture in the Cow Canyon Allotment 56 NDOW Concerns/ Re-instated AUM’s for the Shoshone Pasture (page 19): We are Comments concerned with the amount of spring use given that the standards aren’t likely being achieved currently. We recommend modifying Refer to comment response #38. the timing to 12/01–3/1 if adding the additional AUM’s won’t hinder progress towards meeting the standards and the other resource objectives. 57 NDOW Concerns/ The EA states in several places (e.g., page 19, 22, 45, etc.) through Comments the document that utilization is recommended within or below the moderate (41-60%) level of the current year’s growth on key perennial species in the uplands. We recommend modifying the 41-60% to 50%. Additionally, we recommend including disincentives for exceeding utilization objectives. Under current management, what are the consequences of overutilization? In our experience, we have found that there are no consequences for overutilization and this does not provide a feedback loop for corrective actions to be undertaken. On the other hand, Refer to comment response #41. disincentivizing overutilization will likely lead to utilization compliance and allow the objectives of rangeland health to better be achieved. Furthermore, utilization disincentives will encourage permittee’s to engage in range monitoring and management, which is necessary given BLM’s limited ability to monitor conditions and utilization levels every year. Managing proper utilization levels is beneficial to the livestock industry long-term by maintaining the productivity of the perennial grass community. For example we recommend adding the following Action item, “Utilization will not exceed 50% on any # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

perennial bunchgrass. Utilization levels in excess of permitted levels will result in grazing reductions the following year commensurate with the levels exceeded (i.e., 65% utilization will result in a 15% reduction in AUMs the following year within that grazing unit).” Research demonstrates the importance of maintaining deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses (DPG) community structure, abundance, and composition in order to maintain resistant and resilient vegetation communities (Bates and Davies 2014; Blank and Morgan 2012; Sheley and James 2010; Davies et a 2011; Reisner et al. 2013 and literature there-in). The 50% utilization level is recommended to protect the perennial grass plants by ensuring root growth is not substantially hindered (Dietz 1989). Grazing at utilization levels greater than 50% has resulted in short and long-term limited herbaceous productivity and cover as well as limiting rangeland health recovery following a disturbance (Bates and Davies 2014). If BLM allows utilization to occur near 60%, then half of perennial grass root growth will stop (Dietz 1989). This lowers the plants ability to secure water and nutrients, lowers the vigor, increases the stress on the plant, which ultimately lowers the cover and herbage production which hurts all resources uses and values. Grazing below the 50% threshold will accommodate grazing while preventing detrimental impacts to perennial grasses and subsequently, other resources (e.g., wildlife). 58 NDOW Concerns/ In general, we support the rotation that BLM has proposed for the Comments Dixie Valley grazing schedule (page 20). However, given that no changes are proposed for the North and South pastures and that these pastures currently are not meeting the standard, what is BLM’s rational for not making modifications when standards Refer to comment response #38 aren’t being achieved? We recommend the BLM look at the other grazing management tools (e.g., herding, intensity and duration, etc.) to ensure that progress is being made towards achieving the standards. 59 NDOW Concerns/ On page 45 the document discusses “increased flexibility”. We Comments support flexible grazing management given that an operator has demonstrated being trustworthy and compliant; subsequently, Thank you for your comment. making progress toward or meeting the land health standards so that rangelands can support native wildlife habitats and populations 60 NDOW Concerns/ Overall, we are uncertain that progress toward achieving the Comments standards will be made given the proposed actions. We recommend Refer to comment response #38 modifying the timing, duration, intensity, and or variation of use and recovery using all the available tools (e.g., herding, range # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

improvements, etc.) to ensure rangeland health standards are met or progress is occurring in timely and reliable manner. 61 NDOW Concerns/ To ensure rangeland health standards are being achieved or Comments progress is occurring, we recommend developing a robust monitoring plan complete with short and long term objectives and compliance checks. For example, we recommend checking utilization, annual photographic monitoring, etc. to measure short term objectives to confirm if the plan is or isn’t working. If it isn’t Refer to comment responses #38 and 42. working, then we recommend adjusting the timing, duration, or intensity of grazing to ensure the long term objectives are being achieved. Active compliance, oversight, and monitoring are a necessity to ensure the plan is being adhered to and that the allotment is trending in a positive direction. 62 NDOW Concerns/ We generally support your approach to making improvements to Comments – Range degraded spring areas as stated in the Grazing Allotment Improvements Evaluation section, but offer the following recommendations: a. We recommend including the use of various design features such as using a perforated spring box, float, valve, drinker within fenced All range improvements will be constructed to BLM areas (to shut off water when trough isn’t in use), etc., and being specifications. flexible with all the range improvement projects so that the riparian area is maintained (i.e., increased water flows to the riparian area Spring developments would be designed to leave to provide sustained populations of native forbs, grasses, and grass- surface water at the source in order to maintain the like species beneficial to both livestock and wildlife) to the riparian area. maximum extent possible. We request that, regardless of the design, surface water remains at the source for wildlife (NRS Dirt Spring – the EA has been revised to state that a 533.367). pipe rail fence may be installed if it is determined that b. We recommend all wire fences to have a bottom smooth wire wild horses may damage the fence. Also the pipe spaced greater than 18 inches from ground level to allow length has been updated to 800 feet. pronghorn antelope passage. c. Dirt Spring (page 24) – We are encouraged and thankful to see Cherry Valley – Exclosure Fence Repair. The fence the Dirt Spring project included in the EA. We recommend the EA was repaired in 2014 and again in 2015. state that the fence will be a 2-rail, pipe-rail fence and not a “pipe and cable” fence. Additionally, we recommend that the spring box The additional range improvements mentioned for be designed so to allow surface water at the source and to provide these allotments are appreciated and will be taken into water to the riparian area to the maximum extent practical. As consideration for future actions, which will be such, it may be necessary to design a drinker within the fenced analyzed under a site-specific environmental analysis area, between the spring box and livestock trough so to provide at a later date. surface water to wildlife. We recommend that the livestock trough be placed out of site or >200 meters below the exclosure fence to keep livestock and horses from pressuring the fence and allow wildlife greater security when accessing water. # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

d. In addition to those range improvements included in the EA, we recommend incorporating the following: i. in Clan Alpine 1. Exclosure Fence Repair at 11S 422428 4382295: We recommend repairing the exclosure fence in Cherry Valley 2. Spring Location 11s 433490 4384207: We recommend pipe-rail fence installation around spring/riparian and possible water development (benefits pronghorn antelope) 3. Spring Location 11s 435654 4387055: We recommend pipe-rail fence installation around spring source and riparian (benefits pronghorn antelope) 4. Pond location 11s 439350 4410565: We recommend pipe-rail fence installation around spring/riparian and possible water development (benefits pronghorn antelope)

ii. in Cow Canyon 1. Spring Location 11S 425256 4390067: We recommend pipe-rail fence installation around spring source and riparian area(benefits bighorn sheep) 2. Spring Location 11s 422233 4388305: We recommend pipe-rail fence installation around spring and riparian are (benefits bighorn sheep and pronghorn antelope)

iii. in Dixie Valley 1. Springs (3) Location 11s 398931 4387468: We recommend pipe-rail fence installation around spring and riparian area (benefits pronghorn antelope) 2. Cherry Valley spring 11s 418918 4381713: We recommend pipe-rail fence installation around spring/riparian and possible water development (benefits sage-grouse) 3. We recommend repairing the existing exclosure fence in the Dixie Meadows Area (benefits to Dixie Valley Toad and other wildlife) 63 NDOW Concerns/ Wild Horse Section a. We support the BLM’s plan to manage wild Comments horses within AML and we recommend permitting the use of all viable tools to ensure animals remain within the AML (e.g,. gathers, removals, trapping, fertility control, sterilization, sex ratio Thank you for your comment. Please refer to adjustments, etc.). comment response #1. b. We encourage the BLM to evaluate rangeland conditions and adjust AML according to rangeland conditions as they are likely different than they were when the AML was first established. We # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

encourage AML adjustments considering available water sources, forage availability, riparian conditions, and to account for the present and future drought conditions. c. We encourage the BLM to closely monitor the effectiveness of fertility control and other management to determine the success and efficacy of use across the range. 64 NDOW Concerns/ 4. Weeds Section a. We support BLM’s weed management plan. Thank you for your comment Comments 65 NDOW Concerns/ 5. Adaptive Management Comments a. We support following adaptive management principals and allowing flexibility to adjust as necessary to achieve rangeland health goals and objectives. As such, we recommend incorporating temporary nonrenewable (TNR) use into the grazing permit given Any additional use would only be granted after an that the grazing operator can and will follow the prescription and interdisciplinary review of the TNR application is subject to meeting all of the following criteria: conducted, field visits are completed to verify the i. TNR prescription would conform with and meet land Health availability of additional forage, and a determination Standards; has been made that the additional use would not ii. Forage conditions, such as sufficient forage, good plant vigor, impact the ability of the area to achieve or make support the action; significant progress toward achieving the Standards iii. Same class of livestock (cattle, sheep, horses), except with for Rangeland Health and/or Table 2-2 Habitat respect to fuel projects, if livestock class does not conflict with Standards and other multiple use/resource objectives. other resources; Allowable use levels under TNR would conform to a iv. Threatened or Endangered habitat-TNR use would not occur utilization target of 50% for native, key forage species within Threatened &Endangered (T&E) habitat; in the uplands and/or a 4”– 6” stubble height in all v. TNR is encouraged for cheatgrass treatments or other annual riparian areas. When these triggers are met livestock invasive species; would be removed from the area (see Sec 2.1.7. pgs vi. Treatment areas have infrastructure in place to manage 37-38). livestock for concentrated use of cheatgrass and to prevent damage to native plants outside of intensive use areas. Any additional use would be permitted only after a vii. Avoids sensitive wildlife habitat through specific location or thorough Interdisciplinary Team evaluation of the timing restrictions; area. All of the various Field Office Specialists would viii. No TNR within HMAs that are above high AML; have input into the decision. Monitoring/utilization ix. Minimal impact on native plants (e.g., dormant season use, would be performed before, during, and after any TNR weren’t grazed at the same time the previous year), use. x. Does not lead to season-long critical growing season use of native plants or hot season use of riparian areas; xi. Established grazing systems would be followed, except for the cheatgrass treatments. 66 Wild Horses – First I would like to call to your intention that the wild horses of Thank you for your comment. Consultation with the protection the Clan Alpine mountains should be protected under the National Nevada State Historic Preservation Office was Historic Preservation Act as well as the Wild Free Roaming Horses accomplished according to the State Protocol # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

and Burros Act. This herd is a living historical heritage of great Agreement for implementing the National Historic value and preserves the spirit of the West from earlier centuries. Preservation Act, for all cultural resources in the project area. 67 Wild Horses – concerns Allotment fences do not restrict horse movement as I am concerned that the livestock allotment dividing fences are of fragmentation most consist of spans of strategically placed drift causing fragmentation of the wild horse population, inhibiting their fences which are not interconnected. Horses are inter-breeding and, thus, risking their inbreeding. This is contrary known to travel through rougher terrain than cattle so to the "free-roaming" lifestyle that should be guaranteed under the they will generally circumvent drift fences designed to WFHBA. limit livestock movement. 68 Water Resources – I am very concerned about what is being done to preserve an availability adequate water supply for the Clan Alpine wild horses and their primarily mountainous ecosystem. I am concerned that many of the springs and other water sources are being over pumped and abused by ORVs, livestock, and other users and abusers of the public lands. This situation needs to change! Water, as you know, is the limiting factor in this area, and much more needs to be done to secure dependable supplies of this precious commodity. This will Guzzlers are not feasible for wild horses in Nevada as allow truly vigorous and long-term-viable populations of mustangs rainfall is so low that very expansive and expensive to persist into future generations. Please inform me further as to the aprons with a large negative visual impact would be number and location of guzzlers that provide water for the wild required. horses as well as other wildlife? Are wild horses being excluded from using these? I would recommend that these being increased Refer to comment response #47. and other water sources developed and protected. If spring source disintegration is a problem, the source could be fenced off and side troughs maintained for the horses. There are very effective tall log fences of letter A form that can keep horses off of spring heads. Their frequent inspection important also in regard to livestock grazer damage and that by recreational visitors to the area, including hunters. 69 Wilderness Study Areas The EA appears to include adequate measures to preserve the (WSA) wilderness character of the four affected WSAs. We recognize the need for the two spring/exclosure developments within Clan Alpine WSA and support your plans to make these developments visually blend in as much as possible with the surrounding Thank you for your comment. environment.

We agree that Alternative 1: Proposed Action would provide the best balance between providing needed range improvements and preserving wilderness character. 70 Wild Horses – Let Let nature take its course. I believe nature is not always kind, but Wild horses are not native and predation has not been Nature take Its course that if left to their own the horses would find the proper population effective at limiting the populations. The populations # Topic/Program Comment Summary BLM Response

level, and yes - there would be starvations, and yes - there would of horses would increase until forage and water were be predation, however birth rates across species do rise within the insufficient to maintain them. At this point the range reproductive limits of the specie when there is a vacancy, and would be degraded to a point where most native eliminating stallions or selected mares from the genetic pool will animals dependent on rangelands or water sources not only lose valuable genetic diversity through loss but will would have been lost. The horses would then self- increase the proportion of future offspring carrying a more narrow regulate through starvation or succumb to dehydration. (artificially selected) pool of genes. 71 Livestock Grazing - Public lands livestock grazing is a privilege not a right, while The BLM has a multiple-use mandate to manage for protection of wild horses is mandated by federal law. The Taylor all uses of the public land. Achieving and maintaining Grazing Act provides that the Secretary “is authorized, in his wild horse populations within established AMLs and discretion, to classify any lands within a grazing district, which are controlling their population growth rates will enhance . . . more valuable or suitable for any other use” than grazing, the public lands for the benefit of all users and including use by wild horses or burros. As made clear by the Wild resources. Horse and Burro Act’s implementing regulations, the BLM “may close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a As stated in the EA, Chapter 1, where consistent with particular kind of livestock . . . if necessary to provide habitat for other multiple use goals and objectives, there is a wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or congressional intent to allow grazing on BLM to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment or managed lands. Administration of livestock grazing injury.” 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5(a). on public land falls under 43 CFR subpart D, Group 4100. Livestock grazing is also provided for in the Reconsider and reduce or eliminate existing livestock grazing Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (as amended), the permits. FLPMA of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978, and the approved Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) of 2003, as well as various other federal laws and regulations.

There is no requirement by the WFRHBA or the BLM regulation at 43 CFR 4710.5 (a) to mandate the reduction or elimination of livestock grazing as a means to restore the thriving natural ecological boundary.